The Neo-Con Dichotomy

[pimpdave]

So could someone explain to me how less government and less (or no) taxes would enable the American war machine to keep kicking foreign butt?

It seems to be unresolvable to me, but maybe I'm seeing things wrong. Please explain.

[Frigidus]

So could someone explain to me how less government and less (or no) taxes would enable the American war machine to keep kicking foreign butt?

It seems to be unresolvable to me, but maybe I'm seeing things wrong. Please explain.

Well, shit, it's not like we can afford the war anyways. We'll probably do what we usually do, borrow excessively from China.

[Snorri1234]

So could someone explain to me how less government and less (or no) taxes would enable the American war machine to keep kicking foreign butt?

It seems to be unresolvable to me, but maybe I'm seeing things wrong. Please explain.

Dude. McCain wants to lower taxes and also fucking keep the military in Iraq for as long as it takes.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

[jbrettlip]

The governement is incompetent. This has been proven over and over again. The military should be a private sector entity. Let Exxon run the army, and I bet iraq would be shipping out tons more oil than now.

Seriously though, lower taxes have been shown to increase revenue to the government. Consider the extremes. at a 100% tax rate, no one would bother working. At a 99% tax rate, a few people would work and so on. At 0%, everyone would work, but there would be no revenue. So the key is finding the right tax rate. Higher taxes don't mean higher revenues.

The real issue is the management of the tax dollars. When the US had a surplus, it should have gone to pay down debt. Instead, it was spent on even more governmnet programs.

[b.k. barunt]

Maybe i'm oversimplifying things, but we have enough nukes to fry any country who would dream of attacking us, and also Star Wars satellites to microwave them. Why do we need such an extensive military "to kick foreign butt"?

By the way, that's a rhetorical question. We need an advanced and extensive military so that our poor, undernourished arms dealers can feed their families. By the way, if you're naive enough to believe the "tax cut" line (except for the rich), i have some World Trade Center shares i'd like to sell you. Think about it.


Honibaz

[jbrettlip]

We will never use a nuke. Look at the press when one of our laser guided bombs kills 3 kids. We spend millions on sophisticated weapons, so we can wage a precise war. It is dumb. ilike laser guided bombs, but I am also for carpet bombing when necessary. However the US is pretty much against kiling civilians now. Our nukes will never be used.

[pimpdave]

We will never use a nuke. Look at the press when one of our laser guided bombs kills 3 kids. We spend millions on sophisticated weapons, so we can wage a precise war. It is dumb. ilike laser guided bombs, but I am also for carpet bombing when necessary. However the US is pretty much against kiling civilians now. Our nukes will never be used.

I'm not entirely sure about that. The use of catastrophic strategy in war seems to come about after long engagements. Look at how Sherman changed the pace and face of the US Civil War with his "Total War" action.

The idea of "scorched earth" warfare is abhorrent to nearly all, until the sacrifice of war mounts to those proportions found in a conflict like WWII. I'm not saying dropping the bomb was morally right, only that in history, people demonstrate a growing tolerance for violence the more and longer they are effected by it.

Had the nuclear bomb been ready at the start of WWII, I sincerely doubt we would have used it straight off. These things tend to escalate.

Think about the firebombing campaigns of the same war. Would Dresden have been so enthusiastically firebombed in 1942, given the opportunity? I sincerely doubt it.

So, to qualify your statement, I agree to a point. We will never use a nuclear bomb again unless we are in so desperate a situation as we found ourselves in the final months of WWII.

Also, this was the thesis of a book I read in college, about Truman and the decision to use the nuclear bomb on Japan. Wish I remembered the title at the moment. The book itself is in a box around here somewhere...

(edited once to correct an error)

[pimpdave]

The governement is incompetent. This has been proven over and over again. The military should be a private sector entity. Let Exxon run the army, and I bet iraq would be shipping out tons more oil than now.

Seriously though, lower taxes have been shown to increase revenue to the government. Consider the extremes. at a 100% tax rate, no one would bother working. At a 99% tax rate, a few people would work and so on. At 0%, everyone would work, but there would be no revenue. So the key is finding the right tax rate. Higher taxes don't mean higher revenues.

The real issue is the management of the tax dollars. When the US had a surplus, it should have gone to pay down debt. Instead, it was spent on even more governmnet programs.

Also, this was a great post.

[Napoleon Ier]

So could someone explain to me how less government and less (or no) taxes would enable the American war machine to keep kicking foreign butt?

It seems to be unresolvable to me, but maybe I'm seeing things wrong. Please explain.

You lower taxes by stopping funding for public health and education, and make them private, and make government specialize in militarism.

[pimpdave]

So could someone explain to me how less government and less (or no) taxes would enable the American war machine to keep kicking foreign butt?

It seems to be unresolvable to me, but maybe I'm seeing things wrong. Please explain.

You lower taxes by stopping funding for public health and education, and make them private, and make government specialize in militarism.

Recipe for failure in the long term, but certainly would provide a short term boost. Thank you for sharing your views.

[Snorri1234]

So could someone explain to me how less government and less (or no) taxes would enable the American war machine to keep kicking foreign butt?

It seems to be unresolvable to me, but maybe I'm seeing things wrong. Please explain.

You lower taxes by stopping funding for public health and education, and make them private, and make government specialize in militarism.

So basically fucking up your own country and using the left-over money to f*ck up other people's countries?

[gdeangel]

Dollar for dollar, the military is cheaper than prison and you get a better payout for your dollars. We need to put our societies underachievers to good use. This will save money (less prison and mental health cost) enabling us to cut taxes and the kicker is more manpower for the conventional use military.

The big part of military spending is "advnaced technology weapons". I don't know how much a tomahawk missle costs, but the munitions cost of what we've dropped on Iraq of the years is more than the GDP of some countries.

[pimpdave]

Dollar for dollar, the military is cheaper than prison and you get a better payout for your dollars. We need to put our societies underachievers to good use. This will save money (less prison and mental health cost) enabling us to cut taxes and the kicker is more manpower for the conventional use military.

Right, cause that worked so well in Vietnam.

And of course, the rubric used to determine the underachievers wouldn't designate you as such, right?

[Snorri1234]

Dollar for dollar, the military is cheaper than prison and you get a better payout for your dollars. We need to put our societies underachievers to good use. This will save money (less prison and mental health cost) enabling us to cut taxes and the kicker is more manpower for the conventional use military.

Wait....you're saying that prisoners should be put in the military?

[Thor Son of Olaf]

We will never use a nuke.

Certainly if the leftists in Amerika keep on with treating the terrorists as protected by the Geneva Conventions. I say drop VX on all villages were hostile activity is encountered.

Look at the press when one of our laser guided bombs kills 3 kids.

f*ck the media, those little dumbshits shouldn't have been in the same building as terrorists. If they're not part of the solution..........

We spend millions on sophisticated weapons, so we can wage a precise war.

Mostly, those weapons were designed to be used on the Soviets in (then) West Germany, in the event of a push into the Fulda Gap or through some other route to the heartland of Germany and to the Rhine. About the only thing that has been done right.

It is dumb. I like laser guided bombs, but I am also for carpet bombing when necessary. However the US is pretty much against kiling civilians now. Our nukes will never be used.

They could still carpet bomb cities, thanks to certain versions of the B-52 and other bombers.

Again, you Amerikans ought to just do what you did to the Indians.

[gdeangel]

Dollar for dollar, the military is cheaper than prison and you get a better payout for your dollars. We need to put our societies underachievers to good use. This will save money (less prison and mental health cost) enabling us to cut taxes and the kicker is more manpower for the conventional use military.

Wait....you're saying that prisoners should be put in the military?

No. I am saying that if you you're a young man or woman and don't have high employment prospects, and you are in the wrong type of circumstances where that's not likely to change and there is drugs and gangs that sooner or later you are going to get mixed up in if you don't get out, then every one of those people that the military reaches out to and gives a career to is going to be a better statistic in the penal population.

And pimpdave, who said anything about where to draw that line. I'm was being tongue-and-cheek about "underachievers", but that is sort of what you are dealing with... people who don't set their ambitions (orgive up on them) to break out of the cycles of poverty, drugs and economic subsistence on state aid. You clearly know nothing on the subject that didn't come out of a textbook by some ivy league head-up-his a$$ member of the intellectual elite. And obviously you don't think that the military is an opportunity - being obviously one of the privileged ivy tower types yourself. During Vietnam, there was no opportunity. You went becasue you were drafted. Maybe you got to go to community college on the GI Bill, but otherwise you were an expendable artifice of a laspe of judgment by a President who was too busy boinking Marlyn Monroe and too steeped in the political machinery of the back room deal and the manufactured war hero to really know anything about the conditions of the enlisted men humping it in the jungle. You can't even compare the military today to the military 35 years ago... although guys like you would make conditions for those guys back home about the same as it was back than. Shame on you brother. I hope you can face yourself in the mirror and not think about the debt you owe to the US military.

I suggest you read David Morrell's novel that is now a household name and maybe you'll learn something how this country treated its hero's 35 years ago after Vietnam, and think the better before you take that attitude for yourself over this war.

[Snorri1234]

No. I am saying that if you you're a young man or woman and don't have high employment prospects, and you are in the wrong type of circumstances where that's not likely to change and there is drugs and gangs that sooner or later you are going to get mixed up in if you don't get out, then every one of those people that the military reaches out to and gives a career to is going to be a better statistic in the penal population.

Well I can understand that. But you can't forget that not everyone wants to actually join the military.

Having special programs to encourage you people in the cities with no prospect to join the military seems like a good plan to me. The only problem I can see is that often those which are likely to f*ck up have already done so before reaching 18.

[Thor Son of Olaf]

Dollar for dollar, the military is cheaper than prison and you get a better payout for your dollars. We need to put our societies underachievers to good use. This will save money (less prison and mental health cost) enabling us to cut taxes and the kicker is more manpower for the conventional use military.

Wait....you're saying that prisoners should be put in the military?

Haven't you heard of Penal Battalions? Or the English Convict-Conscripts?

[jonesthecurl]

Dollar for dollar, the military is cheaper than prison and you get a better payout for your dollars. We need to put our societies underachievers to good use. This will save money (less prison and mental health cost) enabling us to cut taxes and the kicker is more manpower for the conventional use military.

Wait....you're saying that prisoners should be put in the military?

Didn't you ever watch the Dirty Dozen movie?

[jonesthecurl]

Hey Thor, go play a game of CC.

Oh, here's a hint: you have to take a move now and then.

[pimpdave]

And pimpdave, who said anything about where to draw that line. I'm was being tongue-and-cheek about "underachievers", but that is sort of what you are dealing with... people who don't set their ambitions (orgive up on them) to break out of the cycles of poverty, drugs and economic subsistence on state aid. You clearly know nothing on the subject that didn't come out of a textbook by some ivy league head-up-his a$$ member of the intellectual elite. And obviously you don't think that the military is an opportunity - being obviously one of the privileged ivy tower types yourself. During Vietnam, there was no opportunity. You went becasue you were drafted. Maybe you got to go to community college on the GI Bill, but otherwise you were an expendable artifice of a laspe of judgment by a President who was too busy boinking Marlyn Monroe and too steeped in the political machinery of the back room deal and the manufactured war hero to really know anything about the conditions of the enlisted men humping it in the jungle. You can't even compare the military today to the military 35 years ago... although guys like you would make conditions for those guys back home about the same as it was back than. Shame on you brother. I hope you can face yourself in the mirror and not think about the debt you owe to the US military.

I suggest you read David Morrell's novel that is now a household name and maybe you'll learn something how this country treated its hero's 35 years ago after Vietnam, and think the better before you take that attitude for yourself over this war.

I'll absolutely check out that novel. I need a new read anyway, I'm tearing up Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency by Barton Gellman right now, and could use a switch from non-fiction for a bit.

You have no idea my experience with the education system in this nation. To suggest that shoving kids from lower socio-economic conditions than the average into the military as the best solution is foolish and displays poor analytical skills on your part. They don't need to be made into cannon fodder, and it's really not your call to determine anyway. The military recruiters are present at every city school, believe me. Of course, you'd know that if, well, I won't presume. But if you're going to be making such wild and sweeping recommendations, you really should know that first.

And not every Ivy Leaguer is from a privileged background. Not that I am one. I'm not going to reveal where I went to school here, nor will I allow you to goad me into doing so (it doesn't matter where I or anyone else here went to school). But it is worth mentioning that the Ivy League has very deep pockets for promising and talented students who don't have parents with the income enough to pay full tuition. In fact, I believe at all Ivy League schools, between 60-70% of students receive financial aid in the form of grants and loans. Meaning, of course, the MAJORITY of Ivy League graduates were just kids who worked really hard when they were coming up, were wickedly intelligent, reached for the stars, and earned their entry.

People who claim that everyone who attended an Ivy League school is over-privileged, or was even privileged as a kid at all, is pretty obviously exposing a deep seeded inferiority complex, and a fair amount of envy for the success of others. Sure, it is a privilege to attend one of the best universities in the nation, if not the world, but that certainly doesn't mean the kid was privileged going in, or will be privileged coming out.

Finally, of course I value and appreciate the military. I have several friends who have served in Iraq, and I value and appreciate their sacrifice, despite being highly critical of them having been sent there in the first place (which, oddly enough, they all see the same way). To blame the soldiers would be foolish. Their job is to follow orders. They have done so with great honor and courage. Our leaders, however, have not issued good orders.

So please, tell me your highest level of schooling. Tell me your experience with the public education system in the USA. Otherwise I won't be able to take you seriously.

[jay_a2j]

Ron Paul wanted to eventually abolish the IRS. Siting it as unconstitutional. The US government could still tax, just not income. Paul had a plan. But the powers that be succeeded in silencing him.

[bbqpenguin]

Ron Paul wanted to eventually abolish the IRS. Siting it as unconstitutional. The US government could still tax, just not income. Paul had a plan. But the powers that be succeeded in silencing him.

i'm not completely familiar with paul's plan bnut i know huckabee has something similar in his support for the Fair Tax, which i still think is an interesting idea

[Jenos Ridan]

Ron Paul wanted to eventually abolish the IRS. Siting it as unconstitutional. The US government could still tax, just not income. Paul had a plan. But the powers that be succeeded in silencing him.

Until the Supreme Court can challenge a constitutional amendment(impossible, since it falls to something like 3/4 congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures to add or remove amendments), it stays.

Now, if you would like to start a grass-roots political movement towards the abolishment of the income tax, go right on ahead.

[Jenos Ridan]

And pimpdave, who said anything about where to draw that line. I'm was being tongue-and-cheek about "underachievers", but that is sort of what you are dealing with... people who don't set their ambitions (orgive up on them) to break out of the cycles of poverty, drugs and economic subsistence on state aid. You clearly know nothing on the subject that didn't come out of a textbook by some ivy league head-up-his a$$ member of the intellectual elite. And obviously you don't think that the military is an opportunity - being obviously one of the privileged ivy tower types yourself. During Vietnam, there was no opportunity. You went becasue you were drafted. Maybe you got to go to community college on the GI Bill, but otherwise you were an expendable artifice of a laspe of judgment by a President who was too busy boinking Marlyn Monroe and too steeped in the political machinery of the back room deal and the manufactured war hero to really know anything about the conditions of the enlisted men humping it in the jungle. You can't even compare the military today to the military 35 years ago... although guys like you would make conditions for those guys back home about the same as it was back than. Shame on you brother. I hope you can face yourself in the mirror and not think about the debt you owe to the US military.

I suggest you read David Morrell's novel that is now a household name and maybe you'll learn something how this country treated its hero's 35 years ago after Vietnam, and think the better before you take that attitude for yourself over this war.

I'll absolutely check out that novel. I need a new read anyway, I'm tearing up Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency by Barton Gellman right now, and could use a switch from non-fiction for a bit.

You have no idea my experience with the education system in this nation. To suggest that shoving kids from lower socio-economic conditions than the average into the military as the best solution is foolish and displays poor analytical skills on your part. They don't need to be made into cannon fodder, and it's really not your call to determine anyway. The military recruiters are present at every city school, believe me. Of course, you'd know that if, well, I won't presume. But if you're going to be making such wild and sweeping recommendations, you really should know that first.

And not every Ivy Leaguer is from a privileged background. Not that I am one. I'm not going to reveal where I went to school here, nor will I allow you to goad me into doing so (it doesn't matter where I or anyone else here went to school). But it is worth mentioning that the Ivy League has very deep pockets for promising and talented students who don't have parents with the income enough to pay full tuition. In fact, I believe at all Ivy League schools, between 60-70% of students receive financial aid in the form of grants and loans. Meaning, of course, the MAJORITY of Ivy League graduates were just kids who worked really hard when they were coming up, were wickedly intelligent, reached for the stars, and earned their entry.

People who claim that everyone who attended an Ivy League school is over-privileged, or was even privileged as a kid at all, is pretty obviously exposing a deep seeded inferiority complex, and a fair amount of envy for the success of others. Sure, it is a privilege to attend one of the best universities in the nation, if not the world, but that certainly doesn't mean the kid was privileged going in, or will be privileged coming out.

Finally, of course I value and appreciate the military. I have several friends who have served in Iraq, and I value and appreciate their sacrifice, despite being highly critical of them having been sent there in the first place (which, oddly enough, they all see the same way). To blame the soldiers would be foolish. Their job is to follow orders. They have done so with great honor and courage. Our leaders, however, have not issued good orders.

So please, tell me your highest level of schooling. Tell me your experience with the public education system in the USA. Otherwise I won't be able to take you seriously.

Well said. But at least our current leadership is not the same bunch of thundering morons who mismanaged Vietnam (telling new recruits that their rifles were "self-cleaning", need I say more?).