you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
Yes yes the 40,000 troops in germany? HITLER? i think we got him lol Japan 50,000 troops? for what? Hirihito has been dead for 60 years. Military spending does not equate into safer. b TOO much waste.
Obviously, there is some wasteful military spending. But if you don't understand deterrence, then you can't really add anything to the conversation about it. It is axiomatic that military spending is a deterrent to future conflict.
Well let's double up military spending then, so we can be extra-sure to avoid future conflict. There is a law of diminishing returns here and it kicked in a many hundreds of billions of dollars ago.
And now ad hominem piques on the Yahoo message boards are off limits? I've been absorbing (and admittedly delivering) ad hominem blows to the body ever since I've been on this board, but if you're that sensitive I'll try to refrain when dealing with you and your ilk. ; )
You say, "We are now seeing what happens when the people that vote for a living overwhelm those that work for a living". (false generalizations; you:1 me: 0) No, we are seeing what happens when people who try to buy and voter suppress an election get their fannies handed to them by productive members of society who are tired of seeing their share of the economic pie get usurped by the very few. A just economy (yes, economic justice) is a concept that these hard-working Americans understand. It's a shame that you don't. (Is that ad hominem?)
If voter suppression is a myth it is one that the GOP bought into whole hog. There was never a voter fraud problem, so what was the reason for requiring voter ID (that the poor would have less access too)? Because they thought they could win PA, OH, and FL by doing so. Remember the PA election official speaking to his Repub base giving his "mission accomplished" speech on instituting the voter ID requirement? Why would early voting opportunities be slashed? Sometimes in Dem-leaning counties in a state and not in Rep-leaning counties in the of worst cases! There was no problem in the last election with lines being too short. There were no budgetary reasons to do it that I know of. They knew it would be harder on the working poor and the employed middle class to fit voting into the new limited schedule. It backfired on them. That is for sure. It just made Dems even more determined and motivated to vote. But Repubs bought into the "myth" all the way and fought like crazy to make it happen. I'm willing to listen to your arguments that it was a myth. It may have been, but the Right was operating as if it was fact and to their benefit, and that's the point, isn't it?
I'm much more interested in the three lessons that we are all likely to relearn, which I discussed in my original email, i.e., the effect of higher taxes on unemployment, how higher food/energy costs effect the poor, and the national debt.. I'd also be interested to hear one example in which a large country has been able to provide the expansive social service programs that this administration is proposing without either collapsing on its debt or severely suppressing individual freedoms, e.g., China, Russia, etc. As I pointed out earlier, there is a great deal of concern that the EU is likely to collapse, so there are no examples there. (My god, France alone should pretty much end this discussion about overly generous social programs, but I'm willing to hear some example that I've yet to think of.) With their homogenous populations that are each equal to about 1 -3 % of of the US's, Sweden and Norway are too small to even be arguably comparable. While I'm sure many of the left's hearts are in the right place, public policy should be lead by the mind, which this administration is pathologically incapable of. I would prefer that the US not collapse because this administration wants everyone to receive federally provided social services. I would prefer that people actually have to go to work for housing, insurance, food, secondary education, phone service, etc. Obviously, some people need some assistance, but this administration's interpretation of who needs federal assistance is too big tent to be sustainable. You realize that every entitlement program expanded now, just takes away from the programs that will be available to future generations, right? It's so monumentally irresponsible that I'm actually stunned that I have say this to adults.
As for voter suppression, it's something you brought up. Personally, I don't really want to talk about it and shouldn't have responded. Without going into too much detail, I will say that in a previous life I was responsible for investigating voter suppression reports/allegations for a national law enforcement agency. None panned out. Ever. Also, go back and read our two emails about the issue. I claimed that it was a myth to get the left excited (i.e., vote). You responded, in part, with: " It just made Dems even more determined and motivated to vote." That pretty much confirms my point, doesn't it?
Also, Voter ID has been around nationally in various states and various forms for years. It wasn't until GA implemented it in 2004, that the left flipped out. It's also required under federal law, in some instances. But no one ever gets excited about that.
The current doctors will continue to practice, until the retire. The highly intelligent individuals that society needs to produce doctors will go to more lucrative careers. Doctors get paid a bunch because generally speaking they do the best in school and society needs the best students to become doctors. The best students will, again,
The reduction in services won't happen overnight. It will happen very slowly, until finally we'll be just like Europe. Except we won't have all the good bread and renaissance art to accompany the horror stories of a society in which everyone has to wait months for routine surgery.