McCain Vs. Obama.

[Achilles]

I think "borrowed" is a slight misunderstanding. We auction off treasury bonds and China buys them. If China ever decides to dump them, they will do so at a loss.

 

The problem we face is that just like any system of supply and demand, the more we produce, the less value they have. So don't worry about China trying to cash in. Worry about what happens to our economy when they stop buying (and/or how this effects the likelihood that we'll be able to slap them around if they deserve it).

 

Sorry for interrupting. Please continue.

[Rev7]

The cost of the original equipment isn't as great as the upkeep. Although I would discourage extravagant expenditures of money on pointless fighters like the F-22, it would make more sense to reduce the level of upkeep required to operate so many fighters.

 

And fighters are only a small fraction of the whole military budget. Consider the sheer number of people the military employs and stack that on top of fuel, food, equipment, repairs, and other expenses and you'll realize that the capital costs don't represent all the spending that goes on in the military.

 

PS. The F-15's and F-16's are decades old and upgrading them can't conquer their age. I encourage it before buying a generation 5 fighter, but aging fighters eventually have to be retired.

This is definately something that I know DY. This is like all that I do on my free time. I was thinking more along the lines of really re-vamping the fighters. Yes aging fighters do need to be retired, but why not get the most out of them as we can? I mean the F-16 is scheduled to stay in service until 2025. The F-15 Eagle is also scheduled to remain in service until 2025. Yes, they are aging. Most of the world's air forces are not 5th generation, though, and won't be for quite some time if at all. At worse we could re-open production and make huge upgrades on them. At worse. Saves money.

 

We have that option, or we could just continue to keep producing 5th generation fighters. I do have to tell you though, what they can do is literally unbelieveable. And that is just the little bit that the military is showing us.

@Darth_Yuthura and Rev: Aren't you guys a bit off topic?

Ya, I guess so. What we (or I) am talking about could save us some money though.

[Totenkopf]

Believe what you want

 

Don't we all, though.....

 

but you should also remember the (current) Iraq debacle was created by the Bush administration.

 

Just a little thought.

 

Never contended otherwise.

 

@mimartin--actually, not wrong. Didn't contend that 135k+ troops weren't enough to knock out the Iraqi govt. Franks performed well given his limitations. What I contended was that staying longer than just decapitating the govt was where they failed. Given the drawdown in US personel during the 90s, the active forces were insufficient for an occupation force. Limits of a peacetime military, I suppose. While the surge has helped, it's been a bumpy ride.

 

I already gave you an explanation. Your response was essentially that since all the other government expenditures are filled with pork and useless crap it's okay for the defense budget to spend massive amounts of money on useless crap. Truly an example of FLAWLESS LOGIC.

 

Actually, jmac, that's YOUR interpretation of my remarks. So much for your "flawless logic". Btw, you also failed to explain anything, just made a nebulous pronouncement about BO and his (hoped for) ability to make us safer. Nice try, I suppose.

 

@WR--actually, wouldn't make 911 claim anyway. While that was certainly a dramatic way to shake things up, our enemies can afford to be a lot more subtle than that and still be deadly effective. America's openness has always beeen its Achilles heel.

 

As an aside, Reagan was also actively (but unsuccessfully) advised not to make the Evil Empire comment. He did anyway and the USSR was no more not too long afterward. If Bush had merely stuck to rhetoric, the "axis of evil" comment would have been largely forgotten not too long afterward. TR had it right a century ago, speak softly but carry a BIG stick (and have the will to use it, too).

 

At the current rate of things I see two possible courses: Americans lose their rights in the name of being protected from foreign enemies or they lose their rights to an increasingly suffocating govt that seeks to "protect" them from life.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Actually, jmac, that's YOUR interpretation of my remarks.

Damn, I thought it was my neighbor's interpretation of your remark

 

So much for your "flawless logic".

Well, perfection is the enemy of progress.

 

Btw, you also failed to explain anything

I didn't fail to explain anything, from what I've gathered (and I haven't read a large portion of this thread so correct me if I'm wrong), you said Obama would make the U.S. less safe by lowering the defense budget, I said even if he lowered it he would most likely decrease the amount of needless spending (outsourcing of jobs normally given to military personnel, etc) and use the lowered defense budget more efficiently. In addition I believe his policy of actual considering talking to countries we have a less than perfect relationship with will go a long way in the eyes of the international community. I also believe that this policy is far better than our current policy (and McCain's policy) of bombing the people who are pissed at us for bombing them/helping the people bombing them and sending more soldiers into the region full of people pissed at us for having soldiers there.

 

just made a nebulous pronouncement about BO and his (hoped for) ability to make us safer.

Hey it's just like your pronouncement that McCain will make us safer because he's older and was in Vietnam and and talks bigger. I respect the man for having served his country and would have loved for him to have been elected in 2000 instead of Bush. This time around though, an entirely different McCain is running. In my eyes, he is a sell-out who sacrificed most of what he stood for in 2000 for the GOP nomination.

 

In the end, neither of us knows who will do what, candidates will promise to fellate anyone who votes for them in an attempt to win (calling that this happens if anyone with supermodel looks ever runs), and neither of us knows how their policies will actually play out or if they'll even stand by their policies when/if they they win the election. The paragraph above should explain why this is relevant and why it adds to my reluctance to support McCain.

 

Nice try, I suppose.

Back at you, I love when people ignore what others say in a discussion and act like that is an argument unto itself.

[mimartin]

I think "borrowed" is a slight misunderstanding. [/Quote] No, it is not a misunderstanding, it is an overly simplification of the term.

We auction off treasury bonds and China buys them. If China ever decides to dump them, they will do so at a loss.[/Quote] Unless they hold them until maturity in which case we will owe the face amount of the bond. Since the treasury bonds mature at different times, it is like making payments on the debt and the yield paid at maturity is the interest.

 

If we borrow too much, then the risk will go up and we will have to sell the bonds at a greater discounted rate in order to get the world markets to purchase them. This will also cause interest rates to go up in the consumer markets.

The problem we face is that just like any system of supply and demand, the more we produce, the less value they have. So don't worry about China trying to cash in. Worry about what happens to our economy when they stop buying (and/or how this effects the likelihood that we'll be able to slap them around if they deserve it)..

Agreed, but I'm also worried about the ‘real’ and the ‘perceived’ risk of our debt and how it is seen in the world market.

[Totenkopf]

Damn, I thought it was my neighbor's interpretation of your remark

 

I'm pretty sure it was yours. Fact is, though, you seem to be putting a lot of words in my mouth.

 

I didn't fail to explain anything, from what I've gathered (and I haven't read a large portion of this thread so correct me if I'm wrong), you said Obama would make the U.S. less safe by lowering the defense budget, I said even if he lowered it he would most likely decrease the amount of needless spending (outsourcing of jobs normally given to military personnel, etc) and use the lowered defense budget more efficiently. In addition I believe his policy of actual considering talking to countries we have a less than perfect relationship with will go a long way in the eyes of the international community. I also believe that this policy is far better than our current policy (and McCain's policy) of bombing the people who are pissed at us for bombing them/helping the people bombing them and sending more soldiers into the region full of people pissed at us for having soldiers there.

 

 

Actually, you inferred a lot of it. I asked you to explain how reducing the budget was going to give about the same or more "actual defense" and you dropped the ball. All I said about the defense budget was that I thought it could be allocated a lot more efficiently and gave a few specific examples of what I meant. From that you concluded that I said "throw money at it". Also, like your candidate, you were long on hopeful statements and short on details about how he could make us any safer.

 

The problem isn't that there's no dialogue between us and our enemies, but that BO has declared he will set no conditions whatsoever and take the use of force off the table as a negoiating tool. I also have to question the sanity and integrity of a man who asserts he was aginst the war in Iraq but then states he would attack Pakistan. Where's the logic in that? >160 million people (w/nukes) in very mountainous terrain vs ~25 million in a flatter country. BO sure can pick 'em. The following is a good example of the limitations of "dialogue". Sometimes it just goes nowhere, esp if the other guy doubts your resolve.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080826/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear

 

 

Hey it's just like your pronouncement that McCain will make us safer because he's older and was in Vietnam and and talks bigger. I respect the man for having served his country and would have loved for him to have been elected in 2000 instead of Bush. This time around though, an entirely different McCain is running. In my eyes, he is a sell-out who sacrificed most of what he stood for in 2000 for the GOP nomination.

 

Putting words in my mouth again. Never brought up McCain. As I've said elsewhere, don't even know how he got selected. Merely trust BO less than McCain (which ain't saying much).

 

 

 

 

In the end, neither of us knows who will do what, candidates will promise to fellate anyone who votes for them in an attempt to win (calling that this happens if anyone with supermodel looks ever runs), and neither of us knows how their policies will actually play out or if they'll even stand by their policies when/if they they win the election. The paragraph above should explain why this is relevant and why it adds to my reluctance to support McCain.

 

Still not clear about what you see specifically about BO other than he's not Bush/McCain. You're right that no one can see the future, but then I still wouldn't trust a pedophile to watch children (even though I couldn't say with certainty that he or she would actually do anything w/o oversight). Given what I know about BO and his background, I couldn't vote for him even if I wanted too.

 

Back at you, I love when people ignore what others say in a discussion and act like that is an argument unto itself.

 

Enjoyed your strawmen too.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Actually, you inferred a lot of it. I asked you to explain how reducing the budget was going to give about the same or more "actual defense" and you dropped the ball. All I said about the defense budget was that I thought it could be allocated a lot more efficiently and gave a few specific examples of what I meant. From that you concluded that I said "throw money at it". Also, like your candidate, you were long on hopeful statements and short on details about how he could make us any safer.

Seriously doubt any of his "savings" would end up being spent on anything other than boondoggles like Steven's "bridge to nowhere"/ Murtha's train museum or any other pork (either side of aisle) you can think of.

This seems to me like you're saying we shouldn't try to spend more efficiently or any attempts to do so would fail?

 

The problem isn't that there's no dialogue between us and our enemies, but that BO has declared he will set no conditions whatsoever and take the use of force off the table as a negoiating tool. I also have to question the sanity and integrity of a man who asserts he was aginst the war in Iraq but then states he would attack Pakistan. Where's the logic in that? >160 million people (w/nukes) in very mountainous terrain vs ~25 million in a flatter country. BO sure can pick 'em. The following is a good example of the limitations of "dialogue". Sometimes it just goes nowhere, esp if the other guy doubts your resolve.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080826/ap_on_re_as/koreas_nuclear

There's no dialogue with our enemies because we've made no attempt to open dialogue with them. As for Pakistan, I wasn't aware we started picking countries to invade based solely on how easily we could defeat them. And the article on North Korea you linked seemed to say that we didn't hold up our end of the deal so North Korea said it would restart its nuclear energy program.

 

Putting words in my mouth again. Never brought up McCain. As I've said elsewhere, don't even know how he got selected. Merely trust BO less than McCain (which ain't saying much).

I assumed not Obama meant McCain.

 

 

Still not clear about what you see specifically about BO other than he's not Bush/McCain. You're right that no one can see the future, but then I still wouldn't trust a pedophile to watch children (even though I couldn't say with certainty that he or she would actually do anything w/o oversight). Given what I know about BO and his background, I couldn't vote for him even if I wanted too.

Pretty much the only thing I see in him is that he's not Bush/McCain and if I were to vote I'd vote for him because I hate McCain and not because I like Obama.

[Achilles]

No, it is not a misunderstanding, it is an overly simplification of the term.

FWIW, I was addressing the post above yours. Apologies for any confusion.

 

Unless they hold them until maturity in which case we will owe the face amount of the bond. Since the treasury bonds mature at different times, it is like making payments on the debt and the yield paid at maturity is the interest.

That is true, but again, I was trying to address the misperception that we're "borrowing" money from China the way I might borrow money from a friend. The reality is much different. China can't just up and demand their money back at any time.

 

If we borrow too much, then the risk will go up and we will have to sell the bonds at a greater discounted rate in order to get the world markets to purchase them. This will also cause interest rates to go up in the consumer markets.

Precisely. Thanks for expanding on this.

 

Agreed, but I'm also worried about the ‘real’ and the ‘perceived’ risk of our debt and how it is seen in the world market.

As am I. The reality is that no one is any under obligation to finance our nation (except us, I suppose). If we don't get our financial bearings, we're screwed.

 

On a side note: The U.S. paid off most of its debt after WWII by selling bonds to citizens. I might be inclined to particpate in something like that today if I didn't fear that the gov't would just use the money to bomb the bejesus out of more countries.

[mimartin]

FWIW, I was addressing the post above yours. Apologies for any confusion. [/Quote] No need to apologize, I deal with the public all day at work and I get use to letting simple things go by in the name of customer service. It was my bad for leaving thing overly simplified. I would not have responded if I thought I had not done something wrong.

 

On a side note: The U.S. paid off most of its debt after WWII by selling bonds to citizens. I might be inclined to particpate in something like that today if I didn't fear that the gov't would just use the money to bomb the bejesus out of more countries.

Well that all going to depend on who is elected isn't it. I would be willing to participate too, provide I had that guarantee and something larger than a 41/2 yield.

[Totenkopf]

This seems to me like you're saying we shouldn't try to spend more efficiently or any attempts to do so would fail?

 

No, just that I doubt any "savings" he would generate from slashing the military budget wouldn't be wasted in the first place on other crap that was unnecessary.

 

There's no dialogue with our enemies because we've made no attempt to open dialogue with them. As for Pakistan, I wasn't aware we started picking countries to invade based solely on how easily we could defeat them. And the article on North Korea you linked seemed to say that we didn't hold up our end of the deal so North Korea said it would restart its nuclear energy program.

 

The point about NK is that talking often ends up yielding nothing. Also, the NKs wanted bilateral negotiations w/the US (like under the Clinton, where they cheated massively), but this administration chose a multilateral approach instead. Hence an apparent deadend. Iran's "negotiations" with the EU show pretty much the same thing...the futility of thinking your enemy/adversary is going to do what you want b/c you took the time to sit and talk. You obviously missed the point about Pakistan. If you think that a war based on tenuous evidence with a smaller power is illegal or illogical, you can't credibly suggest taking on an even bigger country where the situation is even murkier. Plain insane.

 

 

 

 

I assumed not Obama meant McCain.

 

I noticed.

 

Pretty much the only thing I see in him is that he's not Bush/McCain and if I were to vote I'd vote for him because I hate McCain and not because I like Obama.

 

Proving that what I've said elsewhere, this is an election about who you're (generically speaking)voting against--rather than for. I suspect a lot of people are voting against the "other guy" rather than for their choice.

 

-----------------------------------------------

On a side note: The U.S. paid off most of its debt after WWII by selling bonds to citizens. I might be inclined to particpate in something like that today if I didn't fear that the gov't would just use the money to bomb the bejesus out of more countries.

 

...or more pork barrel projects on the domestic side either. I think that's one of the reasons a lot of people are opposed to higher taxes for, say, infrastructure repair or paying down the debt. No one really believes it would be spent on those problems.

[El Sitherino]

That's why you vote closer to what fits your ideals until it comes.

 

You can't have everything you want the moment you demand it, some things you have to work for.

[Totenkopf]

Fair enough, but sort of irrelevant. Sometimes the guy "closer" to your ideals only seems that way b/c the other guy is so far, thus presenting you with a Hobson's choice.

[Arcesious]

So we know the problems of all of this... What is the solution? Because it sounds that, no matter how we do it, we still have economic collapse.

[Achilles]

We only have economic collapse if nothing changes. If people start being smarter with their money and demanding more accountability from their government, then we'll probably be fine. Unfortunately, I suspect that many of us will continue to vote against our own best interests because we don't care to know better.

[mimartin]

IMO – The number one thing we must do is survive 146 more days. Whoever is elected will have to change our course.

 

Personally, I not going to predict what McCain or Obama will do as President. I would never have guess George W Bush would have stripped away liberties, incurred a massive debt, stated an unnecessary war or been such a polarizing figure when I voted for him 8 years ago. As governor of Texas, he had brought both parties together and fought to reduce the state’s debt.

 

Sure, you are going to hear others preach against the Democrats spending, but look at what the Republicans did when they controlled congress with a Republican President. Look at the two Presidents that ran up more debt during their terms than all the other Presidents in the history of this country combined. History speaks for itself despite the rhetoric.

[Arcesious]

Well Obama's most recent speech was great, but it seesm that, in order to sway religious voters, he alienated the unreligious.

[El Sitherino]

Well Obama's most recent speech was great, but it seesm that, in order to sway religious voters, he alienated the unreligious.

 

How so? Just because the religious had a ceremony?

 

They're people too, ya know.

[Arcesious]

Eh, you're probably right. I don't think it would be intentional on his part, not at all, but, to me, saying 'God Bless America' means 'Nothing Bless America.' He sounds sincere, but IMO, I don't think 'God' has any effect on how things work. Kind of just like the universe will work the way it works, and won't work with every hypothesis (IE, I could say the Earth is flat, but that won't change how the Earth really is and how it works.) The events in the country, from my athiestic point of veiw, are not the cause of a God; only what Humanity does, experiences, and is capable of on it's own without any truly real, invisible help. (IE, things like a person overcoming a drug addiction by turning to religion is not a miracle done by a God. It's just resolve and determination achieved via a crutch, IMHO. Or simply a stroke of chance that someone wins the lottery, or a random occurence if a natural disaster strikes somewhere.)

 

Meh...

[Rev7]

Well Obama's most recent speech was great, but it seesm that, in order to sway religious voters, he alienated the unreligious.

Religion really doesn't have a play in this. His opinion.

[Totenkopf]

BO hasn't alienated the athiest vote b/c most of them realize he has to run center right in a general election if he hopes to get elected.

[Gargoyle King]

What do you all think of Hilary now backing Obama?

[Tommycat]

What do you all think of Hilary now backing Obama?

 

Did she? I thought her speech sounded more like, "Just don't vote for McCain"

[Gargoyle King]

Did she? I thought her speech sounded more like, "Just don't vote for McCain"

Well apparently she's been actively getting her own supporters to now back Obama, so she does seem to be backing him.

[Tommycat]

Well apparently she's been actively getting her own supporters to now back Obama, so she does seem to be backing him.

 

Yeah, but they are still more of, "Since you can't vote for me, vote for Obama instead of McCain."

 

To be honest the best advertisements for McCain are the ads that she ran during the primaries. And he doesn't even have to fact check... It's what Obama's own party member said about him.

 

Still semi undecided as to who to vote for. I wish McCain would have stuck to his guns rather than going full party line like he did.

 

Just because I'm a Republican doesn't mean I agree with everything the Republican party stands for. And even less so with the current stand on spying on citizens... What ever happened to the party that agreed with "The scariest words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help'"

[El Sitherino]

What ever happened to the party that agreed with "The scariest words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help'"

 

Neo-Conservativism and the GOP changing course.

 

I think Hillary is understanding that the best thing for this country is someone with policy and ideals that will change this country for the better, or at least make every attempt to change the country for the better.

 

I think it's important that people remember it doesn't ultimately matter who you're voting for, but that they are capable of the position and will impact good change to progress the country forward. What Hillary was saying was "Were you backing me because I'm a woman, or were you backing me because I stood up for the same ideals you hold"

With this speech she was stating that Obama will offer the change she can't, so they need to think about what they really want. Do they want to vote McCain just because they can't vote Hillary, or do they want to vote Obama because they can't vote Hillary, but they want to see those policies and ideals they believe supported in the office?