Taxes, taxes, taxes

Be like Nutella

just about that 5 trillion Obama kept harpin on about

He kept saying Romney would cause 5 Trillion of debt.

How exactly did Obama say Romney intended on doing that? (I know Romney said he wouldn't)

and how was Obama so wrong then?

Since then Romney has said he wants to cut everyone's rate by 20% and that none of this would add to the debt..

anyone like to clarify.. for everyone's benefit ?

MOD NOTE: Pulled from 1st Presidential Debate thread

nagirrac

Be like Nutella wrote: »

just about that 5 trillion Obama kept harpin on about

He kept saying Romney would cause 5 Trillion of debt.

How exactly did Obama say Romney intended on doing that? (I know Romney said he wouldn't)

and how was Obama so wrong then?

Since then Romney has said he wants to cut everyone's rate by 20% and that none of this would add to the debt..

anyone like to clarify.. for everyone's benefit ?

The $5T is over 10 years. The Ryan plan is estimated to reduce tax revenues by $480B in 2015, of which 39% or $187B would go to the top 1% (source: Washington Post).
Ryan and Romney have both stated that they will not decrease taxes on the rich or increase the deficit, and will close tax loopholes to come up with $480B in tax revenue. However they will not touch the 15% tax rate for investment income which is where most of the 1%'s income comes from. That leaves deductions like mortgage relief, health care costs, charitable deductions, student loan interest, etc. All of these are extremely popular and help the middle class reduce their tax burden.
Ryan when asked for specifics on Fox News stated that "it would take too long to go through the math". The reason for this is (a) because the math does not compute so the plan can never be implemented , or (b) the math involved will place all the burden of the tax cut on the middle class which Democrats will not allow so the plan can never be implemented. I suspect the latter is the truth as neither Romney nor Ryan have made any attempt to detail how they would collect the $480B and are unlikely to before the election.
In short it is a bullsiht plan with no hope of ever being implemented and is solely being used to try and get elected. Biden will blow a very large hole though it tomorrow night.

Be like Nutella

ok thanks a lot for that

now do any republicans here agree with this? or is there a simple explanation that we're all missing as to why Romney hasn't gone through specifically 'how' he plans to make up that 480 Billion drop in tax collection IF raising tax on middle class OR rich people is OFF THE TABLE?

What's the ingenious plan we're all missing... and when I say 'we're all missing' I mean every single pundit, economist and journalist in every paper since the debate?

I imagine one of two things is going to happen when Ryan or Romney eventually are forced on live television to clearly articulate their plan, their answer to this question... and that is
a) an explosion of incredulous laughter by the interviewer or audience or
b) a look of pure amazement and awe as we are all treated to what can only be the most ingenious revenue creating, loop hole closing, apolitical, non-partisan cup and ball trick the world has ever seen. I can't see any other reaction given what we're promised from what Romney said..

any republicans got anything to add? what are we missing?

Duck Soup

Romney and Ryan have found two stock answers to fit every question about their tax plans.

Option 1
Q: "How do you plan to pay for your $5tn in tax cuts?"
A: "We don't intend to "pay" for anything. These tax cuts will end up paying for themselves via an enormous explosion of economic activity and are therefore revenue neutral."

The interviewer may then re-phrase, specify and clarify to get a more precise answer to a more precise question.

Option 2
Q: "At present levels of revenue income, your 20% across the board tax cuts would equate to $5tn in lost revenue over the next ten years. How do you intend to make up the revenue shortfall?"
A: "By closing tax loopholes."
Q: "Which loopholes would you close?" [This is the key: If you've a $5tn price tag on the tax cuts, by knowing which loopholes are under discussion you can put price tags on them and see if the two match up.]
A: "We won't know which loopholes we can close until we can get agreement to close them with Congress."

Effectively, they're spending $5tn on the national credit card and worrying about where they'll find the money later. The genius of the two different stock answers is that if you comb through them, you'll discover that the one precise number that arises from them is that the amount of information they give us is zero.

nagilum2

Be like Nutella wrote: »

ok thanks a lot for that

now do any republicans here agree with this? or is there a simple explanation that we're all missing as to why Romney hasn't gone through specifically 'how' he plans to make up that 480 Billion drop in tax collection IF raising tax on middle class OR rich people is OFF THE TABLE?

What's the ingenious plan we're all missing... and when I say 'we're all missing' I mean every single pundit, economist and journalist in every paper since the debate?

I imagine one of two things is going to happen when Ryan or Romney eventually are forced on live television to clearly articulate their plan, their answer to this question... and that is
a) an explosion of incredulous laughter by the interviewer or audience or
b) a look of pure amazement and awe as we are all treated to what can only be the most ingenious revenue creating, loop hole closing, apolitical, non-partisan cup and ball trick the world has ever seen. I can't see any other reaction given what we're promised from what Romney said..

any republicans got anything to add? what are we missing?

from WSJ:

In last week's presidential debate, President Obama seemed stunned to learn that the "$5 trillion tax cut" in his talking points, financed by a mythical middle-class tax increase, does not exist in Mitt Romney's economic plan. But now, even after the Obama campaign staff has acknowledged the error, why won't the President?

At last Wednesday's debate in Denver, Mr. Romney explained that he doesn't plan to cut taxes by $5 trillion. This is because, while his plan rolls back individual income tax rates by 20% and cuts the corporate rate to 25% from 35%, he also plans to reduce personal and corporate deductions.

The idea is that lower rates but fewer loopholes and the faster economic growth that results can generate a similar amount of tax revenue. The Republican also stated once again that his plan does not include a tax increase on the middle class.

Mr. Romney has been saying this for months, and over the weekend Obama campaign spokesman Jen Psaki conceded 80% of the argument. En route to California with reporters aboard Air Force One, Ms. Psaki said that the elimination of enough deductions and loopholes could in fact cover $3.8 trillion. That becomes $4 trillion if you include fewer interest payments on less debt, which means the Obama campaign was saying as of Sunday that the Romney "tax cut" was $1 trillion, not $5 trillion.

Overheal

Ryan when asked for specifics on Fox News stated that "it would take too long to go through the math". The reason for this is (a) because the math does not compute so the plan can never be implemented , or (b) the math involved will place all the burden of the tax cut on the middle class which Democrats will not allow so the plan can never be implemented. I suspect the latter is the truth as neither Romney nor Ryan have made any attempt to detail how they would collect the $480B and are unlikely to before the election.

Yes. It would take him too long to go over the math. So maybe he should publish it. But oh wait, if he publishes it, people will realize it won't add up.

Be like Nutella

ok so, removing my anti-Romney cynical hat for a second..

so is everybody in agreement.. that.. the Romney solution which involves 'no tax increase on rich people and middle class people income' which will certainly cause a decrease in income tax collection of 480 Billion a year going from 2015 will be balanced out ONLY IF growth occurs at a certain future rate?

Is that the plan? it's entirely based on future growth assumptions?

Overheal

Be like Nutella wrote: »

ok so, removing my anti-Romney cynical hat for a second..

so is everybody in agreement.. that.. the Romney solution which involves 'no tax increase on rich people and middle class people income' which will certainly cause a decrease in income tax collection of 480 Billion a year going from 2015 will be balanced out ONLY IF growth occurs at a certain future rate?

Is that the plan? it's entirely based on future growth assumptions?

Sounds like it. Kinda reminds me of cigarette taxes in Ireland: they taxed them, consumption went down along with revenue. So they upped the taxes, same thing happened, etc.

Romney seems to be suggesting the reverse, hoping that growth in the economy will bring in the increased revenue on the same or lower rates of tax.

The idea in theory is plausible but that doesn't mean it's in a ready state to be thrown at a $16 Trillion debt. Especially given that there aren't any declared spending reductions in that plan. If anything Romney has promised various interest groups that their earmarks won't change, or in examples like military spending, will actually increase.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Sounds like it. Kinda reminds me of cigarette taxes in Ireland: they taxed them, consumption went down along with revenue. So they upped the taxes, same thing happened, etc.

Romney seems to be suggesting the reverse, hoping that growth in the economy will bring in the increased revenue on the same or lower rates of tax.

Wow, that's pretty much an opposite example, it involves a rise rather than a cut.

A better one from Ireland would be from the late 90s and early 2000s there were cuts in income tax but income increased so quickly that the amount paid still went up.

TwoShedsJackson

Be like Nutella wrote: »

ok so, removing my anti-Romney cynical hat for a second..

so is everybody in agreement.. that.. the Romney solution which involves 'no tax increase on rich people and middle class people income' which will certainly cause a decrease in income tax collection of 480 Billion a year going from 2015 will be balanced out ONLY IF growth occurs at a certain future rate?

Is that the plan? it's entirely based on future growth assumptions?

It's like a bigger version of the plans that Leeds United and some other football clubs had about ten years ago - to borrow huge amounts of money to buy players set against the 'expectation of future earnings'.

Hare-brained doesn't begin to describe it.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

Wow, that's pretty much an opposite example, it involves a rise rather than a cut.

A better one from Ireland would be from the late 90s and early 2000s there were cuts in income tax but income increased so quickly that the amount paid still went up.

Didn't know that, but yes thats what I meant.

Romney needs to come out and actually explain his plan in those terms however. To date he has not.

EWQuinn

Overheal wrote: »

Didn't know that, but yes thats what I meant.

Romney needs to come out and actually explain his plan in those terms however. To date he has not.

How about this. Tax rates in many categories are past the point of diminished returns. So like John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan before, we dare not raise them, and in fact we must lower some. This along with alleviating draconian regulations will facilitate the economic recovery, and revenues go up to better fund government and reduce the debt. This ain't theory it actually happened, and will happen again.

Overheal

EWQuinn wrote: »

How about this. Tax rates in many categories are past the point of diminished returns. So like John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan before, we dare not raise them, and in fact we must lower some. This along with alleviating draconian regulations will facilitate the economic recovery, and revenues go up to better fund government and reduce the debt. This ain't theory it actually happened, and will happen again.

I don't disagree but it must be met by a proportionate cut in spending or else we will never get the debt under control.

southsiderosie

EWQuinn wrote: »

How about this. Tax rates in many categories are past the point of diminished returns. So like John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan before, we dare not raise them, and in fact we must lower some. This along with alleviating draconian regulations will facilitate the economic recovery, and revenues go up to better fund government and reduce the debt. This ain't theory it actually happened, and will happen again.

You could say the complete opposite: tax cuts are past the point of diminished returns. There isn't any evidence that the last round of tax cuts sparked a flurry of economic activity - why do we think that cutting them more would have the same effect?

Also, I don't think that you can compare Reagan's tax cuts to the current period: there are fewer controls on the global movement of capital and production today than in Reagan's time, and fewer barriers on imports, etc. Who is to say that cutting taxes on businesses would have any real effect on the US economy or employment - the latter being what most voters are actually worried about? Certainly one could imagine more of the same: large corporations pocketing tax breaks from the US government while conducting much of their business overseas (and sitting on piles of cash).

At this point, all we can say with absolute certainty that in the short-to medium term, tax cuts will make the deficit worse.

Brian?

There is zero real world evidence that reducing the top rate of tax leads to economic growth.

Clinton raised the rate and the economy boomed on.

The only "evidence" it works is in statistical models done by Friedmanite economists. Ask a Chilean or Indonesian how well that works.

matthew8

There are some US taxes which could be cut and cutting them would increase revenue. Income tax probably isn't one of them, but the corporation tax rate is pretty damn high.

Brian?

matthew8 wrote: »

There are some US taxes which could be cut and cutting them would increase revenue. Income tax probably isn't one of them, but the corporation tax rate is pretty damn high.

Possibly. A cut in the corporate tax rate could stimulate growth, but maybe not in the current economic conditions.

nagirrac

matthew8 wrote: »

There are some US taxes which could be cut and cutting them would increase revenue. Income tax probably isn't one of them, but the corporation tax rate is pretty damn high.

The nominal corporate tax rate is irrelevent to most large US corporations. They massage their revenue streams and IP by location to maximize profits in low tax regimes (like Ireland). The supreme irony is that the largest companies like Exxon Miobil, Apple, Microsoft etc. who pay very low taxes (Exxon Mobil for example paid 2% tax in the US on $73.3B in profit in 2011) contribute the most by far in lobbying efforts (to ensure tax loopholes stay in place). Corporate capitalism at its finest.

nagilum2

nagirrac wrote: »

The nominal corporate tax rate is irrelevent to most large US corporations. They massage their revenue streams and IP by location to maximize profits in low tax regimes (like Ireland). The supreme irony is that the largest companies like Exxon Miobil, Apple, Microsoft etc. who pay very low taxes (Exxon Mobil for example paid 2% tax in the US on $73.3B in profit in 2011) contribute the most by far in lobbying efforts (to ensure tax loopholes stay in place). Corporate capitalism at its finest.

+1.

The US has a system of state corporatism. The idea that it's some kind of pure a capitalist economy is ridiculous. The smaller businesses can't afford the army of accountants and foreign subsidiaries required to reduce their tax burden, so they are at a tremendous disadvantage to the large corporations.

And despite what they say the large corporations have no interest in really reducing regulations. Because their lobbyists pay for and write the fine print in those regulations. The empirical evidence is that the most stagnant fields in terms of corporate turnover are the energy and financial industries. The same players that dominated these industries 50 or 60 years ago are, by and large, the same companies that dominate them today.

Contrast this with the technology industry - by far the least regulated major industry. IBM is still highly valued, but most of the top technology companies didn't even exist 30-40 years ago.

Overheal

America is a Corporate Democracy.

joseph brand

Venture capitalist: Consumers create jobs, not 'rich people like me'

In less than six minutes, venture capitalist Nick Hanauer does an amazing job of explaining why lowering taxes WON'T create jobs. It is clear, concise, sourced and accessible to nearly all via YouTube.

Most importantly, it completely destroys the right-wing/Republican/Romney line that our country can magically create jobs by lowering taxes on the wealthy.

Hanauer, who is one of the first non-family investors in Amazon.com, made the argument at the TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design) Conference in Long Beach, California, in March.

His speech, deemed by some to be "too political," was not released until yesterday (click here to read the transcript).

The multimillionaire points out that it's not the 1% who create jobs, but the CONSUMER:

"We've had it backwards for the last 30 years. Rich people like me don't create jobs. Jobs are a consequence of an eco-systemic feedback loop between customers and business and when the middle class thrives, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is such a fantastic deal for the middle class and the rich."

Obviously this man has to be a socialist/ communist in the eyes of the Romney fan club.

I did a quick calculation (feel free to correct my figures) of how many working Americans it takes to possess the same wealth as someone like Sheldon Adelson ($25 Billion). By my reckoning, if the average American is worth ~ $300K, then Sheldon has the same wealth as ~ 83,300 average Americans.

Now. Would Sheldon put as much money BACK into the economy as these 83,300 Americans? Take into account the fact that people like Shelley have ways of avoiding taxes and have access to offshore bank accounts.

southsiderosie

joseph brand wrote: »

The information in this video is self-explanatory to most us who possess the ability to think for ourselves. To think otherwise would mean that the person is either:
A. Wealthy and greedy.
B. Deluded.
C. Both of the above.

It's hard to say with any honesty which I have more respect for.

MOD NOTE

These are exactly the kinds of snide, sweeping generalizations that we can do with less of around here. You can make your point without insulting anyone and everyone who disagrees with your view of the world.

joseph brand

southsiderosie wrote: »

MOD NOTE

These are exactly the kinds of snide, sweeping generalizations that we can do with less of around here. You can make your point without insulting anyone and everyone who disagrees with your view of the world.

I sincerely apologise for my derogatory remarks.

I have edited my post accordingly.

EWQuinn

As to income tax in the US, the point now is not to allow them to increase. The so called "Bush tax cuts" were reductions to reasonable levels. The change in January is an increase, an increase that will have ill effects on a shaky economy. Even Clinton agreed on that, at least before the Chicago bunch got to him.

The current state of the economy is the result of the home loan debacle that came to a head in 2008. It was precipitated by the Democratic sponsored changes in lending rules to make loans irresponsibly in the flawed quest for fair play, spearheaded by Barney (Frank) & Chris (Dodd),facilitated by the Clinton administration before, strong arming the big lenders into submission.

The principles remain the same regardless of conditions, raise taxes too high and you stifle growth, revenue declines. The focus on the deficit was an overblown fear - that is until Obama took office and raised it by trillions. It is now a serious threat. So cut spending? You bet, lets start with the most recent entitlement program we can't afford and 56% of America dislikes, Obamacare. Meanwhile, raising taxes will have a chilling effect on an already precarious situation, and will not reduce the deficit in these circumstances. But if you don't believe that, lets try it in 2013 and see what happens with the economy and revenues.

MrMister

EWQuinn wrote: »

As to income tax in the US, the point now is not to allow them to increase. The so called "Bush tax cuts" were reductions to reasonable levels.

The "Bush tax cuts" were reductions to reasonable levels?. Yeah because the rich were paying too much! Do you actually believe this?

EWQuinn wrote: »

The change in January is an increase, an increase that will have ill effects on a shaky economy.

Yeah. An increase on the money hoarders..sorry I mean the rich.

EWQuinn wrote: »

The current state of the economy is the result of the home loan debacle that came to a head in 2008.

Lol... So it had nothing to do with two wars started by the Bush administration, light-touch regulation of wall street and tax cuts for the wealthy?

EWQuinn wrote: »

The principles remain the same regardless of conditions, raise taxes too high and you stifle growth, revenue declines..

How come under Clinton taxes were higher and job creation was also much higher?

EWQuinn wrote: »

The focus on the deficit was an overblown fear - that is until Obama took office and raised it by trillions. It is now a serious threat. So cut spending?

Sure. Lets start with the military. I take you agree? After all the deficit must be reduced.

EWQuinn wrote: »

You bet, lets start with the most recent entitlement program we can't afford and 56% of America dislikes, Obamacare..

Where do you get the 56% figure?

EWQuinn wrote: »

Meanwhile, raising taxes will have a chilling effect on an already precarious situation, and will not reduce the deficit in these circumstances.

But giving massive tax giveaways to the wealthy and asking the middleclass to shoulder the burden shirked by these greedy millionaires & billionaires is a better solution?

nagirrac

So taxing billionares at 15% is OK while millions more are on food stamps and the standard of living continues to rise in China at the expense of American manufacturing, long forgotten by the corporate global giants. When the country eats itself is when they will wake up. Ever think about where the recovery came from since 2009? Keeping Detroit alive, stimulus money that industry would never spend at the time, stopping a potential Great Depression, its called turnings things around. Steady the ship, keep moving, don't go backwards just to prove what you knew was correct. Trickle down does not work.

EWQuinn

To be fair, one war was indeed questionable, at least the way it was fought. But even as the late and highly regarded (including by me) Richard C. Holbrook said, Sadam had to go, it was just a matter of how best to do it.

But even with the wars, Obama has clearly ratcheted up the debt to another level with massive socialism we can't afford. Cut the military? Lets see with mayhem breaking out in the Middle East, Iran on verge of getting nukes, Russia somewhat back to the old mischief, the People's Liberation Army growing dramatically and China getting more rambunctious every year? I think not. (Just keep cutting defense in Europe, and as usual, we'll have you covered.)

The obsession with class warfare continues. The so called rich in most cases are the business owners, with wealth tied into the business, and jobs. I see this every day in my job (but I'm not one of them), these people aren't idle rich, they are successful, there's a difference. Increase taxes some more (and increase health care costs, in which there are many imbedded taxes), and guess what - no increase in jobs.

Clinton raised taxes in 93, which was part of why we had the big change in Congress in 1994, another reason was their proprosals for Hillarycare. Unlike Obama, Clinton being much smarter, got the message, turned toward the center in the second term and facilitated a cut the capital gains tax rate and critical, highly successful welfare reforms (that Obama is now undermining).

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/02/rasmussen-post-scotus-no-change-in-obamacare-popularity/

I could in fact be wrong about the 56%, but opposition to Obamacare has been in the 50's in every poll ive seen.

MrMister

EWQuinn wrote: »

To be fair, one war was indeed questionable, at least the way it was fought. But even as the late and highly regarded (including by me) Richard C. Holbrook said, Sadam had to go, it was just a matter of how best to do it.

Both wars were wrong. Not one Afghan was involved in 911 yet a war was launched on their country. As for Saddam, how was he a threat to the US? He didn't have WMDs. Sanctions had crippled his country. So, why did he have to go?

EWQuinn wrote: »

But even with the wars, Obama has clearly ratcheted up the debt to another level with massive socialism we can't afford.

Let me introduce you to some facts. When Bush took office in the year 2001 he was handed a $281 Billion surplus. When Obama took office 8 years later he was handed a $1.2 Trillion deficit and a recession.

Spending gone up under Obama?






Republicans love to tell you all day long about how they love to balance the deficit and how great they are at it but that's clearly not true. Romneys budget proposels would create a $3.4 trillion deficit on top of what you already have. And if he keeps the Bush tax cuts that's going to add another $5.4 trillion to the deficit. Romney won't come anywhere close to balancing the budget and in fact will make it much much worse because of gigantic tax cuts to the wealthy.

Also, what socialism are you referring to?

EWQuinn wrote: »

Cut the military? Lets see with mayhem breaking out in the Middle East, Iran on verge of getting nukes, Russia somewhat back to the old mischief, the People's Liberation Army growing dramatically and China getting more rambunctious every year? I think not.

The US is currently spending more money on its military than all other countries of the world combined. Military spending accounts for 42% to 57% of every tax dollar collected. There is so much wasteful spending in the military and citizens are told they must accept massive cuts in other programs like education and social security rather than touch a dime of military spending. Time to take the fatcat contractors off the state teat.

EWQuinn wrote: »

(Just keep cutting defense in Europe, and as usual, we'll have you covered.)

Care to expand?

EWQuinn wrote: »

I could in fact be wrong about the 56%, but opposition to Obamacare has been in the 50's in every poll ive seen.

That's because a lot of people oppose Obamacare even though they strongly support most of its provisions. If you break it down and ask people if they like the individual policies most people say they do. I wish people who oppose this law would be honest with themselves: their disapproval has nothing to do with the bill itself, but has everything to do with the man and the administration who are responsible for it.

Manic Moran

The US is currently spending more money on its military than all other countries of the world combined. Military spending accounts for 42% to 57% of every tax dollar collected. There is so much wasteful spending in the military and citizens are told they must accept massive cuts in other programs like education and social security rather than touch a dime of military spending. Time to take the fatcat contractors off the state teat.

So add in education contractors instead? Someone's going to be getting the money, you're deluded if you don't think that other parts of the private sector would benefit.

The Feds spend money on defence because thats its job. No other organisation can do that. Most everything else can be a State issue. Now, the manner in which the defense money is spent is another matter. See today's NBC article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49404306/ns/us_news-security/?ocid=msnhp

"For the first time in our history, we may be facing a moment where we really do not have the money to do exactly what it is that the experts or the policy advisers ... suggest is the right thing," said Todd Harrison, senior fellow at the Center on Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "Budget cuts could end up determining the shape of U.S. policy."

...

The argument from the AIA and others, however, goes well beyond the strategic - essentially saying that defense projects themselves are effectively a common good, driving economic activity and innovation at a difficult time.

Some are openly skeptical, even within the industry.

"We shouldn't build a carrier because it creates jobs," said Mike Petters, chief executive of shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls, the largest employer in several U.S. states including Virginia, whose votes could help decide the November 6 presidential election. "We should do it because we decide we need an aircraft carrier."

The Army right now wants to save $3bn on a tank refurbishing program. Congress, not so much. The Air Force said it had enough C-17s. California's powerful congressional lobby mandated that the Long Beach, CA, plant, keep building them. It's not the contractors that I fear have gone amuck with the defense budget, it's the congresscritters who are doing what they can to keep people in jobs in their constituencies. No jobs results in unemployment and unhappy voters.

Mr Petters isn't in a poor position. It's not as if Ingalls would be out of work if the next Carrier were cancelled: The Coast Guard is screaming for new ships, their replacement program is behind schedule, and Ingalls makes those too. But there are a hell of a lot of subsystems on a carrier made elsewhere and brought to Virginia, and not necessarily by large corporations. They're voters too, and Congresscritters know it.

EWQuinn

MrMister, thanks for time in researching your numbers, I'll be back to address them later. Meanwhile, regarding Afghanistan, it was clearly a base of operations for attacks on the world and specifically the US. It was and is a dagger pointed at the throat of nuclear Pakistan. Recall the murder of Ahmed Shah Massoud by Bin Laden to help solidify his position and that of his supporting allies the Taliban, who are largely Afghans. The war to destroy the murderous enemy and their bases in Afghanistan was clearly justified, again one can debate the best way to prosecute it in recent years.

If you want to criticize a Bush and Republicans, one can criticize the decision to aid the rebels in the struggle against the Russians and communists in the 80's, and then just walk away leaving a vacuum which the Taliban eventually filled. Bush 41 and Clinton share some responsibility in that.

I don't need to expand how the umbrella of the US defense industry has covered the free world from tyranny for many decades, history speaks for itself on that.

Be like Nutella

EWQuinn wrote: »

I don't need to expand how the umbrella of the US defense industry has covered the free world from tyranny for many decades, history speaks for itself on that.

ahem....

how do I say this as succinctly as possible...

yes you do..


that is a massively complex debate incapable of being resolved on any logical level.. and for any example you use to support the idea of that theory others will have a solid counter argument so I'm in complete wholesale disagreement with that sweeping self-admittedly unsupported statement.

nagilum2

EWQuinn wrote: »

I don't need to expand how the umbrella of the US defense industry has covered the free world from tyranny for many decades, history speaks for itself on that.

I am in agreement with Be Like Nutella. While this statement was clearly true throughout the cold war, there is no longer a Soviet Union. A very legitimate argument exists over whether American defence posture in the last two decades really kept the world free from tyranny.

Bringing it back to taxes, per the thread, this is the problem many libertarians have with the Romney budgetary plan. You can't be taken seriously on getting the deficit under control if you say that you're going to do it while also saying you're going to increase the defence budget, which is already a massive portion of US federal spending.

Manach

EWQuinn wrote: »

I don't need to expand how the umbrella of the US defense industry has covered the free world from tyranny for many decades, history speaks for itself on that.

I'd, as a history type, would partially agree.
However, the core of US power resided in its industrial base. In Pre-WWII the US army was of lesser strength than a number of European states. However, the US industrial base and workers were world class and could/did easily switch from a domestic to war economy thanks to the Industrialists/Unions.
So while Defence is important, it should not be ringfenced at the expense of crippling competitiveness and should not be immune to reasonable cuts.