|
Post by dasfuchs on Jun 13, 2009 1:32:51 GMT -5
....and Israel really can't think about peace when rocket are be lobbed into their cities. Fred, don't think one side is worse then the other as far as this goes. Very much so, both those groups need to see some corner time. Anytime there's a call for peace it's like watching two rabid dogs being leashed and kept within ten feet of eachother
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 13, 2009 5:48:25 GMT -5
....and Israel really can't think about peace when rocket are be lobbed into their cities. Fred, don't think one side is worse then the other as far as this goes. Poor Israel (2nd or 3rd most powerful millitary power on the globe, nuclear power, loses on average 1/5th it's opponents every time it starts some shit) can't stop invading and occupying other countries, or sign one of the numerous offers of peace because those countries keep retaliating in the best way they can? And the Soviet Union couldn't think about withdrawing from Afghanistan because of all the attacks the Taliban launched over the border at Russia. Heck, Britain couldn't withdraw from the 13 Colonies because of all the cross-border attacks on Canada.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 13, 2009 6:31:16 GMT -5
Iran is alone and friendless because of the past few leaders of the country have been hell-bent on picking fights with people. For example, last year an Iranian naval vessel kidnapped several British sailors who were on patrol in international waters. Because Britain has been all kind and cuddly for the last decade right? I do believe that that is the only case of Iranian belligerency (if it was that at all, given that the Iranians claimed that the Marines were in Iran). Iran has, for instance, invaded nobody since the revolution. And yet they get threatened with a Big White flash. Saddam was talking out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand, he was telling the West that he was unarmed. On the other hand, he was telling the rest of the people in the Middle East that if anyone tried to cross him he'd cut loose with his arsenal. Given that Saddam was discovered to have had ties to terrorism (the PLO, it later turned out) and had been belligerent before in regards to violating UN regulations, assuming that he was armed was actually the smart choice. No, see that wasn't the question, I didn't ask whether you thought that intelligence reports, UN survey groups and basic logic should be ignored in order to dishonestly make a case for war. My question was, is it not impossible to invade a nation with working Weapons of Mass Destruction, since they'll just use them on you? Far from being a legitimate reason to attack, were the Bush 'WMD' thingy actually true would that not make it impossible to do so? Yes, I know this. Doesn't mean the economy is doing badly, it means that the entire globe collapsed all at once. Venezuela's still the strongest economy in the region. To use a Washington Consensus figure, it has a growth rate of 4.9% for 2008 (the latest numbers). That's 5.4% better than, for instance, the United States. Oh, and when you say socialist... government spending represents 30% total GDP. Less than, for instance, the United States. It's so threatening that the Veneuzelan public just voted in a refurendum to ban term limits, and allow themselves to elect him however many times they like. Because, as we know, The Economist takes a perfectly objective view on socialists. Ethnicly cleansed from the homes they'd lived in for centuries, if not millenia in a war they didn't start, and not allowed to return. What would you call them? People who also regard it as theirs: the global community, every leader in the region but the Chief of Staff of the IDF, nearly every human being, ect. If a Jewish (or, in many cases, someone from Russia willing to work for little money who claims to be Jewish), regardless of how little connection they have with Israel, they can be an Israeli citizen within days. But a Palestinian still holding the keys to their ancestral home cannot return even if they marry a citizen of Israel, even if they can prove that they were forced to leave in 1948. No matter what. Do you think that that is a good thing? So one of the two massive bases is helpful for our illegal wars in the Middle East that we shouldn't be engaged in. Got it. It's also helpful in case we want to invade Eastern Europe. Fantastic. The other is a helpful US millitary hospital for troops shot in one of the wars we shouldn't have launched on the Middle East. Great. No actual applications for actual defence of the United States, though? By the by, what is the 1st Armoured doing there? I do know that they're moving, but they're there right now. Why? Like I said, if you want to help the German economy, just hand out aid money. You'd get more bang for your buck, for a start. Don't know why you'd particularly want to help the Germans, but there it is.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 13, 2009 8:38:54 GMT -5
Poor Israel (2nd or 3rd most powerful millitary power on the globe, nuclear power, loses on average 1/5th it's opponents every time it starts some shit) can't stop invading and occupying other countries, or sign one of the numerous offers of peace because those countries keep retaliating in the best way they can? And the Soviet Union couldn't think about withdrawing from Afghanistan because of all the attacks the Taliban launched over the border at Russia. Heck, Britain couldn't withdraw from the 13 Colonies because of all the cross-border attacks on Canada. Fred you just don't get that both side have to make changes do you? You and Sky are like opposite ends of some nauseating black and white rainbow, no shades of gray. I know how about you guys do something useful. Take the numbers from that chart and fix the budget.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Jun 13, 2009 13:15:56 GMT -5
....and Israel really can't think about peace when rocket are be lobbed into their cities. Fred, don't think one side is worse then the other as far as this goes. Very true, but illegally annex a big chunk of Southern Ontario and see if us peace loving Canadians don't fuck with you for the next couple hundred years or so. Until Israel honours its borders there really won't ever be a real chance of peace.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 13, 2009 13:51:21 GMT -5
Very true, but illegally annex a big chunk of Southern Ontario and see if us peace loving Canadians don't fuck with you for the next couple hundred years or so. Until Israel honours its borders there really won't ever be a real chance of peace. No doubt. Israel can't expect an peace to last while they continue to expand into Palestinian territory.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Jun 13, 2009 14:32:51 GMT -5
....and Israel really can't think about peace when rocket are be lobbed into their cities. Pretty much. A large portion of the Palestinians have been led to believe that violence is their only option, both through their own leaders and through external supporters such as Saddam (who helped pay the $$$ to the survivors of suicide bombers and sponsored at least one training camp). Israel, in turn, has been hit so often by so many different parties that their natural instinct is to overreact. This is why, for example, they meet rockets with anti-tank missiles. The fact that Israel's few peace overtures have largely failed or been rebuffed hasn't helped matters any.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jun 13, 2009 17:30:18 GMT -5
Poor Israel (2nd or 3rd most powerful millitary power on the globe, nuclear power, loses on average 1/5th it's opponents every time it starts some shit) can't stop invading and occupying other countries, or sign one of the numerous offers of peace because those countries keep retaliating in the best way they can? And the Soviet Union couldn't think about withdrawing from Afghanistan because of all the attacks the Taliban launched over the border at Russia. Heck, Britain couldn't withdraw from the 13 Colonies because of all the cross-border attacks on Canada. Fred you just don't get that both side have to make changes do you? You and Sky are like opposite ends of some nauseating black and white rainbow, no shades of gray. I know how about you guys do something useful. Take the numbers from that chart and fix the budget. I would say they serve as a good example of the plaestinian/israel issue. Fred is the palestinian, Sky is the Israeli
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 13, 2009 18:16:52 GMT -5
A large portion of the Palestinians have been led to believe that violence is their only option, both through their own leaders and through external supporters such as Saddam (who helped pay the $$$ to the survivors of suicide bombers and sponsored at least one training camp). Also because decades of peaceful means didn't work. The IDF meet nothing with nothing. They launch an attack ad then use the response as justification for that attack. See War in Lebanon, see Gaza massacre. They then often escalate that conflict by using indiscriminate (hitting schools, civilians and Ban Ki Moon) illegal (White Phosporous) and disproportionate force. By few peace overtures, you mean precisely zero. Assuming 'overture' is here defined as a reasonable proposal from beligerent party to another, defining the terms of peace. For instance, see Camp David (2000). BTW, I ask my question again. Is it not impossible to invade a nation with working Weapons of Mass Destruction, since they'll just use them on you? Far from being a legitimate reason to attack, were the Bush 'WMD' thingy actually true would that not make it impossible to do so?
|
|
|
Post by booley on Jun 13, 2009 18:51:59 GMT -5
... A large portion of the Palestinians have been led to believe that violence is their only option, Except for the large portion that continues to protest peacefully as their homes and livelyhood are taken away. I can see that being the case in the 60s. Even the 70s. But Israel is not in the same position it used to be. There is a nuclear power in the Middle East. It's Israel. They are also the 4th largest military in the world AND have made peace with almost al the countries close to them. Compare that to Palestine which is a collection of shrinking ghettos with 60% unemployment and smuggling is the only way to get basic needs. Yes the rocket attacks don't help but they alone cant' account or justify for the IDF's actions. Did you ever actually LOOK at some of the "overtures" Israel offered? Because they weren't always as good as many think they were. www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113The story above is old but the pattern it set seems to have continued. And it was Israel that broke the last cease fire. I see it like this...like if a heavyweight boxer started beating up a guy on crutches. Just because the guy on crutches fights dirty and gets a few shots in that doesn't mean the two are even or that the boxer is the real victim. Which by the way means I can condemn rocket attacks on Israel and still think the occupation and ghettoization of Gaza is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 13, 2009 19:33:30 GMT -5
Well, you asked for it.
Making the assumption that this is after the recession has been broken by government spending. Only then should anyone care about the national deficit.
For a start, your tax rates are too low. Currently, the average tax rate is 33.1%, the lowest in the First World. That's too low. The OECD average is 38.2%. That's the absolute lowest number for responsible fiscal management in a boom. If your current tax revenue is 2,690,000,000,000 that ammended tax rate would raise 3,100,000,000,000 a year, an increase of 410,000,000,000, enough to cover the entire budget deficit and then a little change left over for education.
Also, note that that raised tax rate is the average in the First World. It's not even high. So step one to financial stabillity is higher tax rates.
I'll work out actual spending cuts when I get back.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 13, 2009 20:13:29 GMT -5
I would say they serve as a good example of the plaestinian/israel issue. Fred is the palestinian, Sky is the Israeli I thought about that after I posted. You beat me to it, and it is so true.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 13, 2009 20:14:07 GMT -5
Well, you asked for it. Making the assumption that this is after the recession has been broken by government spending. Only then should anyone care about the national deficit. For a start, your tax rates are too low. Currently, the average tax rate is 33.1%, the lowest in the First World. That's too low. The OECD average is 38.2%. That's the absolute lowest number for responsible fiscal management in a boom. If your current tax revenue is 2,690,000,000,000 that ammended tax rate would raise 3,100,000,000,000 a year, an increase of 410,000,000,000, enough to cover the entire budget deficit and then a little change left over for education. Also, note that that raised tax rate is the average in the First World. It's not even high. So step one to financial stabillity is higher tax rates. I'll work out actual spending cuts when I get back. I would like to see what you come up with.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Jun 13, 2009 20:41:11 GMT -5
Just off the top of my head -
1. Reduce the JSF's profile to testbed for VSTOL flight capabilities.
The F/A-18 has too many years left in it for it to need replacing so soon, and it'd take multiple JSF fighters to equal the capability of a single A-10. As such, the JSF's only real justification for continued existence is its VSTOL flight capabilities; it can serve as a platform for experimentation.
A drawdown of the program will likewise mean a drawdown in the amount of money spent on the program. The money can be shuffled elsewhere within the DoD, such as to the development of a proper replacement for the A-10 or the continued effort to produce drone aircraft.
2. Encourage companies to be proactive about employee health via tax incentives.
Generally speaking, far too many people in the modern world, for whatever reason, tend to ignore health problems until they get serious. Not only does this make treatment costlier and more difficult (hence jacking up insurance and medical assistance costs), it also leads to diminished or even lost productivity.
There's a slight trend among some larger companies to bring back on-site medical professionals. While usually no more than a small clinic area and a nurse, it's often enough to make ill workers go ahead and seek treatment sooner that they otherwise would; as the professional is on-site, they don't have to "miss work" to seek treatment. Getting help sooner means that problems can be cured sooner, both getting the employee back to work more quickly and reducing the cost of overall treatment.
To this end, I'm thinking that the government can give tax breaks to those companies who take this step. For example, if a company puts an RN on staff they can get a tax deduction equal to 50% of the person's salary on top of taking the salary off as an expense; if they get a doctor, it'd be 100%. Likewise, if a company sets up an on-site clinic then they can deduct 100% of the cost of installing it the year it goes up.
It may sound nuts to talk tax breaks in this economy, but the tax breaks given out for this should be more than made up for by helping to create a healthier workforce, which in turn will make for a more productive nation (which will equal a higher GDP and hopefully higher tax revenues), reduced insurance claims, and hopefully reduced Medicare / Medicaid claims.
3. Encourage the members of Congress to take a voluntary pay cut.
Let's face it. Congress is the nation's largest country club. In most districts, you have to be rich just to even consider running. Given this, the members of Congress could easily swallow a 5% pay cut. The money raised by having Congress swallow the cut would be diverted to fund Medicare and Medicaid, thus helping to prolong the effectiveness of the two.
It'll also have the upshot of helping to weed out the less ethical members; if a member of Congress tries to vote down the pay cut, they'll have to explain it to their constituents come election time.
4. Place a cap on the amount of "pork" that members of Congress may bring home to their districts.
This right here should be a no-brainer. It's almost a given that once in Congress many a person will try to stay in Congress by bribing their constituents through lucrative government contracts going back to their home districts and/or increased government spending. Millions, if not billions, are wasted each year as a result.
My idea for combating this would be to assign a cap on the amount of "pork" spending a person in Congress could call for w/o first seeking approval from the full chamber that they are in. The cap would be created by using the census to determine the number of people living in each person's district and multiplying it by an amount of cash.
As pork goes for both military and civilian projects, putting a cap should drop the amount spent on both and help to bring the budget closer to being balanced once more.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Jun 13, 2009 21:31:13 GMT -5
4. Place a cap on the amount of "pork" that members of Congress may bring home to their districts.This right here should be a no-brainer. It's almost a given that once in Congress many a person will try to stay in Congress by bribing their constituents through lucrative government contracts going back to their home districts and/or increased government spending. Millions, if not billions, are wasted each year as a result. My idea for combating this would be to assign a cap on the amount of "pork" spending a person in Congress could call for w/o first seeking approval from the full chamber that they are in. The cap would be created by using the census to determine the number of people living in each person's district and multiplying it by an amount of cash. As pork goes for both military and civilian projects, putting a cap should drop the amount spent on both and help to bring the budget closer to being balanced once more. The problem I see with this is that shit holes would get the same level of 'funding' as affuent regions. Similarly, little places could never get big projects because they lack a sufficient number of bodies to generate a large pork score. Pork does help a local economy (albeit not very efficiently), and some areas need a lot more help than others. Ignoring that and just letting everyone in Washington waste x-number of dollars really does the country no service. The other problem is you are just going to create a storm of partisan bickering over whether a project is pork or not. Unless you can clearly define it, it will always cause fights, and if you can clearly define it it should be stomped out of government and not tolerated by the people who's money it is in the first place.
|
|