Grover Norquist and the Republicans have betrayed the US military!

[ptwonline]

The Democrats are equally boneheaded. The Difference is that the rhetoric of the Republicans is actually sound from an economic standpoint. In reality it's just rhetoric though, neither party wants to cut any spending - except for a few Tea Party folks.

The republicans are not "manipulated by the superwealthy" anymore than the democrats are.

All in all, pretty ridiculous emotional and biased rant, ptwonline.

If you can't see how the superwealthy is driving conservative ideology in the US, then you need to get out of your country for a while and get a fresh look at what is actually happening there. It's as obvious as an eclipse of the sun to everyone else.

The superwealthy also control the Democrats, but to a lesser degree. Democrats will at least take some stand to fight for things that help the poor and the middle class on one hand, even if they pat the backs of the wealthy with the other hand.

The rhetoric of the Republicans is economically sound? I'm sorry, but when your stated objective is to bring the fiscal house back in order and then you reject massive spending cuts you want because it had pretty modest spending increases to go with it, your rhetoric--and decision making--is not "sound" at all. It's downright insane. The Republicans could not even accept near-total victory from the capitulating Democrats simply because it wasn't absolute victory like their newfound inflexible ideology demands, and so they knowingly and deliberately give up on a huge victory. That is absolutely crazy, but that is also what happens when you sign away your ability to make good decisions in exchange for power like the Republicans did to the Tea Party.

[TobyKenobi]

The superwealthy also control the Democrats, but to a lesser degree. Democrats will at least take some stand to fight for things that help the poor and the middle class on one hand, even if they pat the backs of the wealthy with the other hand.

Please explain Obama's Campaign contributions vs. McCain's Campaign contributions in the 2008 General Election.

[ptwonline]

That's adorable.

The moderate conservatives aren't speaking up because there are no moderate conservatives - stuff like "wars should end eventually" and "torture is a bad thing" put you firmly in the camp of the left wing over here.

People who are moderate vote Democrat. People who are normally reasonable but are very gullible vote Republican.

Sorry, can't really agree with that. There are plenty of more moderate conservatives. You know, people who DON'T want border fences electrified and people who DON'T cheer over the idea of letting people die from not having health insurance. But they end up lumped with the more extreme bunch either because of certain fiscal or social beliefs.

Moderates don't always vote Democrat either. This is why there is some swing back and forth during elections.

I don't have a big problem with conservatism per se. Some things I actually agree with even though many I do not. The problem is that the modern American conservative movement has shifted so far to the right that everything else is being dragged there with them. The liberal, activist judges on the Supreme Court they like to rail about? It's more conservative than it has ever been. The "socialist" extreme lefty that's in the White House? He governs like a 1970's Republican, but Republicans have shifted so far to the right that it now seems to the far left to them. It's ridiculous and frightening what is happening in the US. They seem to be moving in the opposite direction of the rest of the modern and rational world.

---------- Post added 2011-11-23 at 04:49 PM ----------

Please explain Obama's Campaign contributions vs. McCain's Campaign contributions in the 2008 General Election.

Can you be more specific about what you would like to know? Both candidates got massive donations from the wealthy and from corporations because you need massive money to win in US elections. So Obama also takes care to be gentle and friendly to Wall St and much of the other wealthy, but at the same time he isn't totally gutting things like Social Security and Medicare, and he keeps fighting to extend benefits for the unemployed and to stimulate the economy by trying to help out consumers instead of just cutting taxes on the wealthy like Republicans want to do.

[Deleted]

Actually, the rhetoric of Republicans on economics doesn't match anything that has ever worked, and flies in the face of all available evidence. Once upon a time, Republicans believed in things like "expertise". But when Milton Friedman is considered way too left-wing for your party, you have abandoned all pretense of rational thought.

Milton Friedman is certainly not considered too left-wing in terms of economics. His views on drug legalization maybe considered that though. Friedman was more a libertarian than anything else.

Infact, most of the rhetoric of the Repubs is similar to Friedmands (cut the size of government and reduce regulation). But again, that's just rhetoric - the actions of the majority of the republicans signal that they don't want to cut anything either.

---------- Post added 2011-11-23 at 04:54 PM ----------

If you can't see how the superwealthy is driving conservative ideology in the US, then you need to get out of your country for a while and get a fresh look at what is actually happening there. It's as obvious as an eclipse of the sun to everyone else.

You forget that I'm looking at US politics from Finland. The superwealthy control the lobbyists, which control both Democrats and Republicans.

The superwealthy also control the Democrats, but to a lesser degree. Democrats will at least take some stand to fight for things that help the poor and the middle class on one hand, even if they pat the backs of the wealthy with the other hand.

Except that when they "stand and fight for the poor" the end result is pouring shitloads of taxpayer money to special interest corporations - i.e. the superwealthy. A bit like when Republicans are "supporting the troops" while infact only financially supporting the military manufacturers.

The rhetoric of the Republicans is economically sound? I'm sorry, but when your stated objective is to bring the fiscal house back in order and then you reject massive spending cuts you want because it had pretty modest spending increases to go with it, your rhetoric--and decision making--is not "sound" at all. It's downright insane. The Republicans could not even accept near-total victory from the capitulating Democrats simply because it wasn't absolute victory like their newfound inflexible ideology demands, and so they knowingly and deliberately give up on a huge victory. That is absolutely crazy, but that is also what happens when you sign away your ability to make good decisions in exchange for power like the Republicans did to the Tea Party.

What massive spending cuts have been proposed by democrats? NONE.
You'll find that they were all miniscule reductions in the rate of spending increases, instead of cuts from current spending. Retracting some of the proposed future spending increases by 1 trillion over 10 years is absolutely insignificant. You need to cut a trillion from today's spending levels.

[absynthe7]

Sorry, can't really agree with that. There are plenty of more moderate conservatives. You know, people who DON'T want border fences electrified and people who DON'T cheer over the idea of letting people die from not having health insurance. But they end up lumped with the more extreme bunch either because of certain fiscal or social beliefs.

I'd really like this to be true - but I've generally found that "moderate" Republicans believe one radical thing - that abortion should be illegal, or that torture is okay if we're the ones to do it, or that cutting the estate tax will improve the economy, or that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build mosques, or that President Obama is not a citizen - and bring themselves to tolerate the other stuff because that one radical thing is so important to them. When you look over the party as a whole, most Republicans likely only believe one radical thing, but with so many people there they need to push all the radical things to keep everyone happy.

I'd really like to be wrong about this - I'm simply extrapolating from people that I've talked with.[COLOR="red"]

---------- Post added 2011-11-23 at 12:20 PM ----------

Milton Friedman is certainly not considered too left-wing in terms of economics. His views on drug legalization maybe considered that though. Friedman was more a libertarian than anything else.

Infact, most of the rhetoric of the Repubs is similar to Friedmands (cut the size of government and reduce regulation). But again, that's just rhetoric - the actions of the majority of the republicans signal that they don't want to cut anything either.

Except that Republicans consistently speak out against monetary stimulus just as strongly as they do fiscal stimulus. Inflation is way below the target of 2-3%, but attempts at easing are met with accusations of treason. Friedman would prioritize deficit reduction over tax cuts, as well, and that's not something that any Republican will ever ge behind (based on the proposals being put forth by both sides in the recently-failed super-committee).

[ptwonline]

What massive spending cuts have been proposed by democrats? NONE.
You'll find that they were all miniscule reductions in the rate of spending increases, instead of cuts from current spending. Retracting some of the proposed future spending increases by 1 trillion over 10 years is absolutely insignificant. You need to cut a trillion from today's spending levels.

Spending has to grow because the population is also growing and because of inflation. When you cut the rate of this increase, you are in effect cutting the spending per capita which is a spending cut. If you go from spending $1000/person on a program and go to spending $900/person on that program, do you see that as a spending increase or a spending cut?

Anyway, some of the proposals were looking at far, far more than $1 trillion over 10 years. There were proposals getting to over $2 trillion, and even up to $4 trillion.

But your notion that a trillion needs to be cut from today's spending levels is ludicrous. America would be devastated with those sorts of spending cuts. That's why anyone with at least half a brain also realizes that you need more revenues because realistic spending cuts alone won't get you anywhere close to balancing the budget.

It's also why a lot of people think it's counterproductive and foolish to focus so much on deficit and debts right now. You cannot cut your way out of this problem. However, get employment back to relatively full levels and most of the deficit disappears. As long as there is no threat to the ability to service the debt (and aside from foolish brinksmanship by Congress, there isn't), JOBS has to be the ultimate and #1 priority. From there it takes surprisingly modest spending cuts and tax increases to balance the budget.

[absynthe7]

What massive spending cuts have been proposed by democrats? NONE.

This is explicitly false. Wrong. Untrue. A lie. Dems proposed - multiple times - significant cuts to Social Security and Medicare:
Link

On the supercommittee, they put forth proposals that were split 50/50. In the debt ceiling negotiations, the put forth a proposal that was 2/3rds spending cuts and 1/3rd taxes. What you are claiming to be fact bears no resemblance whatsoever to the real world.

[Deleted]

But your notion that a trillion needs to be cut from today's spending levels is ludicrous. America would be devastated with those sorts of spending cuts.

This is in short why the democratic party has no hope of solving the US fiscal problems ever. (I'm not saying the Republicans are any better).

The whole reason why the US economy is in the trouble it is today is because it spends too much. There simply is not enough money.

This is explicitly false. Wrong. Untrue. A lie. Dems proposed - multiple times - significant cuts to Social Security and Medicare:
Link

First of all, your link is total crap. It gives me no info on what you're claiming.

Second, that "cut" is from future spending increases - not from current spending. That means it's not a cut, it's just increasing spending by less.

[Cairm]

Instead of argumenting over who's fault is what. How about actually solving the problem? If US fails to find a decent solution to their deficit, its the whole financial market that will go crazy. And then your military force will be useless because you'll have people hanging themselves all over the country.

[Deleted]

Except that Republicans consistently speak out against monetary stimulus just as strongly as they do fiscal stimulus. Inflation is way below the target of 2-3%, but attempts at easing are met with accusations of treason. Friedman would prioritize deficit reduction over tax cuts, as well, and that's not something that any Republican will ever ge behind (based on the proposals being put forth by both sides in the recently-failed super-committee).

I don't think you have any idea what Friedman stands for, or the current level of inflation.

First of all, Friedman did not believe in stimulus like Keynesian's do.

Second, you're right that alot of Republicans think taxes should be cut right now even without cutting spending. Friedman understood that this was counterproductive and that cutting taxes while there is a budget deficit does not work, as the revenue lost from taxation will just be "taxed" through means of printing money or borrowing.

Third, inflation is already above the Fed's target levels:

[psycow]

China today has a hard time building one carrier.

but you shouldnt sell the U.S. short to believe that we don't have the money, determination, and knowledge to mechanize if we had to.

Ironic... Also seems that when its US bashing going around the Mods are quick to lable, delete,
and "police", but "China today has a hard time building one carrier"(which can only be read as: cant figure out how to make one) gets to slide...

I will say this as a european Ive long wanted the US to stop acting/being the World Police,
what you do with your own country I dont really care about, but your enegy is better spent dealing with that.

[GennGreymane]

good our defense budget was to bloated any way.

we spent more then the enxt 12 nations combined, i think the number even changed to more then every single country combined in recent years.

[Noomz]

Your national security is better secured through other means then simply military. Your thinking needs to start involving better foreign politics, bettering the image of the US abroad and owning up to the horrible acting of your countrys leadership failures.

You can't win a fight without making sacrifices or taking risks. You can't eat the cake and keep it.
I could make other analogies, but it's something that the US really needs to understand.

That, and you need to replace all the morons leading your country into the dirt.

[TobyKenobi]

Republicans believe one radical thing - that abortion should be illegal...

I know I'm cutting off the rest here, but approximately half of the country consistently polls pro-life and the other half pro-choice, holding an opinion either way could hardly be considered 'radical'.

[Northy]

Republicans haven't been "true" Republicans ever since Reagan.
Frankly, if you are poor-middle class, it is fiscally responsible to vote Democrat.
Republicans are great at marketing though. they've sewn up the bible beater and shotgun toting market for years to come.

[Noomz]

Oh and you need to stop being so subservient to the wealthy that run your entire country, controlling your lives and the politics.
It's not an exhaggeration nor is it leftist propaganda.

This is what capitalism with no regulations leads to.

[Deleted]

Republicans are great at marketing though. they've sewn up the bible beater and shotgun toting market for years to come.

I find it highly amusing, worrying and disgusting that Grover Norquist is a board member of the National Rifle Association.
That in itself says a lot about the type of people who call the shots in the Republican party....

[TobyKenobi]

good our defense budget was to bloated any way.

we spent more then the enxt 12 nations combined, i think the number even changed to more then every single country combined in recent years.

People seem to ignore the fact that a quarter of our military budget goes to personnel alone. If you cut our spending to just personnel ($154.2billion), we would still have the largest military budget in the world. It takes a lot of money to maintain and all volunteer military force as opposed to a conscripted Army.

[GennGreymane]

People seem to ignore the fact that a quarter of our military budget goes to personnel alone. If you cut our spending to just personnel ($154.2billion), we would still have the largest military budget in the world. It takes a lot of money to maintain and all volunteer military force as opposed to a conscripted Army.

also a lot of waste on cold war era projects, none of which is needed

their are even pentagon projects the pentagon does not even want, but some people in congress want them to do it any way to keep a few jobs in their district, im sorry but that is actually communism to a degree.

also we need more drones, a leaner more directly targeting military for future military action. for any moron who thinks we will go to war with china any time soon, think about this

why? there is no reason for the U.S and china to go to war. We benefit greatly from one another. its not like ye olde days where the french and the british hated each other (eh still kinda do) and they warred for territory and resources! they didnt benefit from one another directly so they could go to war and it would make logical sense,

now a days there is no logic behind powerful nations going to war.

[Catta]

i heard they had put in a failsafe to make sure that the supercomitee found a solution... now they want to remove that failsafe because they are unlikely to find a solution together...