Adult conversation about a touchy subject here.

Xceler8x wrote: That or we pile money into a country that will never return our investment. But hey, I'm an isolationalist. I think we should invest in *our* kids in whatever way we, as a nation, deem important.

I can respect that... I have a bit different take on it. I'm a globalist. I think we should all be neighbors and have our own priorities and our own space, but I don't want to have to brandish an infantry division if I need to ask Mexico for a cup of sugar.

I would like to believe that every human is sacred and that shouldn't be affected by political borders. Isolationism may be great for America's situation right now, but globally, spiritually, humanitarian-ly I think its not good in the long run.

Having said that, I don't think its the governments' responsibilities to decide that, I think its a humanitarian action.

This is a difficult subject for me because I am probably going to end up with a job in the defense industry but at the same time I believe money could probably be cut. It is time we pull out of a number of these countries we are in.

curtis73 wrote: Wars aren't necessarily won with bayonets and hand-to-hand combat. Its more of a who-flexes-the-biggest-muscle thing. After seeing that chart, it amazes me that people still support these current conflicts. We have enough "muscle" that we could practically make a few threatening phone calls to these dictators and solve the issue in a few days... not that I think its our right to do so.

Yeaaaah... It doesn't work that way.

We've been saber-rattling North Korea, for example, for decades now and they're still bat-E36 M3 insane.

Hell, we warned Saddam, who previously received the greatest asswhoopin' in military history, that we'd get in his chili if he didn't toe the line, and that worked out real well.

Um, guys. You know what kind of chart that is, don't you?

It's a PIE CHART!

Apple pie in the kitchen tonight! Think I'll cut me off a hunk.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Um, guys. You know what kind of chart that is, don't you? It's a PIE CHART! Apple pie in the kitchen tonight! Think I'll cut me off a hunk.

Surely you must have enough to share?

About half a pie left even after I had a slice. Plenty for tomorrow!

mtn wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Um, guys. You know what kind of chart that is, don't you? It's a PIE CHART! Apple pie in the kitchen tonight! Think I'll cut me off a hunk.

Surely you must have enough to share?

An Apple Pie Chart? I'll take the piece labelled "United States"! If it's a chocolate cheesecake pie chart, I think we should invade some other countries, too.

tuna55 wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: I think it's a subject that should be talked about along with our discussions of how, and which, social programs to cut.

Agreed. Pulling out of Somolia, Korea, Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, blah blah blah would be an excellent start. maybe we're like that guy who comes over for a party at your house and then never leaves.

When your money runs out, that guy will leave. You can't buy long lasting friendship and you can't bully your way into long lasting respect.

I wonder . . . what kind of country would this be today if we would have concentrated on using and advancing our manufacturing abilities after wwII, focusced on creating a well educated high quality of living for its' citizens, kept our military very strong but did not try to police the world, and actually adhered to the principles that this country was originally founded on.

Graefin10 wrote: I wonder . . . what kind of country would this be today if we would have concentrated on using and advancing our manufacturing abilities after wwII, focusced on creating a well educated high quality of living for its' citizens, kept our military very strong but did not try to police the world, and actually adhered to the principles that this country was originally founded on.

All interesting, valid and provocative thoughts.........

Much of the US' foreign policy was focused on countering the rampant expansionism of Communism and the obvious cruelties displayed by its proponents. The world had already experienced the horrors of Nazi-ism and the Communists, i.e., Stalin and Mao were every bit the mass murderers as was Hitler. After WWII there no one else on the planet that had the resources to offer any resistance.

Keep in mind that our Cold War forays into SE Asia, South and Central America and Africa all began as campaigns to thwart the spread of the "red plague". Could or should different tactics have employed in those efforts? Perhaps, but hindsight is 20/20 and it's a somewhat useless exercise to dwell on what "might have been" if we had just stayed home.

Current military expenditures are entirely rooted in the events and trends that started six decades ago. It's definitely worth scaling-back the costs and forcing the beneficiaries of our good will to step-up and fight for themselves. Of course that means those countries will have to make their own sacrifices and the question remains - Is it worth it to them to take that path, or sit back and watch as current threats loom ever larger?

Interesting times........

Graefin10 wrote: I wonder . . . what kind of country would this be today if we would have concentrated on using and advancing our manufacturing abilities after wwII, focusced on creating a well educated high quality of living for its' citizens, kept our military very strong but did not try to police the world, and actually adhered to the principles that this country was originally founded on.

I feel like we did a good job of educating and enhancing the quality of living for our citizens post WWII.....until about 1970.

I see this goal as working side by side with the goal of building a great, powerful, and prolific middle class. I believe that quite a bit of government has worked against the middle class for decades now.

...I'm just free thinking here so this is all open to revision, argument, etc.

We have social programs for the poor. We have tax cuts for the rich. We have numerous agencies working to help the poor get education, food, healthcare. We have corporate welfare in place for numerous industries all while the government helps rich folks to save money to supposedly invest.

What about the middle class? Who helps them educate their kids without crippling debt? Who helps the middle class to invest in the stock market for their retirement and future quality of life?

Maybe we need to stop spending money on the extreme ends of the population spectrum and spend it on the middle? Cut a bit out of the military spending and spend it on the folks who make up the majority of the nation?

I propose this nation was it's strongest and most productive when education (GI Bill) and excellent paying jobs (low income disparity) were in reach of the middle class post WWII.

What do you guys think?

I fully expect that quite a few will disagree. No harm there. I'm sure the pie minders will pie up this thread if we get out of control.

If pie doesn't work we'll get ban hammered and this thread will be, to quote JG, full of hurting

Nice chart and all, but I can't take it seriously when China is rated behind Russia in anything. Knowing everything going on in the world right now, either the chart is pretty old or just plain inaccurate.

In reply to Xceler8x:

I think the government should stop spending money on pretty much everything and just let us keep most of it. That would be fine with this middle class guy.

I think the decisions that have weakened the middle class are done intentionally. I'm not sure I understand why though. If much of the governments' revenue comes from taxation of the working middle class, why destroy it?

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

mtn wrote:

oldtin wrote:

Zomby woof wrote:

z31maniac wrote: "I came in here for an argument.......

No you didn't.

That's not an argument, it's just contradiction.

No it isn't.

I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.

"an argument is an intellectual process, while contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."

^The article I posted awhile, makes the insinuation that the point of supply side economics is to gradually bring most of the wealth to the top levels of society. And the data seems to do a nice job of backing up this assumption.

The lower class is already dependent on the gov't to get by, now if we eliminate the middle class, everyone is dependent on the gov't and the wealthy few that determine it's policies.