I don't want to quote arithmetic, because it's not a 1+1 kind of thing, when you work with the economy and the tax rates and loopholes.

There are currently a HUGE pool of money, kept outside the states, because anyone with overseas offices, would be taxed on that money AGAIN, if they brought it back into the US.

That capital tax rate, is one of, if not the highest, corporate tax rate, in the world.

Here's what Germany does: you sell stuff overseas, you pay taxes in that country, (as we do also), and you pay little to NOTHING when you bring that money back to Germany! Their take on it is different than ours, however. Creating jobs is a DUTY written into the German Constitution, and every party takes it dead seriously.

Which is why companies like BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and all kinds of German manufactured goods, can compete very well. They make GREAT power tools, I can attest!

That's been a problem with our economy for years, and Romney plans to help fix it. By just lowering the rate, a LOT of money (how much? I don't know. ), will return to the states. And we will be more competitive, in overseas business sales, etc.

I know Paul Ryan's monetary budget plan was published, but I haven't read Romney's proposed tax plan yet. I read what he was going to do, in broad strokes, and I know it will help.

Will it meet a certain specific goal? I don't know. I know cutting taxes massively helped Kennedy out of his recession, it helped Cleveland out of his recession, it helped Reagan out of Carter's recession. And I know FDR's recession was so deep he felt compelled to act just to relieve our anxieties. By most accounts, he lengthened the depression for us, by his actions. We never really got out of it, until we started making parts and etc., for the UK, and etc., just prior to our entry into WWII.

You can match any lie you get from Romney, with two from Obama, so please, let's not go into the "he's a liar", game. Politicians are not known for being strictly tied to the facts. Especially while they are campaigning.

When all the details are published, (in a bill), then we can look at the numbers, and see what does, and doesn't probably, add up. I expect Romney's numbers to be optimistic because:

1) Europe is still in an economic recession. Greece, Spain, Italy and others, are in very serious shape.

2) China's economy has been slowing down, lately.

If these two big external factors remain (and I believe #1 certainly will, and #2 will NOT stay), then I believe Romney's projections will be off. We do a lot of business with Europe, and have banking ties which directly support their banks. If they go down, we will be bailing them out, yet again.

FDR's recession?
Stock market crashed in 1929.
Hoover and the repubs resisted all calls for intervention and it developed into the worst economic downturn in modern history.
FDR elected 1932. Started trying to intervene.

As you say, success was limited until the pre-war rush. Which was all put on debt. And then paid off by taxing high income earners.

Fixed that for ya.

We had VERY high taxes, throughout the 1950's, but the gov't also cut it's spending MAGNIFICENTLY, when WWII, was over. You can tax the rich until they're all bankrupt, but it wouldn't pay for the excesses, and wasteful spending we have today.

@Richlevy - you know who pays all those gov't workers their wages and benefits, don't you? Still feel all warm and cozy about 55,000 more new federal gov't employees?

I'd love to tell you that the recovery with Romney, will start on Day 1 of his term in office, but the federal gov't is a BIG bureaucratic nightmare. If you see an organizational chart of just who reports to Dept. of Homeland Security, it's enough to make you dizzy. It will take time.

Whenever people suggest that the rich should pay more taxes than they do, someone throws out the 'you could take all their money and it still wouldn't be enough' line.

It isn't one or the other. It isn't a choice between virtually tax free wealth on the one hand and bankrupting the rich on the other.

And, having established that the rich cannot solve the financial crisis on their own, the onus is always shifted almost entirely onto the backs of the working and middle classes.

The wealthy should pay more than they currently pay. The fact that their combined wealth would not be enough even if we took it all, is not a good reason to let them get away with paying so little. It's also not a good reason to expect those who aren't wealthy to carry the can.

Showing that SOMEBODY has seen the math on it.

I agree.
Which is EXACTLY wrong-headed! Stop right there! Where does the onus lie for this? Right on gov't spending!! But the liberals do NOT NOT NOT want to allow one dollar to be cut from anything, no matter WHAT!
I agree. But you can't get the Democrats to cut spending -- they will SAY that they will -- did it to Reagan, did it to George Bush I, etc. They refuse to honor their promises on this.

The one time they were forced to, was when the Republicans were in control of Congress, and Clinton was in the White House. The "Contract with America" was in force, and popular, and cuts were made. It's hard for them to admit that it helped our economy a great deal, during the Clinton Administration.

Any recovery of ours is tied directly to the recovery in Europe -- we support their banks, if you don't know.

This is bad news for Europe, AND for us, and our recovery:
Do you STILL believe we need to re-elect a President who can't find his way around a lemonade stand?

All across the world, in the wake of a global financial crisis, bordering on catastrophe, the truisms of economic theory which have held sway for almost half a century have been shown to be anything but reliable.

You cannot, nor could you ever, cut your way out of a demand led recession. It is utter folly to reduce government spending at precisely the time when it is most needed. People who are unemployed, like their employed counterparts, need food, shelter and consumable goods. Providing state benefits for those people does not remove that money from the economy. It goes back into the market in the form of goods and services purchased.

Removing those state benefits, removes those people from the mainstream market and pushes them into the black market.

At the same time, as those people are pushed into social crisis, basic maintenance costs give way to emergency rescue costs (leaving healthcare until expensive emergency treatment is required - homeless families requiring relatively expensive housing solutions through local and national initiatives, usually underpinned by legal requirements to ensure safety of children - and family breakdown bringing in the need for social service solutions because of the same legal requirements - increased levels of mental stress triggering crisis, etc)

People in work, meanwhile, become far more cautious with their money. Like the investors who become far more cautious with their investments and businesses who become far more cautious in their ventures, working people become more aware of potential risks to their family economy. An increasing fear factor around unemployement, exacerbated by swingeing cuts to local services, does not help increase the confidence and therefore spending activity of working people.

It was not socialism, or social capitalism that sent the global economy into near total meltdown. It was not high taxes on businesses and corporations that caused the American economy to tank, nor was it an overreliance on social safety nets. And the way out of the mire is not to blindly follow an economic paradigm which has so often and so recently been shown for a fallacy.

What do you like about another four years for Obama?

Seriously, I don't see anything attractive about it. He's got no agenda for the economy, since we're already over our heads in massive debt - we CAN'T do that stimulus money plan again. The Democrats know that Obama's budget is miserable, and won't even bother voting on it.

Nothing to look forward to on the economy.

Foreign policy? A disaster, pretty much. Obama has apologized for us, all around the world, and made us look weak - that really helps a lot in dealing with Al Qaeda and Iran. :rolleyes:

Except for the instances where he's followed Bush's example, he's done nothing good for us. Sat on his ass while they dragged our Ambassador 's body through the streets of Benghazi - all watched by our reconnaissance drone, as it happened.

Ho Hum. The leader of one of the groups that killed our Ambassador, was found right in the Benghazi hotel, having tea, by a New York Times reporter. Ho hum. Yeah! Obama will hunt them bad guys down, all right!! :rolleyes:

I don't see a single thing that Obama has done that's been positive, except allowing gays to serve openly in the military -- that is it.

Close Gitmo? Nope. Get us out of Afghanistan? Nope. Start up a decent nationalized heath care? Nope - it's a disaster. Protect social security or medicare? Nope. He's robbed them of 700 Million dollars and given them an IOU. Hastening the day they go bankrupt. Strengthen our military? Nope, weakened it. Redo the nuclear arms limit treaty? Nope.

He's spent a lot of money on his financial backers - over 800 million (Solendra and A123 alone are over that amount).

He wants to close our coal industry, and limit our oil supply. Fuel is already much higher than it was when he took office.

He won't defend our borders, even though we have SCADS of trafficers crossing it illegally and regularly, with illegals and drugs.

Janet Napolitano (Secretary of Homeland Security), comes down here and tells us we're safer than ever before on the border - right after two murders from the trafficers! What a *ucking tool she is.
(But it's OK, since she doesn't use email yet). :rolleyes:
reason.com/blog/.../its-cute-that-janet-napolitano-avoids-em

She even makes Janet Reno look smart!

I'm in favor of kicking them out if they can't do something a lot more positive for the country, than Obama has. I don't CARE what party they belong to.

Wow. So much bullshit, so little time.

You know sub prime mortgages all came about because of a change in gov't policy to buy them from the banks, without requiring a check of the income of the buyers. You could put down any figure you wanted, no questions asked.

Then the damn derivatives with their tremendous leverages, and next to nothing for collateral. But no, we're not going to stop them! :mad:

That didn't come from the Conservatives! Wasteful spending, and excessive spending, are big problems in out gov't.

Yes, our corporate taxes are first or second highest in the world right now, and it DOES hurt our international business, considerably.

When a huge company like GE can pay $0 in taxes, despite making a large profit, you know our tax loopholes have run amuck - and our politicians are the ones who have made it all possible. THEY will pick the "winners" and the "losers", through the power of their taxation, and if you'd like to be a "winner" you better pony up $$$, and get that lobbyist working for you.

When John Kennedy was facing a recession, he cut taxes big time, across the board (taxes had been quite high in the 50's), and his metaphor was it was like a rising tide, which raises all boats, regardless.

He was right, and it got us into a recovery, MUCH faster than whatever Obama's nonsense is doing. Reagan did it, to stop Carter's recession/stagflation crisis. Clinton cut some spending and taxes as well, when forced by Congress, and it also worked wonders for us, at that time.

So, I could believe your completely unsupported argument, or I could believe my own "lying eyes", of a lot of experience.

Hmmm. Which would you choose to believe? Hot air and hand waving on one hand, or your own eyes, on the other hand?

:cool:

Wow! That's one hell of an intelligent argument, you have there!

Very befitting a liberal. I know how you struggle with the obvious.;)

I don't hate Romney, nor do I hate wealthy people. I happen to be content with my personal level of comfort/wealth.

What I DO hate is prevarication, evasion, word manipulation and outright lying.

And I also hate stacking the deck to give wealthy people, who don't need MORE in order to survive, MORE. Particularly when such deck-stacking is done at the expense of those who DO need MORE.

Yes Adak keeps repeating the same distortions, half truths, and outright lies, over and over hoping they'll be believed by someone that hasn't fact checked his bullshit.

I'm sure he's read this entire thread and knows they've been proven wrong, but keeps repeating them anyway, which proves he's a shill for the party.

Or a troll.

I don't think so, a troll would just be argumentative/disruptive, Adak is trying to sell Romney. I wouldn't rule out a zealous Mormon, however.

He's trolling, true. But I believe he is a true believer, a zealot. And he has a frighteningly large number of like minded small thinking herd voters. They are intellectually weak but vocal and persistent.

Largely false. Money spent on the business is deductible, so it comes out of pretax dollars. Lowering the tax rate could lead to less investment in the business, since you would get to keep a larger share of any money taken out of the business.

To me, its the persistence. If he is actually trying to sell Romney, I think it is clear that this board is a waste of time for him unless he really believes he is convincing people who are not posting.

But I will say he really spiced up the Politics board for the past few weeks.

True. It's been more interesting with him. I think he's enjoying the attention. Has some free time and this gives him something to do. I think he believes in his party and candidate and loves to argue. Doesn't care much about seeking truth or understanding, so he'll bluff his way through an argument when it's a weak one. He just want to win the argument.

Maybe we're the comparative after-school program designed to keep kids busy til parents pick them up so they don't get themselves into deeper trouble. Perhaps this board is keeping him out of situations where could do more damage.

I've enjoyed this thread, for the most part. It's been interesting hearing some different perspectives on economic stuffs. I just lose patience when people wheel out crap like the 'apology tour' and other creations of right-wing punditry.

Sorry, Bruce, I did a very poor job of explaining this point.

I appreciate your no-nonsense approach, and your detailed reply indicated you had put a lot of thought into weighing my comments. Please allow me to go into slightly more depth on this one point.

This is a theory of conflict resolution that I have been mulling over for a few years...

The scenario that I described above is the direct opposite of what I often observe people doing, i.e. when a conflicting opinion is presented, emphasis is placed on a detail which 'proves' that the opinion is wrong. This reinforces the listener's opinion, deflects the speaker's opinion, and maintains the status quo--conflict. The listener may even be boggled by the seemingly outlandish nature of a supporting detail which is required to support the speaker's opinion. The conflicting opinion may be interpreted in such a way as to be so far from feasibility that the speaker must be characterized as foolish or incompetent. This is the frequent course of 'argumentative' discussions.

Now, for a change of routine, what if we were to imagine that the speaker is not unintelligent? Certainly people have had different experiences, and have access to different knowledge than ourselves. If we reverse the normal pattern of conflict, and attempt not to carefully construct a scenario in which the speaker is certainly wrong, but rather the opposite--conceptualize a scenario where the speaker is correct, we have access, albeit tentative or temporarily, to a different thought pattern--we can break ourselves out of our normal bias and preconceptions. Then, we thoroughly test this new theory, making an honest attempt within the boundaries of our own critical thinking techniques, and if we still cannot observe any soundness to the idea, we can 'agree to disagree' --in a civil fashion, having made our best attempt.

When I stated this is "how you learn" I meant, of course, that it is but one of the methods available. Essentially, this is applying a thought experiment to conflict resolution. I respectfully submit that many heavy thinkers, such as Albert Einstein, would have disagreed that you can't learn things through pretending/imagining.

As opposed to the wonderful economic theory that you have proposed! :D :D

I have seen why you guys keep repeating the "same bullshit" however. I believe you have not seen the beauty of a free market capitalist economy, at work. It's undeniable beauty is a real surprise. Just an example to whet your appetite:

a small family is struggling to pay a 402 Euro energy bill each month. They got together with others, found a competing energy company with a better price, and switched to it.

Results? Their energy is now MUCH less. Less than 1/4th of what it had been:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20074216

Notice the elements:

Competing (energy) companies
enlightened consumers acting in their own best interests

And no government agency telling them what they can or can not do, in shopping around for the best price. It's a beautiful thing.

I contrast that with the state I live in - California, and what it has done and still doing, under a heavily liberal state government.

Our energy prices have gone through the roof (there is no competition in the energy market), the "compliant" liberal politicians have all agreed to overly generous pay and retirement benefits for our public sector workers, bankrupting our cities (Stockton for instance, has declared bankruptcy). And our state is billions of dollars in the red.

The response to this problem from our liberal Democrat Governor?
Of course - RAISE TAXES! :( When you live with liberals you get to know what they like:

Raising Taxes "dances"
High Taxes "sing alongs"
"Walkathons for Higher Taxes"

etc. ANY pretext, ANY lie, is good, if it helps a liberal to raise your taxes. Because cutting spending is against their religion, and raising taxes is the only way to keep their socialist dreams alive.

Socialism only works until the money runs out, and they run through our money, like it was water. Why? Because the unions pay them back in re-election money. :mad: The only loser is - US.

I thought you guys were mostly being stubborn and slanted in your views, but I'm beginning to see that you just don't know what Conservatism is all about, in the economy. How beautiful it is. Maybe you've heard about this or that being conservative, and it was ugly, but that's NOT Conservatism.

I'll start a new thread for that.

I'll try and show you, with the help of some links, just what Conservatism is all about. Not just the insane junk that is called Conservatism, by those who are not.

If I'm a "true believer" in Conservatism, it's only because I've seen true Liberalism, and know that it's a true lie. Indeed, in California, we live the lie of true liberalism, every damn day. After about 60 years, you get to know it rather well, and it can't hide it's ugly warts, any more. The money has run out, even before the current recession began.

liberal and socialist are not interchangeable terms.

And none of what you describe is what i would consider either 'true liberalism' or 'true socialism'. You, as a conservative have every right to define what is or is not true conservatism. You don't get to define the same for the other side.

Would you like to hear some of Obama's speeches on audio, where he repeatedly points out that America has "made mistakes in the past"?

Maybe a lot of these same countries would have preferred it if the Soviets still controlled their country? Maybe they would have preferred to be slaves to Hitler, Mussolini, or the Japanese?

What would you call it, if not an apology tour? Because that SURE AS HELL is not what we're used to hearing from our President, speaking to other countries!

It's not an "I'm sorry", but it's not facing the reality that ALL countries make mistakes in foreign policy - not just the USA. Truth is, MANY of the nations in the UN, have truly miserable human rights abuses, or dictators/presidents who have seriously abused their power. And the USA has done a LOT to help other nations, all over the world.

But somehow Obama finds it necessary to point out OUR "mistakes", over and over, around the world?

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/23/po...our/index.html

[...]

And in Turkey:

[...]

[...]



Obama didn't look weak to other nations. He came across as strong enough to be open and honest and move forward with foreign allies. A far cry, true from 'you're either with us or against us', but in no way an 'apology tour'

No, but they can fit into one box - the anti - Conservative box.

I don't live in an apple tree, but I still know what an apple is, thank you. If apples were quite rare, I'd agree with you, but when they're everywhere you look, like liberalism and socialism, you get to know them.

Please, define "True Liberalism" and "True Socialism", but let's do that in a new thread devoted to that topic.

Turkey: That's a good example of what I'm talking about! He's addressing a country that slaughtered the Armenians in the first act of (really major) genocide, in modern times, and refuses to this day to recognize it. And he's talking about the darker period in OUR history??

Wait a second, here!

Saying it once, or saying it in a more private setting, would be OK. Going around the world with basically the same "apology" template in his VERY public speeches, is WAY off the mark.

It may be good for a human (and a country), to acknowledge their shortcomings to themselves, but to proclaim them to the world, all around the world, is unwise, unnecessary, and makes us look like our Commander in Chief is our chief apologist, and ripe for a bit of exploitation.

Actually, I'd truly hesitate do any such thing. I don't believe there really is a 'true socialism' or a 'true liberalism'. That suggests a belief system set in aspic. That's just not really how people and societies work.

These things are contextual and contingent on many factors. The fact that you consider Obama to be verging on the socialist is a case in point. What is 'socialist' or 'liberal' in your political milieu is not necessarily the same as in mine. Nor indeed does every socialist share a carbon copy of each other's beliefs.

Hahahah.

I went tootling around on wiki seeing how liberal and conservative were defined on there and found a few things that made me smile.

First, here's a snippet from the Liberal entry:

But the bit that really made me laugh was fro the Conservative entry:

*chuckles*

Goes to show. In this area, we really are talking a very different language. I have to mentally adjust my political settings when I discuss politics with you guys :)

Sorry, Happy Monkey, you're in the wrong tree!

The whole point is that you won't HAVE money to put into your business, because your customers didn't have the money to buy as much of your widgets.

Because the gov't took more of their money, and the gov't is also taking more of your personal income, also.

Didn't you ever run a small business before? :cool:

It sounds like you're strongly in favor of unions, since that's *precisely* what that group of enlightened consumers have formed. They're engaging in collective action in opposition to a given company. That kind of stance seems unusual for you. Please note in your story that this story is only possible thanks to the "free market". It is the very lack of regulation, the stuff of government action, which costs money, that permitted the energy companies to make confusing and expensive tariff schedules that take advantage of customers. The follow on article from the one you linked to talks about how to expand the success of that unified action by those enlightened customers by increased regulation to make it easier for customers to do this. More regulation? More interference by the government in the "free market"? Is this really what you're crowing about?

So, to sum up, free market bad, unions good, government regulation good.

There may be hope for you yet Adak.

Perhaps I can help with a vernacular translation of Adak's view on Conservative-ish-ism-icity-etc. It really means "No." It is a label to attach to a nostalgic view of something that used to be better than it is (a subjective position). What is is *not* is conserving anything. No saving ....

I'm just gonna stop there. It really isn't a useful label or concept, and it's totally useless in the way Adak uses it. Stereotypes--UHHHN--What are the good for? Absolutely NOTHING! Say it again! /Edwin Starr

Conservatism means never having to apologize.

That was his point. Turkey refuses to acknowledge a darker period in their history, and when encouraging them to do so Obama acknowledges a darker period in our history, showing that a mature country can do it.

And you and Romney complain that he's not following Turkey's lead instead?

He is a Conservative. He cannot apologize.

This right here....this is called "collective bargaining". The conservatives round these parts are doing their best to eliminate such things. You can't tell me that collective bargaining is fine when it's the consumer and oh...totally unfair when it's employees. It's the same idea. It's a matter of, "if you want us (as your employers or customers), you give us _____ at what we collectively feel is a fair price.".

Who is the real Mitt Romney?

We've heard lots of opinions, lots of generalizations, a few details, plenty of contradictions. There are many voices clamoring for our attention, claiming, usually by naked assertion that he's the best. I am trying to understand their reasoning, and one major tool I use to gain understanding is to consider who's doing the talking. And that has been difficult to discern when it comes to the Romney campaign.

It's not just Romney out there saying "Vote for me!", but lots of other people, but they're largely invisible, like Clint Eastwood's foil. Look at all the money being spent for each campaign. More importantly, look at who is spending it. The vast majority of the money being spent in favor of Romney's campaign was collected anonymously. I have serious doubts about why this is a good idea.

If Romney's your guy, enough that you'd spend millions of dollars to help him get elected, why wouldn't you want your name known in that effort? To me, the clearest reason is that you don't want people to associate your name with Romney's. Why not? Why not? Perhaps you're shy. Or maybe you think that voters who look at Romney and wonder who else is supporting him will be turned off by his association with you. For example, I don't think the Koch brothers, just to use an example, have the same priorities as I do for the President. And if they're supporting Romney, then I think Romney's less appealing.

Now let's look at who's spending what.

Those undisclosed donors are overwhelmingly Republican, almost thirty times more! Why? What are they hiding? Who are they hiding from? It seems absolutely clear to me that Romney knows who's giving him these many millions, so, his "debt" to them is known. But I don't know to whom he will be beholden. That troubles me. I think much of this money is corporate spending, and despite the fact that I need a job, I have no illusions that "the company" exists for my benefit. What is good for them is only sometimes good for me. This is based on my own personal experience as well as a lifetime of learning from the mistakes of others. Class warfare? You betcha. And this is a stealth attack.

There's so much that is unknown about Romney, so many details missing, and so many contradictory statements out there. It is not possible to know the real Mitt Romney, who is bankrolling him, and what they will want from him as President. You want my vote? You have to give me good information. All I hear from Romney is "Trust me." That's not a fact, it's a line used by people who want something from me. Their secrecy speaks more about them than they wish it did though.

We don't know the real Mitt Romney, and that's just the way he wants it. No thanks.

Put on your foreign policy hat for a moment. Understand that to many politicians, around the world, the foreign policy they use is based on a zero sum game: your nation's loss, is my nation's gain (or at least, could be).

So, especially for the U.S., if you travel 'round the world making statements that are taken for introspective reflections of a weak moment, nations that are watching very carefully, react accordingly.

This is the problem that Carter got into with Iran. They saw him as weak (in his military attitude), and decided to overrun the embassy in Tehran, and take our personnel hostages for over a year.

Clinton had some of the same problem in Africa, and in dealing with Osama Bin Laden. Things were going well here, and he just didn't put much effort into finding those responsible for attacks on our embassies in Africa, etc. Clinton says "I would have killed Osama, if I could have found him".

Well Bill, you won't find him, because you're not looking very much. Bin Laden was 6ft. 4inches or so, and in the Middle East, that stands out. You could have found him. Also, he's pretty famous thereabouts.

It's all fine to be a historian, and reflect on these things, in private, or even in a book. It's not fine to go around the world, and do it, as the representative of your country, in public speeches.

No American voted for Obama, to be our apologist. He is our President, damnit! He can apologize until he's blue in the face, when he becomes a private citizen again.

"A time for every purpose under heaven". This was a poor time to reflect on the shortcomings of America's past.

P.S. Almost every nation has had slavery at some time or other. It's not like we were the only one's using it. Same with the Native Americans. They drove weaker tribes off the lands they wanted, whenever they deemed it wise to do so. Some tribes were completely destroyed.

The Sioux for example, were weaker, at one time, and were driven out of their homelands by the stronger Sac and Fox tribe (Mesquakie-Sauk), onto the plains. Many died from starvation (they were eating grass to survive, at times), before they learned the new skills they needed to survive.

The Indians understood completely. That was their practice, as well, (to drive out their enemies from land they wanted), for thousands of years. And no, they were not gentle about it.

We learned better torture techniques, from the Indians (without any equipment). We learned the practice of taking scalps, and drying them on little hoops, from the Indians.

If Obama wins the election, and you're listed as a Romney donor, you could face a big problem: IRS, FTC, SEC, ATF, Homeland Security, etc.

And please, don't say it couldn't happen - it's already happening to those who have disagreed with Obama.

Romney's donors are largely businesses. Lots of businesses do business with some gov't agency.

You get the connection clearly, of course. They would be cut off from work with the federal gov't, if Obama wins re-election, if their names were known.

Hard to believe, after reading that Joe the Plumber was audited by the IRS, shortly after asking Obama an embarrassing question in public, that you can't figure this stuff out.

Like Romney (and Obama) regarding China?

Better question, no, observation. I think this is how you see the world. If I or my team/color/Liberalism has a valid point, it is a direct loss for you. This is not how the real world operates. It's a dumb way to move through the world, but I can see that view is complimentary with much of your other statements.

Viewing foreign policy in this zero-sum way is stupid. How much do you think you'd accomplish by dominating your host? Is this the kind of dumbass headspace Romney was coming from when he insulted the Olympic organizers in London? He wanted to make sure the sum was in AMERICA'S favor? You look ridiculous in that hat Adak. Please take it off, you're scaring the United Nations.

Do you live in a bunker?

---

The mind boggles at the comic, no, FARCICAL insanity of this statement.

Let's see. Romney's Obama's "public enemy number one", right? Is he being investigated to death? IRS, FTC, SEC, ATF, Homeland Security? What about Ryan? Clint Eastwood? Sean Hannity? My cousin?

You're a joke, man.

You never heard of "Gunboat Diplomacy"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_diplomacy

Foreign policy is not the peaches and creme and intellectual exercise that you seem to believe it is.

I didn't say foreign policy was brilliant - just what is IS.

Friendly nations do better, of course. US and UK -- but still, we have spies in the UK, and the UK has spies in the US. Even during WWII, both the US and the UK did not share everything they learned, with each other. (a lot, but not everything).

US and Israel -- same thing, only much worse. They've damaged us a lot with their spying, and eroded a lot of good will in the US, with it.

Yes. Romney has been investigated by several lawyers, working for Obama. Unfortunately for Obama, Romney's clean. Chicago politics (where you find something in the opponents past and bring it out), hasn't worked against Romney.

This is how Obama got elected to his Illinois seat, you may recall. His opponent was ruined.

I see you edited your post to add more nonsense.

btw, is this you? jdang307? He sounds just as kooky as you do.

one at a time, ok?

Businesses are romney's donors, largely. you're implying they would be cut off from work from the federal government because they backed obama's opponent.

...

well, I thought I had the strength to refute this, but I don't.

******

joe the plumber is audited.

y'know, it's dark outside where I live. this is OBVIOUSLY the nefarious work of Mitt Romney, personally, to extinguish the sun, in an underhanded attempt to make solar energy fail. Why does he hate America?!

Same thing, right? You should look up causation and correlation and coincidence. I leave the finding the definitions and examples as an exercise for the student.

good night.

is that how he got elected to his current seat?

No, I believe a lot of us were glad to have a smart charismatic guy in the White House, after having 8 years of Bush.

Unfortunately, Obama couldn't stay behind his charisma, he had to show some policy, and that was his undoing.

Having Bill Ayres visit the White House? Never ever would I have believed that possible.

Countries do not base their foreign policy on rhetoric. At least Russia, China, Iran, or Pakistan don't.

Not true.

Admitting past mistakes is often seen as a sign of strength, not weakness. I don't know of anyone outside the US who saw those speeches as a sign of weakness. Only Republicans do.

He never apologized. You are wrong.

Disagree. There are two types of power: hard power and soft power. Obama's speeches, along with other things, gave the US a huge boost in soft power. I can almost guarantee that McCain would not be able to get as tough of sanctions against Iran as Obama did.

So why are you insecure about admitting it if everyone did it?

Good thing we don't live in the pre-1800's, huh?

Did you know that the South succeeded from the US because they thought the North was weak?

Did you know that Hitler invaded Poland because he thought they US was weak?

Did you know that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait because he thought the US was weak?

Did you know that Osama Bin Laden attacked the US because he thought the US was weak?

Strength and weakness are relative things. If other Presidents of major powers were touring the world acknowledging their nations past errors, over and over - then OK. But that's not the case, is it?

Now, compared to past Presidents, and Presidents of other major nations, our country appears weaker - and yes, terrorist groups and other nations, watch and analyze what the President says, and how he says it, as well.

For example, Saddam Hussein DID believe, based on the comments of the President and Sec. of State, that we would not intervene with his take over of Kuwait, militarily.

Are you arguing that if we appear weak, we're really improving the odds for peace (peace through weakness?), and the nice terrorists will leave us alone?

That's REALLY interesting logic you have there! :rolleyes: Worked really well when the UK tried it when Chamberlain was in office, and tried it again with the Falklands, didn't it? :rolleyes:

Care to try it again? Is there a certain number of lessons needed before you learn it's not working?

You kind of fell down the rabbit hole there didn't ya?

I fail to see how our foreign policy in the past four years could be considered weak? It is is only Republicans that believe that.

I'm offended that Rmoney keeps insisting that America is not the best damn country in the whole wide world. He's a fucking traitor, that's what he is. We are perfect, thanks to Mr. Obama.

Who else is trying to take advantage of our less than stellar foreign policy?

1) North Korea, which continues to expand it's range of ICBM's, despite it warnings from the UN and the US, not to. Next will be a nuclear bomb test. This is after shelling an island belonging to South Korea (which is our ally, and where we station more than ten thousand troops).

2) Al Qaeda and it's related terrorists groups in Cairo and Benghazi, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Yemen, and Mali, etc.

3) China, which continues to push for ownership of a vast area of sea between itself and Japan, and between itself and the Philippines.

4) Syria, which knows we don't have the stomach to support the rebels. Finally, we are starting to arm them.

5) Al Shabab, (an Al Qaeda linked group), who could be crushed in Somalia right now, if we gave the legitimate gov't a little help.

6) Argentina, which is calling on all South American countries to blacklist every shipping company that serves the Falklands. It has several nations signed up for this.

7) Rwanda, which is supporting a terrorist army in the Congo. We have soldiers in country to find and stop the terrorist army.

8) Iran, where the mullah's continue to thumb their nose at the US and the international community, by refining nuclear material, and supporting terrorist groups. Latest effort was to kill with a bomb, the intelligence chief in Lebanon. He was investigating the murder of his father -- chief suspect: Iran.

And much much more.

There is ALWAYS movement on the foreign affairs front. Nations are always jockeying for a better position. Various groups that want a country of their own, are always plotting ways to get one, by violence. We don't hear much about it, because diplomatic efforts, and the efforts to unravel them by force, are made sub rosa, whenever possible.

I don't believe that Obama's administration has been a foreign policy disaster. I simply argue that his planned fleet reductions and foreign policy, will leave us weaker. Despite some more capable ships we have now, we can't have a ship or fleet in the Pacific, help with a problem in the Atlantic or Mediterranean, despite the assurances of Obama. It's crazy that he would use that as a defense, in the foreign policy debate.

Cite.

you sound like romney--holycrabcakes! it's scary out there, scary people, be afraaaaiiiid!!!

So, back to your list. I challenge you to name one from that list that wouldn't be there even if we had a "stellar" foreign policy.

Adak, your arguments have no reference point and therefore are worthless.

First, if these state and non-state actors were extremely passive before 2009 and then suddenly became aggressive after 2009 you would have point. That hasn't happened. State and non-state actors have tested every American president since FDR. There is no fundamental difference from what is occurring during Obama's term and prior terms.


Second, if other state and non-state actors did become more aggressive, you would need to make sure that it was due (or partly due) to a belief of American weakness and not outside factors. For example, Islamic terrorists did not just start believing America was weak in the 1990's with that belief increasing in time. An outside factor led to an increase in attacks in the 1990's and that is continuing until today.

We are escorting American flagged oil tankers, in the Gulf of Persia, with a fleet of Navy ships, because Iran has threatened to attack them. That's been all over the news.

But we also need a fleet to support our efforts in Afghanistan, and we need other Navy ships to help control the Pirates raiding around the Horn of Africa (and all the way down to the Seychelles).

A Cruiser in the Gulf of Persia, can't assist in the anti Pirating work, nor can that ship (no matter how advanced it is), assist in Afghanistan, if it's at sea, near the Horn of Africa.

And certainly we can't assist anywhere in the Mediterranean Sea, if our fleet is running exercises with the Japanese Navy or South Korea, or the Philippine or Australian Navy.

No matter how advanced your ships are, they can't be two or more places, at the same time.

Kicking a dead horse to make it run again, has no reference points either, but it's common sense that it won't avail you anything.

Yes, there are a plethora of other factors - always are in foreign policy. In general however, we've seen the losses we've had when we were not strong. They don't build up in a straight line, but they do build up, over time.

Believing something different will result, after you've take the same action over and over, is a sure sign of a liberal (and therefore a simple and naive) philosophy.

OK. I'll pick Somalia. Al Shabob is on the run atm. With a push from us, they'd be out of business.

Are you a child to believe that these "bad actors" won't ever attack us or our allies?

North Korea MILITARY (not the government), just told South Korea that if any helium balloon leaflets were sent over the DMZ, they would open fire with artillery "mercilessly". And "the PRK Army never speaks without acting".

Does that sound like the idyllic foreign relations paradise you seem to believe in?

Wake up! :eek:
Read up!: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20000970

Quote:
Cite.

You said Obama used as a defense in the foreign policy debate that a ship in the Pacific can help with a problem in the Atlantic or the Mediterranean.

I'd like you to provide a citation for this statement, please. Absent a citation I will consider it another one of your fearmongering smears.