FB friend R.W. posted this:
B.R.: Have you seen the breakdown of what created that new federal debt? Do you know how much is actually attributed to Obama's policies, and how much was put into motion before he took office?
K.B.: For the first time in US history, we fought a war without raising taxes to pay for it. A dumb move, and Bush built it.
We fought two wars at the same time. Again, no tax increases to pay for it. The GAO said the bill was approximately $8 billion a week to run these twin fiascoes. Again, Bush built it.
We decided to pay for these wars by borrowing money. The Chinese have been speedily and happily buying up our debt. Again, Bush built it.
Now, I am very, very disappointed in Obama for PERPETUATING these actions. He's guilty for continuing it. He's not guilty of starting it.
B.R.: Kevin I agree with you. I wouldn't say I'm satisfied with all of Obama's reactions to his inherited problems, but it's fallacious and dishonest to deal him the guilt for those problems. It would be much less misleading and manipulative to say "Obama hasn't done a good enough job of fixing what was broken before he got there" than to say "Obama broke it".
Me: Obama as a senator voted in favor of every budget and every bail-out.
K.B.: Believe me, I could make a list of things Obama has done (and hasn't done) that have disappointed me. But you can't lay this massive war-built debt at his door.
We lead the world in military spending. We spend more money on defense than the next thirty-six countries, combined. And Romney and Ryan have promised they'll spend more. Where -- exactly -- is that money going to come from?
B.R.: Exactly - if we're going to attack Obama for his record, we need to do it accurately and without manipulating the facts. Just as importantly, if we're going to attack his record during an election year, we need to be able to justify why the other guys would be any better. Electing Romney/Ryan just because of dissatisfaction with Obama is a pretty foolish prospect. Now if they could only tell us what their plans woud be if elected, we could judge one against the other.See More
Me: Lest we forget, Obama the candidate supported the Afghanistan war. He also said that we would be ought of Iraq in 18 months, so we can say he supported that war to some degree. He also started a war in Libya, and did not close Gitmo. We must conclude, then, that Obama is not anti-war.
K.B.: Who said Obama is anti-war? I'M anti-war!! Me!! I'm especially against fighting wars without figuring out how to pay for them. As I said in my previous post, I'm not happy with Obama for perpetuating this unfunded fiasco.
Obama started a war in Libya?!? Hmm ... better fact-check that one. Libya underwent a revolt, and we played wait-and-see.
Me: K.B., the world does not revolve around you. I stated some assertions and came to the conclusion that Obama is not anti-war. That has nothing to do with you.
Libya underwent a revolt, we entered the fray and that made it a war.
K.B.: Read. Evaluated. Still disagree. This was a full-blown war before we had anything to do with it. Except for Odyssey Dawn and Ellamy, we pretty much stayed out of it.
B.R.: Rich, how would you have preferred Obama handle Libya?
Me: Was a revolt, now a full blown war. Gotcha.
Me: Stay the hell out. Same with Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We have no business invading sovereign countries, overthrowing governments, or meddling in their affairs.
K.B.: I noticed "Iran" wasn't on that list, and Romney has had some very threatening words for Iran.
Well, we've all had our history lesson on Libya. Turning the conversation back to the future, my question stands: We are deeply, hideously in debt. How are Romney's and Ryan's promises to increase military spending going to help that? Where -- I repeat -- is that money going to come from?
B.R.: Rich - "We have no business" - I couldn't agree more. Ironically, it's our business ambitions that usually lead us into those conflicts in the first place...
Me: *Sigh* Iran. Happy?
I'm no supporter of big military budgets. But it only amounts to 19% of the federal budget. It needs to be cut, and a lot of other things. We need a 20% overall cut for 5 straight years. Everything. SS. Medicare. Welfare. Military. We need to eliminate many more. Department of education. NEA. ATF. DOE. EPA. FBI. IRS. Farm subsidies. Green energy. And that's just a start.
B.R.: Those programs you think should be eliminated - you're not worried about negative repercussions? For instance, it's pretty undeniable that eliminating the EPA would increase pollution and accelerate depletion of natural resources.
K.B.: I'm happy. And I think we've found some common ground.
I was in the military for seven years, and I guarantee you the military is a playground for fraud, waste and abuse. Even "popular" things, such as the Blue Angels (shiny, pretty, awesome, cool) are a grotesque waste of money. It's amazing how much could be accomplished with the money saved if even one-third of the fat was cut.
Me: B.R., whether or not the EPA has reduced pollution is debatable. I don't happen to think so. But the reason it's on my list is not to debate its supposed success, but because the budget needs to be cut, and it is an expensive program.
K.B.: Again, we concur! Maybe it's an eclipse, or something.
So, so much of government needs to be ripped down, made better, and started over from scratch.
My favorite example: whose bright idea was it to lump Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives together? That's not a government agency; that's a bureaucratic manticore.
Me: K.B., I am happy as well, since it has been a difficult thing to get any leftist to admit the national debt is a problem until recent years. And then the solution always proposed was raising taxes, which never works. So the fact that we are discussing budget cuts at all means that conservative ideas are gaining traction, due to the sheer weight of the problem, and the failures of conventional big government prescriptions.
K.B.: We need to:
Pay more taxes (and specifically earmark that money to pay down our debt) -- and roll back taxes once the debt is at manageable levels.
Get serious about reorganizing our bloated government
Quit running the DoD as if it were the Pac 10
Identify and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse on all levels
Vastly reorganize and simplify our regulations. Examples: so many people are in this country illegally because being her legally is so darned complicated. Business regulations are so confusing and so contradictory it's a miracle anyone even tries to comply with them. The tax code is a nightmare that needs major overhaul.
Cease the expensive and futile war on drugs.
Make marriage equality a nation-wide reality, so we can take in more revenue on marriage licenses.
Invest in foreign policy, so we can desist in bombing everyone we don't agree with/understand.
B.R.: Rich, regarding the EPA, It's not so much about reducing pollution as it is about regulating limits, so that companies whose intentions would threaten our pollution levels are kept in check. I believe there does need to be official government representation overseeing our goal to not screw over our environment or run out of resources, because without that representation, there's no comforting evidence that oil or coal companies will regulate themselves.
Me: K.B., I agree with everything except pay more in taxes. Has never worked. But I will compromise with you. I will agree to any and all tax increase you want when the government's expenditure in any of the next five years is less than it took in. That would be measured, by the way, as a reduction in the national debt, and that even Clinton was not able to achieve.
Me: The EPA is not needed to regulate limits. Congress is the body charged with passing laws.
K.B.: I firmly support what the EPA does. I am utterly appalled at how it does it.
The Environmental Protection Agency is a golden example of an entity that needs to be re-made from the ground up. Less waste. More efficient operation. Simpler, non-conflicting regulations. Lean, streamlined staffing and operations.
We can't just chuck the organization and expect industry to police itself in a framework of enlightened self-interest. Human Nature would quickly steer us down a path where we would poison ourselves out of existence, all in the name of making a buck.
Me: Human nature? You mean legislating morality?
K.B.: Not legislating morality. Legislating public safety. Legislating clean air and clean water. Because Industry simply can't be trusted to do it themselves. A man's morals are his own personal property, but the environment belongs to everybody. It's a public resource that has to be managed for the public good. But it sure has to be done better than the EPA is doing it right now.
Me: Wait a sec. You applied the phrase "human nature." If corporations are governed by human nature, then they must have free speech rights?
No comments:
Post a Comment