reply to post by skyshow
Two different issues here, although related.
I can't remember who it was, and I could check my reference, except I loaned the book to my neighbor...anyway a former high ranking general
and military planner at the highest levels of govn't, said that after the cold war ended (post 1990 ish to recently) that we could actually trim this
budget down from over 600 billion dollars a year where it is now, to 60 billion and still be able to adequately defend our borders.
The key there is 'adequately defend our borders. We do a lot more than that now (and actually are doing a poor job at the borders). The question is
then, do we need to be doing the things we do now with our military? I think the answer is no, we do not. We need to give up on our desire to control
the world oil supply and develop our own oil. the problem is that this may well take ten years to do, even if we start today, and in the meantime we
still have to worry about the world oil supply.
I would love to see us finish up in Iraq, finish things in Afghanistan, get at least most of our troops out of areas where they have been deployed for
so long (some since WWII!), and get serious about defending our borders. International action should be only where absiolutely necessary to defend our
own country, and there should never ever, under no circumstances, be any kind or 'military police action'. I think history has shown this is a
mistake every time.
Now if we do that, yes, in a few years we could trim that military budget down to size.
America has a growing problem with child hunger in this country, and help for the poor has been severely shrunk under Reagan, Bush (I & II) and
Clinton. Probably to help pay for a bloated military budget and massive tax breaks to the ultra-rich.
I would like to see some references to these supposed benefit cuts you and the OP seem to believe in. I have seen the rolls under medicaid, welfare,
food stamps, WIC, SSI, all increase. You are aware that a 'cut' in DC-speak is simply a little less increase than was originally proposed, right?
Now perhaps you are right about tax cuts for the wealthy having taken place. But even if I abrogate that part of the argument, there is still the
biggest problem hurting the poor in this country. It's not high taxes; as I said, the poor pay nothing and actually receive fiat credits for which
they receive dollars. It's not the lack of available food or social programs. What it is is spiraling inflation (based on food and fuel and
essentials, things that the poor have to have) and a faltering dollar. If we trim all government back, that situation will rectify itself. The reason
the dollar is falling is that our debt is increasing.
The tax cuts which Reagan put into effect actually brought in more revenue than what was expected before the cuts. Also, people had jobs. The rich,
evil as they are, actually hired more people because they had more money to do so with. That caused people to spend more, which led to more demand for
goods, which led to more businesses supplying those goods and more people working to make those goods and paying in taxes.
Trickle-down works. Bottom up works as well, but only short-term. this is evidenced by the recent tax rebates. Yes, they had a direct impact on the
economy; I saw that first hand. The problem is that now the tax money is spent, so retailers are, from hearsay, expecting the worst holiday season in
history. I hope it doesn't happen, but that's the expectation, as told verbally to me by someone who is in high office in a national retail
You want another problem? try NAFTA, CAFTA, and the SPP. Every one of these are geared at making it easier and cheaper to send our jobs overseas,
leaving nothing for Americans to do except service and financial manipulation. No more manufacturing jobs. GM and Ford are struggling with their
stocks in junk status right now, because they cannot make and sell cars here due in large part to the high employment costs. They cannot compete with
the foreign car manufacturers, who have smaller tax burdens (or some who are actually government-subsidized).
We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the civilized world. Yet we have growing unemployment, growing poverty, and a shrinking middle class.
Why not try something different besides all the class warfare we have been using in order to get a different outcome? If we try that, and we still
fall short of our needs, then perhaps I will agree with you on taxing the rich more. Until then, I say attack the problem, not the diversion.
Warren Buffet notwithstanding.