2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[JayStimson 212]

I will most likely be voting for Gary Johnson, although there is one aspect of his platform which raises an eyebrow to me: the whole "FairTax" thing.

To wit:

The FairTax is a national sales tax that treats every person equally and allows American businesses to thrive, while generating the same tax revenue as the current three-million-word-plus word tax code. Under the FairTax, every person living in the United States pays a 23% national sales tax on purchases of new goods and services. This rate is equal to the lowest current income tax bracket (15%) combined with employee payroll taxes (7.65%), both of which will be eliminated.

First of all, the Libertarian Party's obsession with a flat tax is misguided. It hurts poor people and helps rich people. We've already got enough of that.

Secondly, what do you think this method means for the economy? If everything suddenly costs 23% more, that's sure going to discourage me from buying things! Then again, if this makes it more palatable for people to save and invest their money rather than spend it, maybe that's not such a bad thing.

Thirdly and most importantly, though, what do you think happens when you eliminate the 7.65% payroll tax? Do companies give everyone a 7.65% raise? No, of course not - they pocket the extra money as profit, and their employees get stiffed with what is effectively a tax hike to them. No thanks.

Just one line of questioning.

Do you know what profits actually are and do you know what companies do with profits ?

From your comments it doesn't appear that you do. It appears you believe profits are evil.

However, profits are the best thing that could happen to our economy. If companies lose

money they shrink, people get laid of, and eventually everyone is out of work ?

So explain to me where profits come from (how does a company calculate it's profit and

what do companies do with their profits ? I ask because it sounds like you are a believer

in the liberal myth that profits are evil.

In a nutshell, explain to me how to read a companies P&L statement.

  Edited September 9, 2012 by JayStimson  

[Meg 368]

To clarify the rule "Discuss the issues, not each other"

If Member A supports X and Member B supports Y, they can discuss the merits and shortcomings of X and Y.

Member A can not discuss Member B. Member B and not discuss Member A.

One helpful hint in accomplishing this: Use the word "you" very sparingly. Discussing the merits and shortcomings of X and Y should not involve the use of the word "you".

If further clarification is required, please let me know.

[Wiimeiser 452]

Remember what happened when Rome fell: It took 1200 years for people to realise that not bathing is what spreads sickness, not god. And the Bible Belt still doesn't get that.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Well, the write-in is certainly a legitimate form of protest. What happens if a write-in candidate wins? Does the electoral college just chuck it out anyway?

[AcmeSigns 97]

Back when I was growing up (that would be before credit cards kiddies) if you wanted something, and you couldn't afford it at that time, then you 'saved up' for it. Some stores would let you put items on 'lay away'. That meant they would hold the item(s) for you while you made payments towards it's purchase price. Sometimes, there are some good things to be said for the 'olden' ways.

  Edited September 9, 2012 by AcmeSigns  

[Wiecher 192]

Back when I was growing up (that would be before credit cards kiddies) if you wanted something, and you couldn't afford it at that time, then you 'saved up' for it. Some stores would let you put items on 'lay away'. That meant they would hold the item(s) for you while you made payments towards it's purchase price. Sometimes, there are some good things to be said for the 'olden' ways.

That's still how it works now, with the exception of large expenses like a car or a house, you can get a loan or pay in small monthly payments.

I don't know anybody with a credit card.

[Duke87 1,070]

Do you know what profits actually are and do you know what companies do with profits ?

Profits = earnings - expenditures

As for what companies do with them, well, various things: pay dividends to shareholders, invest in research and business growth, donate to charity or to political campaigns, etc.

I never said profits were a bad thing, but there are good and bad ways to increase them. If you want to increase your profits, you should be looking to grow your business and increase sales, and to increase the efficiency with which you operate. Cutting pay and benefits to employees is not an ethical way to increase profits, even if it occurs through a government policy change that you do not react to rather than through direct action.

Think about it this way: if you cut a payroll tax (which taxes employers) and increase a sales or income tax (which taxes individuals) to compensate for it, it only has a net zero effect on the employee if all of the savings from the payroll tax cut are passed on to him.

Let's say my employer currently has to pay $5,000 a year in tax on my salary (nice round number). Now let's say the payroll tax is eliminated and there is a sales tax which precisely compensates for it (what the Fairtax folks are proposing). Well, guess what - now that's $5,000 a year coming out of my pocket instead of my employer's pocket. So unless my employer increases my annual salary by $5,000, I have effectively taken a pay cut since the amount of goods and services I can afford to purchase will have decreased. Do you think I want that? Do you think anyone wants that?

The proposal to shift where the tax is collected would work just fine if every employer passed all of their savings on to their employees. But we all know that that wouldn't be what would happen.

Ultimately I think this all reflects what I find is the greatest flaw with the Libertarian party: they get very caught up on ideological principle and fail to consider the practical ramifications of what they propose. Redoing taxes to be more fair is a great idea, but you can't just say "it should be this way", and then change the law to make it so without considering the side effects of how you implement it. The proposal would be fine if you said "we're cutting the payroll tax by 7.65% but we're also mandating that all employees receive a permanent 7.65% raise" - except, of course, that you can't really enforce that second part, now can you? Screw ideology. We operate in the real world and our policy decisions have real consequences, intended or not. And we have to consider that, not just do what feels good or sounds good.

[LexusInfernus 908]

LexusInfernus: In a nutshell ... here is the problem. It's not congress being polarized. Our founding father's expected that. The structure was designed to slow the process down. And for good reason. As far as money buying politicians (influencing if you like) that has always been and always will be. Mark Twain said America has the best congress that money can buy. It's been around a long time.

The real problem we face is one of debt. With the least educated, least developed, segments of our population outpacing all the other segments in population growth they gain more and more voting power each year. Remember, if you don't already know this, the Greeks only allowed the educated to vote and in the beginning of our country only those who paid taxes were allowed to vote. If you didn't contribute, you didn't get a say. Everyone gets to vote regardless now so these underdeveloped, uneducated segments are gaining control of who gets elected and these people are easily manipulated emotionally. Weak minds are always easily manipulated. And so to get elected, politicians promise everything and buy votes with giveaway programs. This leads to massive borrowing to pay for these programs plunging us deeper and deeper in debt. It is not very far off before we default on our loans. Read the latest GAO report. This path is not sustainable. Consider your own credit card. What happens when the monthly interest payments exceed your income ? The Federal government is no different. Money there works the same way. There's no magic ... it's just the way the math works. When we reach that point, and we default, what do you think is going to happen ? We could debate our guesses about the details but the bottom line is: It won't be nice. I assure you.

Well, there are a few things that dont fit with this logic. First of all, voter turn out is decreasing and has been for years. Second, the people who do vote are in general middle or upper class people, not lower class poor people. If you are right, it would mean that the increasing group of poor people making use of their democratic rights would also translate in an increasing voter turn out. But it doesnt really. Furthermore, the only really unsustainable program America likes to waste money on is its military, not its social programs. You spend more on the military than the almost everyone else combined. Most of which ends up being spend at target seeking bullets and making bombs even more precise, not even the actual soldier.

Oh, and yes, lobbyists have always been around. That is true. Ill even say that lobbyist can be very useful, as they are experts on certain things, so they are very useful advisers, if you can keep them in check. But with the Supreme Court declaring that corporations are people and money is freedom of speech, the supreme court has effectively taken away every restriction that once kept lobbyists in check, and pretty much made corruption legal.

And if you default...well...you could. And face the wrath of the entire world. Defaulting would be suicide for the US. Anyways, yes, debt is a problem, but it wouldnt be such a big problem if you had a working congress. Its very clear that something must be done, budget cuts and raising tax rates. But congress needs to approve this and as long as congress cant agree on anything, you wont have any budget cuts or tax raises. Furthermore, the interest you pay on your loans depends on the credit rating agencies. They are the ones that can change your credit rating, and they look at America's capability to pay back its loans. And all they see is an ineffectual congress that cant get anything done, because extremists at both sides of the spectrum have hijacked the debate.

Currently, the level of patronage is getting to the point with the politicians in the United States that they get elected by the welfare vote. Between that and the funding by the magnates, they can pretty much proscribe anyone they wish. The method of proscription these days takes the form of congressional hearings. The result is usually the ruin of the accused, guilty or not.

If you think all that ended with Joe McCarthy, think again. Look at the congressional calendar and see what special commissions are meeting over this or that accusation made on little or no basis. It is just a court of the star chamber by another name, he said, stealing from British history as well.

Oh yes, like how congressional hearings totally led to the complete ruination of those Wall Street bankers that cost the government billions in bail out money. Yeah, those guys totally got what they deserved.

The loss of the state religion is pretty evident. How many organizations like the ACLU have managed to get God out of the schools and other public institutions. However, as founded, America is a Christian country. Next, God will be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and the dollar bill. America is preoccupied with being everything to everybody, just like the late Romans whose state religion headed by the Jupiter pantheon found itself along side Christianity, Mithras, and the Egyptian pantheon to mention a few.

You do realize that the Romans made Christianity into their official religion right? Even better, the Roman bureaucracy is what later became the church.

Even so, what will it matter if people pledge allegiance to a God if they arent even Christian? How will turning back to your Christian roots solve the debt crisis, the corporate influence on the government, and the extreme differences between the democrats and the republicans? These things are irrelevant to the current crisis.

Besides, isnt freedom of religion one of the first amendments? That proves that the US has always been a country of multiple religions. And the separation of Church and state pretty much takes away the idea that Christianity has ever been an official 'state religion'.

Staggering debt is what killed the Roman Empire. They couldn't pay their troops, nor continue to bribe the plebs with bread and circuses because the state was bankrupt. Care to bet on the present bunch of hoods and boodlers?

Bread and circuses? Well, the circuses are on the communications media, and some parts of the social networks are used to prey upon people. The rest is mostly vapid pap to keep people's attention from reality, which has become so painful that there is a serious situation with youth suicides. Every kid that pulls his own cork is a potentially productive individual lost to society. We may have lost the next Einstein to some stupid school bully, perhaps on the net.

And how did it go bankrupt? Thats right, totalitarian dictators more interested in their own pleasure than governing the empire. Whatever you say about America's politicians, most arent like that. They cant be like that because that would mean they would never get re-elected. They have to please their voter base, and their money source.

I agree though, the media circus has a bad influence on people. It is however, not a sign of decadence, merely of imbalance.

The open acknowledgement of every form of sexual activity has pretty much killed the family unit. Especially with Ma and Pa both working to try and keep their heads above water. Nobody has the time nor strength to properly parent the latch-key kids. This too is a cause of the decline and fall of the Romans.

You do realize that the nuclear family unit is a lie and has only existed for a few decades. Do you really think that in pre industrial times, mom only had to take care of the household, and wasnt out on the field with pops and the kids getting the harvest in? Or that during the industrial revolution, the wife only had to cook dinner and raise the kids? No, again, the whole family was working in the factory. Or do you think that until a century ago people married and lived happily ever after till death took them apart? Well, yes, untill death took them apart, which was often during child birth. People didnt have time to grow tired of their wives, most of them died after a few years of natural causes.

Really, the 'traditional family' conservatives are always talking about is an ideal that only existed for the very wealthy and only since the last two centuries or something.

Empires die of thousands of cuts. The American Hegemony (Empire) is in this process now.

I am glad I will be gone and won't have to watch the bloodshed, which I expect before 2050.

The things you mentioned are not exclusive to the US. They are happening everywhere. Also, the US is not a hegemony anymore. It was maybe during the 90's, but they have long since declined and are sharing power with China and Russia again, and soon also with India and Brazil.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

I hope everyone realizes that God has many faces. To some, He is Allah; to others Jaweh; to others just the Creator. The number of agnostics increases, but I assure you, there are no atheists in foxholes.

[JayStimson 212]

@ A Nonny Moose: Never heard that one before. What does that mean ? There are no atheists in foxholes.

@ Duke87: I will give you that politicians do write legislation (they all do this) without considering the practical consequences. This can happen for many reasons, none of which justify they're lack of thoroughness. With respect to your financial details I'm not sure I'm following you. If you are referring to the Payroll Tax as the term is generally used then we are talking about Social Security. The current cut in that is basically stealing from the future. It means fewer funds are collected now and will have to be made up in the future. While the current administration claims it's good for today's workers, it certainly isn't for their children. This is the part of borrowing by the government I detest the most. As far as I know, this is the only tax break directly connected to your pay stub.

When referring to a national sales tax, the current proposals are not directed to corporate taxes but rather individual income tax. The idea being that your income tax rates drop with the revenue shortfall being picked up by a Federal Sales Tax. This is actually one of the best ideas I've heard in a long time. It actually helps the poor the most since those who spend the most on purchases will pay the most in taxes. I would expect that like many states with respect to state sales tax that items such as food and prescriptions Rx will be exempted (necessities) but everything else gets taxed. I'm sure the specific items to be exempted will be debated as well as many of the implementation details but idea is itself is sound IMO.

One other item is that it is my understanding that charitable contributions are tax deductible and so do not come from profits technically but of course do reduce profits since they in effect increase expenses.

In reading Meg's input, no offense was intended .... what was intended was to motivate the exposure and discussion of specific details critical to a proper analysis of the issue at hand and which is what happened. Thankfully. Too often in these discussions of facts of reality are glossed over or ignored completely leading to conclusions that have no basis in truth. It becomes a voicing of opinions rather than intellectual debate.

Opinion: A conviction or belief without evidence or proof.

When we have proper debates, we all learn things we didn't know or haven't considered before which ultimately leads to a better understanding of the issue and what the best solutions might be. Reality may at times be difficult to face but problems can only be truly solved by doing so.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Do you know what profits actually are and do you know what companies do with profits ?

Profits = earnings - expenditures

As for what companies do with them, well, various things: pay dividends to shareholders, invest in research and business growth, donate to charity or to political campaigns, etc.

I never said profits were a bad thing, but there are good and bad ways to increase them. If you want to increase your profits, you should be looking to grow your business and increase sales, and to increase the efficiency with which you operate. Cutting pay and benefits to employees is not an ethical way to increase profits, even if it occurs through a government policy change that you do not react to rather than through direct action.

Think about it this way: if you cut a payroll tax (which taxes employers) and increase a sales or income tax (which taxes individuals) to compensate for it, it only has a net zero effect on the employee if all of the savings from the payroll tax cut are passed on to him.

Let's say my employer currently has to pay $5,000 a year in tax on my salary (nice round number). Now let's say the payroll tax is eliminated and there is a sales tax which precisely compensates for it (what the Fairtax folks are proposing). Well, guess what - now that's $5,000 a year coming out of my pocket instead of my employer's pocket. So unless my employer increases my annual salary by $5,000, I have effectively taken a pay cut since the amount of goods and services I can afford to purchase will have decreased. Do you think I want that? Do you think anyone wants that?

The proposal to shift where the tax is collected would work just fine if every employer passed all of their savings on to their employees. But we all know that that wouldn't be what would happen.

your employer takes that 5000 out of your salary.so you would have 5000 more take home then you would have had.

[Duke87 1,070]

With respect to your financial details I'm not sure I'm following you. If you are referring to the Payroll Tax as the term is generally used then we are talking about Social Security.

Actually, while some of social security is deducted from your paycheck, your employer is also expected to contribute an amount that doesn't show up on your pay stub. Same goes for medicare.

Anyways, perhaps the confusion here is that I wasn't thinking of that. "Payroll tax" to me means a tax purely on employers proportional to their payroll... probably because I hear the term used that way constantly as it relates to transit politics here in New York - our public transportation is funded in part by a controversial payroll tax on the city and surrounding counties which functions exactly like this.

And that's another mystery solved then, since when the Fairtax folks mentioned a federal payroll tax, my reaction was "huh, didn't know there was one of those!". And I suppose there isn't - they're talking about FICA (Social Security) and Medicare. Now it makes more sense.

But my previous statement still does in part apply, since your employer is still contributing an amount not part of your wages.

Back when I was growing up (that would be before credit cards kiddies) if you wanted something, and you couldn't afford it at that time, then you 'saved up' for it. Some stores would let you put items on 'lay away'. That meant they would hold the item(s) for you while you made payments towards it's purchase price. Sometimes, there are some good things to be said for the 'olden' ways.

That's still how it works now, with the exception of large expenses like a car or a house, you can get a loan or pay in small monthly payments.

I don't know anybody with a credit card.

The culture surrounding credit cards is very different in the US than it is in Europe. Over here, it is unheard of for any adult above the very bottom rungs of the social ladder to not have one. The key is that a lot of people just use them as a convenient way to pay for things, not as a way of carrying debt. I have a credit card and I use it for most non-trivial purchases, but when the bill comes at the end of the month, I pay the whole thing.

[Easy Bakes 253]

As Duke Said a lot of those who have credit cards use them for convenience.

I use mine for the convenience, it takes $45.00 to fill my tank and i fill up 2 times a week.it keeps you from having to have cash on hand all the time.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I use a debit card, not a credit card.

[astronelson 339]

I hope everyone realizes that God has many faces. To some, He is Allah; to others Jaweh; to others just the Creator. The number of agnostics increases, but I assure you, there are no atheists in foxholes.

The MAAF disagrees.

[AcmeSigns 97]

@ A Nonny Moose: Never heard that one before. What does that mean ? There are no atheists in foxholes.

I've always taken it to mean that when you're hunkered down in a foxhole with shells & bombs landing around you & enemy rifle fire zipping over your head that, even if you say that you don't believe in a 'God', you get 'religion' real quick. Times of great stress tend to change people's minds.

Google kicked up some interesting results. My favorite being: http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/11/23/a-skeptical-analysis-of-there-are-no-atheists-in-foxholes/

[JayStimson 212]

@Duke87: At the federal level a corporation's tax liability (tax amount owed) is not based on their payroll amount. It's based on their profit amount which is what's left after everything else has been paid. That determines their tax rate. It's just like your individual tax return (1040) and is equivalent to your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). When corporations get "tax breaks" it's either a reduction in the tax rate on profits or it's an allowable deduction that reduces their computed profit. Medicare and Social Security are payroll taxes. The current "Payroll Tax" tax break is Social Security only. It's a reduction in revenue collected today and will have to be made up in the future. Basically, stealing from our children. It is good you considered my comments on this as these concepts are so often misrepresented in the media to sway people's votes. I find that despicable and an indicator of how non-professional journalism (if you can still call it that) has become.

One thing I wish everyone who votes would consider with respect to taxation is this: Every tax dollar the government collects (regardless of whether it's on business or individuals) is a dollar taken out of the economy. This is why so many people (including myself) want as small a government as possible.

As government becomes larger and larger it sucks the life out of the economy. And if the government also borrows money to pay for programs it can't afford, it sucks the life out of the economy for future generations, which is basically stealing from our children yet again.

[Jim14409 448]

Back when I was growing up (that would be before credit cards kiddies) if you wanted something, and you couldn't afford it at that time, then you 'saved up' for it. Some stores would let you put items on 'lay away'. That meant they would hold the item(s) for you while you made payments towards it's purchase price. Sometimes, there are some good things to be said for the 'olden' ways.

That's still how it works now, with the exception of large expenses like a car or a house, you can get a loan or pay in small monthly payments.

I don't know anybody with a credit card.

America would be better off if there were no credit cards for citizens, business, or the government. Unfortunately many today have been brought up to expect instant gratification and would surely have a melt down. Frankly I think such a deprivation would be good for the character of individuals as well as the nation, or perhaps build some where there now is none.

This morning as C-Span was commenting on how we are living beyond our means I thought of how we borrow money from China and Japan and then boast about helping other countries. It struck me as very hypocritical. Pure foolishness and rather prideful it seems to me and I say this as someone who has served in the military and who loves these United States as laid out in our Constitution (a document rarely consulted these days).

Furthermore, the only really unsustainable program America likes to waste money on is its military, not its social programs. You spend more on the military than the almost everyone else combined. Most of which ends up being spend at target seeking bullets and making bombs even more precise, not even the actual soldier.

If America did not "waste money" on keeping a strong military then we would see a world with a lot fewer independent nations because they would quickly be gobbled up by those who share the same kinds of dreams Hitler had. It is because America "wastes money" on a strong military that many small nations in this world have no standing army and are able to live in peace. The strong military that America has "wasted money" on has benefited the world. We have not taken over any country and forced them to submit to our way of life. I don't agree with all the interventions we have been involved with but we have allowed each one to choose their own path forward.

I won't bother to go into the other diatribs of the poster. It seems to me that someone who does not even reveal their own location should be restricted from lambasting and preaching to others as though they knew all things when they clearly are misinformed on many.

Thank you.

Over here, it is unheard of for any adult above the very bottom rungs of the social ladder to not have one.

That ladder is longer than many seem to think. Over the last few years many middle class Americans have chucked their credit cards and are doing quite well. As for those folks who pay their bill every month, if they are not paying an annual fee then they are being supported by those who do not pay their bill in full every month. The credit card companies want to trap people into carrying a balance so they can make money.

Americans have been brainwashed in many ways, and believing they have to have a credit card is one of them. Hardworking people come to this country with nothing but the clothes on their backs and after a few years working and NO credit cards, they buy the company they work for or they start their own. How? Because they are thrifty, they don't indulge every whim that comes along.

Perhaps such folks are considered "bottom rungs of the social ladder" but I'd put my money with them any day.

Please use the Edit button if you wish to add more content to your post but no one has posted yet. Do not triple post. If you are hoping to reply to comments from multiple individuals, please use the "MultiQuote" button.--hym

[hym 358]

Everyone is welcome to discuss the relevant issues at hand in the thread. However, discussing the membership is off limits.

[astronelson 339]

If America did not "waste money" on keeping a strong military then we would see a world with a lot fewer independent nations because they would quickly be gobbled up by those who share the same kinds of dreams Hitler had.

Ah, yes, good old independent nations like Tibet.

Conquering countries requires a pretty strong economy if you want to hold what you take. Most of the candidates are in Europe, and have become much more peaceful in recent times. There's also China and India, but they haven't been particularly expansionist recently. And, of course, there's the US. We've got a reasonably strong economy down here in Australia too, but we're either allied or have good relations with the few countries we could take over.

It is because America "wastes money" on a strong military that many small nations in this world have no standing army and are able to live in peace.

There are 15 countries around the world without a standing army. I don't think that's really all that many. The US is responsible for the defense of two of them. Most of the rest have arrangements with other countries.

The strong military that America has "wasted money" on has benefited the world. We have not taken over any country and forced them to submit to our way of life. I don't agree with all the interventions we have been involved with but we have allowed each one to choose their own path forward.

The benefits to the world are arguable. The lack of conquering is more or less true, although that's not for lack of trying. There were some attempts a while back (against Mexico and Canada). As for allowing each one to choose their own path forward, well, that kind of defeats the purpose of an intervention, then, doesn't it?

$700 billion is far too much. I live in a country allied to the US, and I'm concerned about it. There's a lot of better things to spend even a small fraction of that money on, a lot of better things that will certainly benefit the world more than a large military does.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

I hope everyone realizes that God has many faces. To some, He is Allah; to others Jaweh; to others just the Creator. The number of agnostics increases, but I assure you, there are no atheists in foxholes.

The MAAF disagrees.

I wonder how many of them have ever been at the pointy end of an artillery barrage? Jay, this is also the answer to your question.

When the steel shards are flying and you only have this little dip in the ground for protection, I'll bet you pray that a shell doesn't make a crater where you are.

Of course, we don't fight wars that way any more. Do we?

We've wandered quite a distance from the Presidential Election. Perhaps we should return to our muttons?

[astronelson 339]

I hope everyone realizes that God has many faces. To some, He is Allah; to others Jaweh; to others just the Creator. The number of agnostics increases, but I assure you, there are no atheists in foxholes.

The MAAF disagrees.

I wonder how many of them have ever been at the pointy end of an artillery barrage? Jay, this is also the answer to your question.

Quite a lot of them have seen active service. For many it's what prompted them to become an atheist in the first place.

Platitudes have their place, but they are ill-suited to being assertions of fact.

[LexusInfernus 908]

America would be better off if there were no credit cards for citizens, business, or the government. Unfortunately many today have been brought up to expect instant gratification and would surely have a melt down. Frankly I think such a deprivation would be good for the character of individuals as well as the nation, or perhaps build some where there now is none.

Credit cards have their use. I mean, if you know you have money at the end of the month, but you absolutely must pay something now (this is especially true for businesses) then a credit card is vital.

If America did not "waste money" on keeping a strong military then we would see a world with a lot fewer independent nations because they would quickly be gobbled up by those who share the same kinds of dreams Hitler had. It is because America "wastes money" on a strong military that many small nations in this world have no standing army and are able to live in peace. The strong military that America has "wasted money" on has benefited the world. We have not taken over any country and forced them to submit to our way of life. I don't agree with all the interventions we have been involved with but we have allowed each one to choose their own path forward.

I won't bother to go into the other diatribs of the poster. It seems to me that someone who does not even reveal their own location should be restricted from lambasting and preaching to others as though they knew all things when they clearly are misinformed on many.

Thank you.

A strong military that after 10 years still hasnt managed to deal with their local Taliban problem, which consists, and lets be honest here, of illiterate goat herders with AK-47's and who construct their most advanced weapon with stuff I could buy at the local hardware store. Perhaps DARPA should hire some Taliban bomb makers, cuz they make bombs that ruin multi million armored vehicles for only a fraction of the cost. So that is why America 'wastes' money on its army. It costs much and achieves very little.

I mean, no offense to you or any one else who serves in the army, but what was the last war America really won since WW2? Korea? A stalemate that technically lasts till this very day. Cuba? Disaster. Vietnam? Well, we know how that ended. Grenada? Military disaster. Somalia? Another military disaster. Gulf War? You pulled out before it was over. Second gulf war? Okay, you beat the Iraqi army, which resulted in a huge chaos. And Afghanistan? Hmm about 10 years and counting right? And we all know that the moment the US pulls out, the Taliban will be back in power within a year. The only conflict in which the US was relatively successful was in the Serbian area. That place has been relatively stabilized. Im sorry, but no matter how hard I look at it, thats not an impressive list, and especially not when you consider the fact that the US army is the most advanced army in the world, and that the US spends more on its military than almost everyone else combined. You spend all that money on the army, but you cant win any of the big conflicts, that makes it seem to me that a part of that money could be used on something else.

Oh and please, dont say that the US saved so many small countries from evil dictators with visions of conquest. The US didnt, and a lot of evil dictators are actually close friends of the US, as long as they do what the US wants them to do. Saddam Hussein, the Shah, those fascists in South America, Ben Ali, Assad and Mubarak, all of them had the US backing them in one way or another, as long as they didnt mess with US interests.

Oh and finally, Ive stated several times that Im from the Netherlands. Just saying

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Credit cards have their use. I mean, if you know you have money at the end of the month, but you absolutely must pay something now (this is especially true for businesses) then a credit card is vital.

Utter nonsense! How do you suppose people did business in the past? Some businesses gave limited credit without expecting instant reimbursement from some faceless Myrmidons of finance, and some dealt on a cash only basis. It was cheaper to do business because there was no financial middle man creaming a seniorage off the transaction. All this 'cheap' credit is inflationary and generally evil. If you can't pay for something, you should avoid mortgaging your future. Nothing is vital when it comes to possessions.

Being in business is always a risk. If you extend credit to some customer and he defaults, that is part of the cost of doing business. It is up to you not to overextend to the point where you are damaged. Most accounts settle within 30 days unless otherwise agreed.

All this accursed coupon banking will destroy our civilization.

  Edited September 10, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[LexusInfernus 908]

Credit cards have their use. I mean, if you know you have money at the end of the month, but you absolutely must pay something now (this is especially true for businesses) then a credit card is vital.

Utter nonsense! How do you suppose people did business in the past? Some businesses gave limited credit without expecting instant reimbursement from some faceless Myrmidons of finance, and some dealt on a cash only basis. It was cheaper to do business because there was no financial middle man creaming a seniorage off the transaction. All this 'cheap' credit is inflationary and generally evil. If you can't pay for something, you should avoid mortgaging your future. Nothing is vital when it comes to possessions.

Being in business is always a risk. If you extend credit to some customer and he defaults, that is part of the cost of doing business. It is up to you not to overextend to the point where you are damaged. Most accounts settle within 30 days unless otherwise agreed.

All this accursed coupon banking will destroy our civilization.

I get my paycheck at the end of the month, but sadly enough, my car breaks down 10 days before that, and I have to pay to get it fixed, which is not cheap. In fact, its so expensive that I cant pay for it right now, but its vital for my work that I have my car working again. For this situation a credit card is a gift from heaven, as I know that I have enough money to fix my car at the end of the month. So I can use that money that I will get for certain to pay for my car, so I can go to work the next day. Now why is this a bad system? Because there is a slightly bigger risk attached to it? Okay, granted, there is a slightly bigger risk attached to it, but its a manageable risk as long as you screen the people that apply for a credit card. As long as you dont give people with no stable income a credit card, the risk is negligible for everyone involved. Oh, and dont use it to finance shopping sprees. But still, relatively low risk, and it keeps the engine of the economy running. I can get my car fix, which means I can go to work, the guys from the garage can fix my car and still know they are gonna get paid, so they dont have to sit around and wait for people who can afford their services right away. You know, keeps things moving.

[Jim14409 448]

If America did not "waste money" on keeping a strong military then we would see a world with a lot fewer independent nations because they would quickly be gobbled up by those who share the same kinds of dreams Hitler had.

Ah, yes, good old independent nations like Tibet.

Conquering countries requires a pretty strong economy if you want to hold what you take. Most of the candidates are in Europe, and have become much more peaceful in recent times. There's also China and India, but they haven't been particularly expansionist recently. And, of course, there's the US. We've got a reasonably strong economy down here in Australia too, but we're either allied or have good relations with the few countries we could take over.

It is because America "wastes money" on a strong military that many small nations in this world have no standing army and are able to live in peace.

There are 15 countries around the world without a standing army. I don't think that's really all that many. The US is responsible for the defense of two of them. Most of the rest have arrangements with other countries.

The strong military that America has "wasted money" on has benefited the world. We have not taken over any country and forced them to submit to our way of life. I don't agree with all the interventions we have been involved with but we have allowed each one to choose their own path forward.

The benefits to the world are arguable. The lack of conquering is more or less true, although that's not for lack of trying. There were some attempts a while back (against Mexico and Canada). As for allowing each one to choose their own path forward, well, that kind of defeats the purpose of an intervention, then, doesn't it?

$700 billion is far too much. I live in a country allied to the US, and I'm concerned about it. There's a lot of better things to spend even a small fraction of that money on, a lot of better things that will certainly benefit the world more than a large military does.

Just what America needs, more foreighners telling us that we spend too much on defense. Why not talk to Russia or to China who is going all out gang busters on military buildup.

Some of your statements are so foreign to me I will not even try and comment further. Thanks for your opinions.

[Jim14409 448]

If America did not "waste money" on keeping a strong military then we would see a world with a lot fewer independent nations because they would quickly be gobbled up by those who share the same kinds of dreams Hitler had.

Ah, yes, good old independent nations like Tibet.

Conquering countries requires a pretty strong economy if you want to hold what you take. Most of the candidates are in Europe, and have become much more peaceful in recent times. There's also China and India, but they haven't been particularly expansionist recently. And, of course, there's the US. We've got a reasonably strong economy down here in Australia too, but we're either allied or have good relations with the few countries we could take over.

It is because America "wastes money" on a strong military that many small nations in this world have no standing army and are able to live in peace.

There are 15 countries around the world without a standing army. I don't think that's really all that many. The US is responsible for the defense of two of them. Most of the rest have arrangements with other countries.

The strong military that America has "wasted money" on has benefited the world. We have not taken over any country and forced them to submit to our way of life. I don't agree with all the interventions we have been involved with but we have allowed each one to choose their own path forward.

The benefits to the world are arguable. The lack of conquering is more or less true, although that's not for lack of trying. There were some attempts a while back (against Mexico and Canada). As for allowing each one to choose their own path forward, well, that kind of defeats the purpose of an intervention, then, doesn't it?

$700 billion is far too much. I live in a country allied to the US, and I'm concerned about it. There's a lot of better things to spend even a small fraction of that money on, a lot of better things that will certainly benefit the world more than a large military does.

Just what America needs, more foreighners telling us that we spend too much on defense. Why not talk to Russia or to China who is going all out gang busters on military buildup.

Some of your statements are so foreign to me I will not even try and comment further. Thanks for your opinions.

Please use the Edit button if you wish to add more content to your post but no one has posted yet. Do not triple post. If you are hoping to reply to comments from multiple individuals, please use the "MultiQuote" button.--hym

Please use the Edit button if you wish to add more content to your post but no one has posted yet. Do not triple post. If you are hoping to reply to comments from multiple individuals, please use the "MultiQuote" button.--hym

I do not read all the posts before I post a reply and had no idea how MultiQuote works.

Credit cards have their use. I mean, if you know you have money at the end of the month, but you absolutely must pay something now (this is especially true for businesses) then a credit card is vital.

I will admit credit cards may have their place at times but hardly think they are "vital". For most of the history of America we had no credit cards and seemed to do better than we are now. (Oh, I see Nonny already clarified that. ).

A strong military that after 10 years still hasnt managed to deal with their local Taliban problem,...

In my opinion The US deals with what it wants to deal with. I am not responsible for the crooked members of my government and that of other nations whose goal is to keep the people distracted with fear etc. This "war" on terror is like a mouse kicking an elephant and terror is the mouse.

what was the last war America really won since WW2? Korea? A stalemate that technically lasts till this very day. Cuba? Disaster. Vietnam? Well, we know how that ended. Grenada? Military disaster. Somalia? Another military disaster. Gulf War? You pulled out before it was over. ...

Disgraceful! I agree! And it is a direct result of the corruption, moral decline and abandonment of our Constitution and rule of law that has brought this about. Russia said decades ago that America would be defeated from within and an American businessman would sell the rope that would be used to hang us. Stay tuned...program in progress...

When America is no more and the Statue of Liberty has bended her knees before the dark forces of this world then come and tell me all the faults America has and how unappreciated she is. We are FAR from perfect but we are the greatest force against the sinister darkness this world has ever seen or ever will see. We seldom appreciate what we have until it is gone.

Oh and finally, Ive stated several times that Im from the Netherlands.

Sorry but I don't take the time to track down previous posts to see where someone is from. I look at the info displayed with their post.

[Duke87 1,070]

$700 billion is far too much. I live in a country allied to the US, and I'm concerned about it. There's a lot of better things to spend even a small fraction of that money on, a lot of better things that will certainly benefit the world more than a large military does.

Just what America needs, more foreighners telling us that we spend too much on defense. Why not talk to Russia or to China who is going all out gang busters on military buildup.

For what it's worth, I'm an American and I agree with astro here. Our defense budget is too big. We should keep a military and considering the size of our country it should be a large and powerful one. But we can reduce waste by not sending it places it isn't needed. The reason we're spending too much on defense isn't because we're maintaining our military, it's because we insist on constantly finding some war somewhere to fight and that costs a lot more money than keeping our troops peacefully at home. Our military should be to defend us if anyone attacks us, not to meddle needlessly in overseas affairs.

[Larks2242 251]

@ Duke, Rick Perry's flat tax was the main reason I wanted to vote for him, that and his record of bringing jobs to his state.

[7238320 77]

There has been some very good discussion here...this thread has been very enlightening. Wandered of topic a time or two; but has for the most part remained quite respectful. As a community we should be proud that we show respect to the very forum that lets us share our voices, voice our opinions, and learn from each other. We really are a Simtropolis, representing the diversity of the tiny blue planet we call home.

Of course I have my own opinions about everything. but it has been eye opening to learn another's point of view. (There have been a few POV that I had never considered before... along with some that reflect my own.)

When it comes to voting.

Don't talk about why you can't - vote! Spoil your ballot if you can't vote for any of the above in good conscience - even spoiled ballots are counted! So many have given their lives so that their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren (you) could vote!

...just sayin'...