speech bit

[Occhidiangela]

1. What church is he reverend in, or of? OK, that was a cheap shot.

2. Three words: Twana Brawley; fraud

The Democrats embarassed themselves when they allowed that crook into their room. JFK would still be puking were he alive, and maybe even his corpse is vomiting in revulsion.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Kings and Prime Ministers, and Presidents, will sometimes go to war when the balance of power is close to tied. That tends to create long wars. See Europe 1796-1815. WW I. WW II. The Cold War, sorta.

They will not tend to go to war when the balance of power is waaaaaaaaaay against them.

They may go to war when the balance of power greatly favors them, or they may take advantage of their power and spend money elsewhere, or economize.

If you in general prefer to not start wars, believing that peace makes for more stable trade, then peace through strength is a sound policy. That has been a general trend of US policy for some decades, which is what makes the Iraq war such an inconsistent policy decision, although the Afghanistan War makes great sense.

Weakening yourself significantly in the face of uncertainty is a risk. You can sometimes get away with it, and sometimes not. Not getting away with it means either you lose a war, bad, or you get into a long war, bad. Trusting others to defend your interests, Hello Poland, Hello France, is not necessarily good from a policy perspective.

Your saying that defense money would be better spent elsewhere shows a mistaken world view. Rather than spending it elsewhere, money saved on defense cuts should not be spent at all. If you can create a smarter, leaner, more cost effective force that is both credible and effective, just don't spend the money. The "Peace Dividend" is an illusion.

Of course, if you let only cost align your sites, you get the nuclear arms race again.

Be careful what you wish for, Minionman, as a solution to the burden of defense spending. You may get what you seek: another nuclear arms race. Or, a long war the next time someone thinks we are weakened sufficiently to risk having a go.

What most of you do not know, since you are not in the defense world so I will point out, is that President Bush -- supported and even egged on by old-Sec-Def-now-VP-Cheney, was poised to make a significant cut in defense spending and force structure . . . when September 11 struck. I had just left an acquisition post and was five months into a training post. The budgetary signs were almost screaming in bright neon. Further deense cuts were a comin.' Then the two towers fell, and all of a sudden, our flight instructor shortage, which was near critical, went away as reservists were mobilized by the score.

Pres Bush is spending more on defense and "homeland security" (Bah, who needs a new bureaucracy???) because the conditions require it. Or so it seems.

Yet five months ago, an exotic and very expensive weapons system, Comanche Helicopter, was CANCELLED!

Billions "saved" in future years. Or, rather, not spent. No, I don't want Congress to spend that other 9 billion on something else, not with the deficit and debt we have, I want them to NOT SPEND IT AT ALL IF WE DON"T HAVE TO SPEND IT ON DEFENSE.

Not until we have a better debt and deficit picture.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Senator Kerry has shown by his actions in the Senate to be "anti-military" in both sentiment and in executing his Senatorial duties vis a vis budgetary decision formulation, with the deeper point that he accepts weakness as a valid policy position on a global scale.

"Let our allies shoulder more of the burden." I have heard that from his lips in speeches for some years.

That route has been tried, and it has failed, miserably. See Bosnia 1991-1995. See Somalia (which we also did our share of gooning up.) See Rwanda. See Sudan now. See . . . a host of other vignettes I am tired of dredging up. You can't lead if you don't lead from the front. That comes with a cost.

As to Sir_Dies_Alot, he has yet to ever demostrate by his actions the characteristics of a noonyhead, via policy pronouncement or in game buffoonery. No debate necessary, any more than there need be debate concerning whether or not Senator Miller is female.

Your charge is false, based on the evidence.

On the other hand, one can still discuss whether or not Senator Kerry's position on defense policy and strategic posture, or whatever his backers feed him to digest and give speeches on, represent a vision and path ahead for the bane or better ment of the Free World.

That is what at stake.

I have 24 years of understanding from the execution end that our defense posture is one that dozens of nations hang onto the coat tails of. I have my reservations of weakness as a policy 'jumping off point.'

I also have reservations on "fighting the war of the past" versus "the war of the future." Another topic for another time.

Have a Guinness, on me, I have a spare ration today.

Thought: Please PM me your current email address, I have something I'd like to share with you.

Occhi

[Minionman]

Of course, if you let only cost align your sites, you get the nuclear arms race again.

Be careful what you wish for, Minionman, as a solution to the burden of defense spending. You may get what you seek: another nuclear arms race. Or, a long war the next time someone thinks we are weakened sufficiently to risk having a go.

What most of you do not know, since you are not in the defense world so I will point out, is that President Bush -- supported and even egged on by old-Sec-Def-now-VP-Cheney, was poised to make a significant cut in defense spending and force structure . . . when September 11 struck. I had just left an acquisition post and was five months into a training post. The budgetary signs were almost screaming in bright neon. Further deense cuts were a comin.' Then the two towers fell, and all of a sudden, our flight instructor shortage, which was near critical, went away as reservists were mobilized by the score.

Pres Bush is spending more on defense and "homeland security" (Bah, who needs a new bureaucracy???) because the conditions require it. Or so it seems.

Yet five months ago, an exotic and very expensive weapons system, Comanche Helicopter, was CANCELLED!

Billions "saved" in future years. Or, rather, not spent. No, I don't want Congress to spend that other 9 billion on something else, not with the deficit and debt we have, I want them to NOT SPEND IT AT ALL IF WE DON"T HAVE TO SPEND IT ON DEFENSE.

Not until we have a better debt and deficit picture.

My suggestion was not to cut defense spending, actually I hadn't made any suggestions at all, although it might have seemed that way. What I was really trying to say was that Terrorists and the military are not so much more important than anything else that the military budget should be trown up just to get a higher %GDP. If there's a need for a huge military budget increase that can be shown to be more important than something like tax lowering or debt payment or health programs for example, they can raise it. Most importantly is making sure that that money is well spent. But if the military doesn't need a bigger budget in percent terms, than that money should go somewhere else, And by that I mean all the GDP money, not just government money, which is another confusing point in the other post.

In more philosophyish terms, I'm saying that having a powerful military is a means to an end, in this case the end is keeping people in the U.S. and other countries from being killed by some other groups of people. It isn't an end in itself. So, if the military keeps people safe and can do so for some time into the future, than the money should be going to other means to other ends.

Rememberm all this is coming off a % GDP comment, if SirDieAlot had used a diferent argument for increasing the money for the military more along the lines of what it would be useful for I would probably not have jumped as hard and would have agreed somewhat with what he was saying.

[Minionman]

But your point is, American "fundamental needs" involve driving a BMW rather than a Ford to work; and the military should take a backseat to this need. Sorry, no dice here.

Wow, that makes me sound like a greedy asshole.

Literally, the quote may not be true. But theat quote ignores that in U.S. culture one important "sort of right" is that people should have is the chance to improve their lives, which extends into giving them the ability. Spending overspending on the military when it isn't useful just to compete with a GDP percentage and nothing else takes away from this idea and doesn't give anything in return. If "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" have been thrown into U.S. culture as things that all people should have rights to, that the quote is the less "high and noble" version of pursuit of happiness.

Also, one reason people do live in the U.S. is that they can get a lot of money. Taking this money away and wasting it on a military that might not get used cuts down the U.S. compared to other countries. Sorry if this isn't a "high ideal" but it is what go through people's heads.

Extra money does not just go for BMW's, it goes for extra employment, education, health, better living conditions in general, which get thrown out when being sarcastic about "BMW"s.

The point I was trying to make with my sarcasm, is that America doesn't spend all that much on its military, expecially given the "global policeman" role the military is expected to fulfill. My examples of China and North Korea illustrate how little we spend on our direct military strength, relative to other nations.

This is a much better argument than "we should spend more on the military compared to our GDP because that's what other countries do" the SirDieAlot and you sort of did. I say if the military does its job well with an average GDP, than it doesn't need any extra large chunks of money from the whole economy and that money should be going elsewhere where it is more useful.



On a side note, do you you know where to find relatively good information on how the military is doing? I'm interested so I can understand better what it actually might need. I know there won't be any small details, but good general information is still useful

[Minionman]

<!--QuoteBegin--Sir Die alotI @Sep 4 2004+ 05:10 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sir Die alotI @Sep 4 2004 @ 05:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am calm.

Keep in mind what is going on with the military, thousands and thousands are over seas in combat, 130,000 in Iraq alone last I heard. Reguardless how you feel about the decision, once deployed, we should support our troops. That doesn't mean we just don't spit on them and call them "baby killers", that also means supporting them finantially.[/quote]

What you had said before was something like "the U.S. military spends less %GDP on the militray than a lot of other countries, it's just more powerful because it has more money". By itself, that argument says that the U.S. should spend more on the military just to have a big military at all costs. It ignores whether that military is actually used for something. I suggested you calm down because you seemed to by scared in the back of your mind of something serious happening for no reason other than having a smaller military. I also say that if more money goes into the military than it really needs, that money should be spent elsewhere.

I don't really know what's going on with Iraq right now, so I'm not going to argue about that, but the aergument that the military needs more money because soldiers need more supplies is a much better one than that the U.S. should spend more money because it's %GDP is lower.


If anyone tries for a word definition argument about "needs", I'm using "needs" in the sense of "whatever it needs to do the job well". I hate word definition arguments because they don't add anything to the issue, so I'll write this to keep one from starting. This isn't directed at anyone in particular.

[kandrathe]

No. But, he seems the type. I like him even more! :lol:

[Sir_Die_alot]

What you had said before was something like "the U.S. military spends less %GDP on the militray than a lot of other countries, it's just more powerful because it has more money". By itself, that argument says that the U.S. should spend more on the military just to have a big military at all costs.

Who needs calming down now Mr. Exaggerator? By the point alone of the %GDP shows it is not "at all costs", it is at a realitively low cost. Considering what wars cost I think 4% to just maintain is a bargain.

It ignores whether that military is actually used for something. I suggested you calm down because you seemed to by scared in the back of your mind of something serious happening for no reason other than having a smaller military.

So you are saying we should forget what humans have learned from THOUSANDS of years of warfare because the last real threat went away about 10 and a half years ago? This is being a little over idealistic to assume nobody is going to be gunning for the "Ruler of the World" title again, and the next time, it's a sure bet they are going to try to go through us first (Indeed, I would argue that is exactly what Muslim fundamentalists are trying to do). History is littered with civilizations that did not fail because their government was not firmly in place, but because their military tactics and hardware was left to decay. Your suggestion then, is to dump America on this pile and leave great humanitarian nations like China to pick up the slack.

I don't really know what's going on with Iraq right now, so I'm not going to argue about that, but the aergument that the military needs more money because soldiers need more supplies is a much better one than that the U.S. should spend more money because it's %GDP is lower.

I would argue a country's "need" is based precisely on it's GDP. The more valueable your country is, the more modivation there is for another to take it away. Again, there are a few THOUSAND years of history to back up that statement.

[Jester]

"Your charge is false, based on the evidence."

Well, uh, maybe, but that doesn't make his argument any better, and that was what I'm objecting to. Clearly, the argument that Mr. Die-A-Lot is a noonyhead is specious. But the notion "You can't argue against being X because you haven't even admitted to being X yet!" is not exactly valid reasoning.

Evidence is another thing. It doesn't seem to me to be anywhere near as clear cut as you put it. Being "not maximally pro-military" does not qualify a man to be "anti-military". But, then, I'm anti-military, so what looks bad to you probably doesn't look quite so awful to me. I will say, however, that at least Mr. Kerry's military experience holds some weight, however variable. Knowing what Bush did, even given the benefit of the doubt, I wouldn't trust him to fire a rifle at tin cans, let alone lead a nuclear-armed military on a crusade against evil halfway across the world.

But, Bush clearly protects your country from terrah, whereas all John Kerry can do is flip-flop, like that whole going to 'nam and coming back disillusioned. What up with that? Didn't he notice all that creeping communism, or the proud and noble stature of the South Vietnamese democracy?

Jester

[Jester]

"I would argue a country's "need" is based precisely on it's GDP... Again, there are a few THOUSAND years of history to back up that statement."

So, for instance, Czechoslovakia didn't need a very large military to fend off Hitler, because its GDP was low, but modern Japan needs an enormous military, because of its high GDP. Brazil should be armed to the teeth, but Syria has very little need for a military. Nobody in Sudan needs an army, because they aren't really producing very much at all, but Germany? Load up the luftwaffe.

Indeed, had Napoleon not wanted to lose the battle of Waterloo, all he had to do was obliterate the French economy. Then his need for an army would have been zero, and he wouldn't have lost. (Edit: Okay, so technically, your argument would not be that he wouldn't lose per se, but that Wellington wouldn't have had any further reason to bother beating him, what with France being worthless.)

Perhaps you might show me where in history, these *thousands* of years, that proves this previously unproven direct correlation between military need and GDP? Might I suggest that one's military needs correlate more accurately with the force your opponents can bring to bear on you, and that this seldom has anything to do with your GDP?

Jester

[Jester]

"You may get what you seek: another nuclear arms race."

Perhaps I missed the part where you need more nuclear weapons once you have enough, making generous allowance for duds and whatnot, to blow the world to rubble several times over.

What, exactly or generally, do you need to race for? You've already got anything that could ever be useful, even if your goal is to saturate your opponent with gigatons of explosive power. Increasing the crater depth isn't a very useful goal. Is there some risk of losing your global apocalypse capability? Is the nuclear stockpile somehow in danger by not funding whatever nutty scheme the NeoCons are cooking up this week? Did MAD cease to exist as a concept at the same time it ceased to be a reality? Any nuclear power who arose to challenge the US would face exactly the same dagger-at-each-other's-throats scenario that existed with the Soviets, yes? And, even if they were crazy enough to trade, is there some level of defense spending that protects you from nuclear annhilation?

Now, what *would* start another race (albeit not a nuclear arms race) is some defense against nuclear weaponry. But that seems unlikely for the time being. Delivery vehicles might change, but there isn't much that's going to stop several megatons of force that I can think of.

Jester

[eppie]

[/QUOTE]
that one crazy Democrat
I loved Zell Miller's speech(transcript). As neither partial to elephants or donkeys I can relate to a politician that shoots from the hip and calls it like he sees it.

It would only be nice if he would talk abouit some sensible things. Man that guy had a lot of hatred in him.

QUOTE
What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in? I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom
over tyranny.

QUOTE
Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric. Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

I mean what does he mean with these oneliners. Fighting for freedom over tyranny has never been the strongest point of amarican presidents (south america). I think to oppose bombing the hell out of countries means standing for freedom. (but maybe that is just my small mind?)

But after listening to Senator Kerry over the last year or two – after hearing the agenda he’s laid out for our country – I cannot support him in his race for the presidency. There are too many issues about which John Kerry and I disagree. And there are too few similarities between John Kerry and the great Democratic leaders I’ve known.

Yes for on that Kerry not just started a war but was really in it??

QUOTE
Senator Kerry doesn’t make any secret of the fact that he wants to bring more money into Washington so that he can decide how to spend it. In his first one hundred days in office, John Kerry’s massive health care plan would force him to raise taxes by as much as $900 billion. And the only way he’s going to get that kind of money is if he reaches into the wallet of every man and woman in America.
[QUOTE]

People this is what running a country means!!! Health is quite important,Bush is just spending AND lowering taxes....that cannot go on like that. The US is almost banckrupt as it is (one of the reason to go to Iraq). I think rasing taxes (to the higher and middle incomes for getting healthcare for everybody is the best thing a president can say during a campaign. There are in the US millions of people that are not insured because they cannot pay for it. (Kandrathe I expect you have a link for this one ;) )

I will stop with this point. And talk about some things (which seem very simple but apparantly for some senators difficult to understand).
If you run a country (a big democracy like the US) money needs to be paid by everybody to make everything work, to build roads and to help the needing to be able to live their lives at a standard decided by the development in the country. (and for one of the most prospering countries in the world this standard is quite high).
It should also be logical that the richest pay the most (also in percentage), they are the ones that benefit the most from a good economy, if that means that they pay more taxes to arrange health insurance for every citizen so be it.
When the matter of weapons comes into play there is something else. Being against spending 80 bilion more on Iraq does not mean only against Iraq but means that for him health isnurance is more important, or more police on the streer is more important, or taking care of the environment is more importnat. Long story short, you can spend the money in different ways. Not spending it on weapons (or on subsidizing oil for so that Iraqi people can buy it from american companies) means you can spend it on something else.

I have often wondered why the TAX-cut word blind people so much, I mean it is not the President puts tax money in his own pocket is it?? (well with Bush I'm not sure actually :D )

[kandrathe]

The US is almost banckrupt as it is (one of the reason to go to Iraq).

Not really. We are doing ok. The biggest problem is this runaway program called Social Security that no politician wants to do anything about. Now we have a huge amount of "baby boomers" getting to retirement age, and the stupid Congress has already spent the retirement money. That is why many people (including me) want some control over that huge FICA tax that comes out of our paychecks. At least we won't be buying bombs with it. Also, it would be nice if during the boon years if the Congress would pay down some of our national debt.

I think rasing taxes (to the higher and middle incomes for getting healthcare for everybody is the best thing a president can say during a campaign. There are in the US millions of people that are not insured because they cannot pay for it. (Kandrathe I expect you have a link for this one  )  It should also be logical that the richest pay the most (also in percentage), they are the ones that benefit the most from a good economy, if that means that they pay more taxes to arrange health insurance for every citizen so be it.

Sorry, I disagree. Some of us are taxed enough, I think my income taxes+FICA are now at 45% of my income. But, 40% of Americans pay no income tax, and in fact if you factor in the earned income tax credit, and the newer child tax credit, 1/5 of Americans get more money back on their tax return than they paid in. The top 1/5 of income earners in the US pay 82% of all income taxes.

Census Reports Rise in Uninsured Americans Certainly a problem for the insurance companies. The problem in America is that the majority of health insurance is tied to employment, so anyone who is laid off has a short period of time when they will continue to be covered, and then they must foot the bill themselves. Since employers have been footing the majority of the bill, the prices have skyrocketed and are way our of line, so individuals cannot afford insurance out of pocket, and especially when they have no income.

Employment-based health insurance is still the most reliable means of gaining coverage, and about two-thirds of Americans get their insurance through an employer or that of a family member. People who lose their jobs or cannot get insurance through their employers may buy their own coverage independently. But for many, this option is just too expensive. And people in poor health may be excluded because of pre-existing conditions that many health insurance companies won't cover. The government programs that fill some of the gaps, such as Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, have eligibility requirements and enrollment procedures that may make coverage difficult to obtain and keep.   Among those who are employed, about 4 percent of people who are offered health insurance on the job decline it and remain uninsured -- primarily because of the expense. In fact, more than eight out of 10 uninsured adults or children live in families in which at least one family member is working. Workers participating in an employer-subsidized health plan typically pay between one-quarter and one-third of the total cost of the insurance premium for family coverage. On top of that, they pay deductibles and co-pays, and sometimes the full cost of prescription drugs and other services not covered by their plans. For low-income families, this can easily amount to 10 percent of their annual income -- a cost that many decide they can't afford. There are also about 18 million Americans whose family head works for a company -- often a small one -- that does not offer health insurance.  Why are health care expenses so great? Although advances in clinical medicine and health care technologies have led to dramatic progress in diagnosing and treating many illnesses and injuries, those very advances also add to the cost of care. As a result, the growth in health insurance costs has outpaced the rise in real income since the mid-1970s. Those costs can make it very difficult for many people to afford insurance, even when employers pay part of the premium.   The obstacles that are stopping millions of Americans from getting and keeping health insurance are nothing new. But as health care costs rise once again, unemployment increases, and the economy stagnates, it's more important than ever for the nation to understand just who is uninsured -- and why. Only with this knowledge will we be able to develop some real solutions. Mary Sue Coleman, president of the University of Iowa and the University of Iowa Health Systems

The federal government could help by implementing tort reform to limit runaway malpractice punitive damages awards. Without getting a handle on what insurance is expected to pay, it is unfair to expect even the richest 1/5 of wage earners to foot the hyper inflated health insurance rates. I would propose a two tiered system, with one being preventive care, and minor ailments and injuries. I would aim to have everyone covered by this basic level of health care. The second tier would be for catastophic ailments, like transplants, cancer, AIDS, and other very, very expensive procedures. Yes, we can spend huge sums of money to attempt to keep everyone alive, but should we?

What the federal government needs to do is focus on protecting the citizens from terrorism. Everything else is gravy.

When the matter of weapons comes into play there is something else. Being against spending 80 bilion more on Iraq does not mean only against Iraq but means that for him health isnurance is more important, or more police on the streer is more important, or taking care of the environment is more importnat. Long story short, you can spend the money in different ways. Not spending it on weapons (or on subsidizing oil for so that Iraqi people can buy it from american companies) means you can spend it on something else.

That 80 million was for salaries, supplies, and better equipment for soldiers in the field. So voting for the war that put the troops into the field, and then voting against supporting those troops while in the field is irresponsible. Kerry was protesting the fact that Bush would not consider raising taxes.

I have often wondered why the TAX-cut word blind people so much, I mean it is not the President puts tax money in his own pocket is it?? (well with Bush I'm not sure actually  )

New CBO Study Confirms Wealthiest Americans Bear Income Tax Burden
Don't Repeal Tax Cuts for the "Rich," Cut the Spending Stupid
First of all I must confess that I don't believe in income taxes at all. I would rather that taxes be levied on consumption, with some exemption on staple goods for those below a particular poverty threshold. This would promote conservation, and reward those who work harder or smarter. It blinds me because I believe that I have earned all 100% of my income (and then some), and the government comes and takes 45% of it from me. Yes, they build me roads, give me police, fire protection and many other amenities which I may or may not need. If the tax burden were 100%, I would in effect be an captive bird in a gilded cage. So at what point is the government enslaving me?

[Chaerophon]

Might I suggest that one's military needs correlate more accurately with the force your opponents can bring to bear on you, and that this seldom has anything to do with your GDP?

Oooohhh. Bingo.

[eppie]

Sorry, I disagree. Some of us are taxed enough, I think my income taxes+FICA are now at 45% of my income. But, 40% of Americans pay no income tax, and in fact if you factor in the earned income tax credit, and the newer child tax credit, 1/5 of Americans get more money back on their tax return than they paid in. The top 1/5 of income earners in the US pay 82% of all income taxes.

Yes but salary is also based upon the fact that people pay taxes. Did you think if all of a sudden nobody would have to pay taxes anymore your salary would stay the same?.

Please explain me the "40 % of americans don't pay income taxes" because I always hear different things about who pays what. What is the reason they don't pay for example?.

The 1/5 that pay 82 % doesn't really scare me. I'm mean those are not the people that have to beg for money on the street. And as I said before, that 1/5 is also the part that benefits the most from a good economy. I think netto they will always be the best of.

[kandrathe]

40% don't pay because they either earn zero income (includes children and retired people), or below a particular level depending on their family situation. A hypothetical family of four with a single wage earner making $40,000 per year would pay zero taxes.

Yes but salary is also based upon the fact that people pay taxes. Did you think if all of a sudden nobody would have to pay taxes anymore your salary would stay the same?.

:lol: Yes! The employer does not pay more just to account for my tax burden. When taxes go up, wages do not automatically increase, and vice versa. Wages are dependant on supply, demand and what an employer can afford.

And, no one in America has to beg for money on the street. Some choose to do it, rather than get welfare. Every state in the US has assistance for poor people sufficient for them to get shelter, food and clothing. THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET -- Public assistance and health care

And as I said before, that 1/5 is also the part that benefits the most from a good economy.

But, by what right does the government have to take away the bulk of someone's earnings? If you consider that money as my time, that means that I work as a slave for the government for 5 months of each year.

Edit: Actually, I think I was wrong about the children and elderly included in the 40%. The Growing Class of Americans Who Pay No Federal Income Taxes "Even 58 million is not the actual number of people because one tax return often represents several people. When all of the dependents of these income-producing households are counted, roughly 122 million Americans – 44 percent of the U.S. population – are outside of the federal income tax system."

[eppie]

40% don't pay because they either earn zero income (includes children and retired people), or below a particular level depending on their family situation.&nbsp; A hypothetical family of four with a single wage earner making $40,000 per year would pay zero taxes.

:lol:&nbsp; Yes!&nbsp; The employer does not pay more just to account for my tax burden.&nbsp; When taxes go up, wages do not automatically increase, and vice versa.&nbsp; Wages are dependant on supply, demand and what an employer can afford.

And, no one in America has to beg for money on the street.&nbsp; Some choose to do it, rather than get welfare.&nbsp; Every state in the US has assistance for poor people sufficient for them to get shelter, food and clothing.&nbsp; THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET -- Public assistance and health care

But, by what right does the government have to take away the bulk of someone's earnings?&nbsp; If you consider that money as my time, that means that I work as a slave for the government for 5 months of each year.

40% don't pay because they either earn zero income (includes children and retired people), or below a particular level depending on their family situation. A hypothetical family of four with a single wage earner making $40,000 per year would pay zero taxes

well that is actually a very social thing, very good I would say.

But, by what right does the government have to take away the bulk of someone's earnings? If you consider that money as my time, that means that I work as a slave for the government for 5 months of each year.

You make it seem like the government takes taxes from people just for the benefit of the one in charge?? Sorry but we're not living in the middle ages anymore when farmers needed to give "taxes" to the king, for which they would get absolutely nothing in return.
I mean I can imagine you don't agree with certain things the government does with your money. I think a lot of anti-war people are very pissed about the fact that somany billions are spend on the was in Iraq. I think somebody who doesn't have a car thinks it is better not to spend money on roads. But that is what you call a society.
The government is there for the people and lives from money from the people. To me take 60 % from somebody that earns 400.000 dollares per year is not really that shocking. I mean if nobody pays taxes where does Bush buys his weapons to protect your country?.

[Occhidiangela]

;)

"You may get what you seek: another nuclear arms race."

Perhaps I missed the part where you need more nuclear weapons once you have enough, making generous allowance for duds and whatnot, to blow the world to rubble several times over.

Note I said "may." That possibility is based on some of the factors of the last nuclear arms race, and my belief that Santayana is being ignored by all and sundry.

Yes, to answer your question, you completely missed the point, but I can't fault you for not understanding what I have had a lifelong interest in. The "Silver Bullet" crowd who seek ever increasing "efficiency" and "cost effectiveness" in the age of the War of Machines, which we are still in, all Information War innovations considered, saved a lot of force structure in the 1950's and 1960's by using nuclear weapons, particularly tactical nuclear weapons, as a "force multiplier." If the Silver Bullet crowd continue to use cost metrics as the driver in creating a "leaner" security apparatus, which I smell in light of the move afoot now to make "small yield nuclear bunker buster bombs" after some hundreds and millions in RND are spent (NO!, blast it, NO! but another time for that topic) then the cost per bullet foolishness of fifty years ago risks being repeated.

What, exactly or generally, do you need to race for? You've already got anything that could ever be useful, even if your goal is to saturate your opponent with gigatons of explosive power. Increasing the crater depth isn't a very useful goal. Is there some risk of losing your global apocalypse capability? Is the nuclear stockpile somehow in danger by not funding whatever nutty scheme the NeoCons are cooking up this week? Did MAD cease to exist as a concept at the same time it ceased to be a reality? Any nuclear power who arose to challenge the US would face exactly the same dagger-at-each-other's-throats scenario that existed with the Soviets, yes? And, even if they were crazy enough to trade, is there some level of defense spending that protects you from nuclear annhilation?

You don't need a race, you end up in one. Ask Kaiser Wilhelm, turn of the century, about an arms race in re the German High Seas Fleet. You are confusing Mutually Assured Destruction(MAD, and well named), the intercontinental missiles and bombers, with tactical nukes -- which can of course lead to escalation to MAD if used, under the rubric of "Hey, he used it first!"

Now, what *would* start another race (albeit not a nuclear arms race) is some defense against nuclear weaponry. But that seems unlikely for the time being. Delivery vehicles might change, but there isn't much that's going to stop several megatons of force that I can think of.

your cause and effect relationship is based on a defunct model. You seem to be in the dark on the details. The arms race, be it nuclear or conventional, to make it faster, funnier, lighter, more lethal, cheaper, what have you, is still going on. It started about the day someone first developed a bow and arrow and used it against another human.

Why are we still in it? Besides the natural human drive to "build a better mousetrap" (see the French invention of the millitreuse (Gatling Gun,) war is still with us. War is not still with us due to weapons, weapons are still with us thanks to humans conducting war. Read the news from Sudan, India, and the Caucusus please.

Your assertion that creating missile defense would create another arms race is based on a false premise.

Since the bilateral relationship that allowed the MAD posture to allow the ABM limitations to make some sense is gone, your cause and effect relationship is skewed. Nuclear weapons exist. Relatively easy to make and launch Ballistic Missiles exist. There is no longer a bilateral structure that allows both sides to risk losing the same thing, the situation the US and USSR were in. Absent that sort of grudging understanding, the need to defend against nuclear weapons is very real if you don't want to be liable to nuclear blackmail or significant destruction. THAT is why the missile defense scheme is being pursued. (Not cheap, NO!)Japan feels better if their Aegis cruisers, and ours, can knock down North Korean missiles, if they are launched.

In case you forgot, about 20 months ago, President Bush and Putin signed the accord that will see both powers reduce their nuke arsenals by 70 percent over the next 10 years. Were you "no blood for oil" to loudly to notice? :o

Jester, you do not appear to understand the essentials of the multi-polar relationships that drive these decisions. Or, were going for a short reply.

Being a pacifist is alright, go for it. Please don't add to that principled stance an ignorance of how power is manipulated, and how threat is used and will continue to be used in geopolitics. Geopolitics is played by jungle rules. The UN is a nice facade over a very dirty and below the belt game.

It aint pretty, I'll grant you, but it is very real.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

You are both clueless. The Threat based readiness model is not only outdated, it is reactive, and guarantees one remains behind one's "threat."

The Capabilities Based model is: what options do I give the policy maker, and for how much cost. It takes a larger risk base, but can free one's security decisions on "the last war." Somewhat.

Big difference, in that one's security posture ins not threat dependent. It is also harder to explain to novices such as yourselves, heck, I took some years to get my arms around it, having grown up in a threat based model.

When I have a lot more time, I may try to do so. Today, time and space do not permit.

Occhi

[eppie]

You are confusing Mutually Assured Destruction(MAD, and well named), the intercontinental missiles and bombers, with tactical nukes -- which can of course lead to escalation to MAD if used, under the rubric of "Hey, he used it first!"

Yes tactical nukes are the ones we always warn you about, that terrorists might have them!!!.
But it does not matter so much that they have them, if we keep bombing Iraq as much as possible, I'm sure they wont use them. <_<

It is also good to spend billions on R and D on tactical nukes, at least this way we can make "better" tactical nukes, than some Iraqi can make in the desert (while being under heavy attacks) :D