The military is not the biggest slice of the fiscal pie, traditionally it's been pretty small. Our big economic problem is entitlements.
In so far as policing the world and wanting "nobody to mess with us" is concerned, yes, as the Romans used to say, "Si vis Pacum, Parabellum," ~~ "If you wish to see peace, prepare for war."
I'll get back to entitlements later. Let's focus on the military.
I am not saying let's be weak. I am saying how strong do we need to be? Why can't we just have a national military like the UK or Switzerland, defend our borders, and have a Pacific and an Atlantic fleet. Let somebody else police the world. Let them lose lives and treasure, and be hated everywhere. Why do WE have to do it? What we have now is global military, which as a nation we do not need at all.
If international corporations want major traffic lanes open, freedom of operation in hot regions, etc., let them pay for their own security force, not bribe politicians to send troops (national volunteers or mercenaries) on taxpayer coin.
As far as "policing the world" is concerned it is my unfortunate conclusion that we live in a world that is governed by the aggressive use of force. It abhors a power vacuum. Maintaining a strong military vigilance may be a pain in the wallet, and I agree it does present a certain hubris which is not particularly pleasant, but if we stop then another power will simply take over.
Are we prepared for that power to be Russia -- which is rebuilding its military? Or perhaps China -- which is building its military and navy?
We could defeat them fairly easily today but should current trends continue, in 20 or 30 years it will not be anywhere near as easy.
And, trust me, China will br throwing its weight around. Not necessarily through outright warfare; it won't have to.
And why do we care if Russia and China apply influence in their spheres? At least in some ways they are more capitalist than we are. USSR is gone and dead. Modern Russia is not communist, even if run by former KGBists. It is a corrupt state with its own problems. So is China. Again, if they want to waste coin and lives in remote toilets, let them do so.
Maybe....maybe not. Traditional marriage has always been the backbone of society as it allowed for reproduction and rearing of children in a generally safe and protected way. The biggest argument in favor of gay relationships I see is that there simply aren't enough gays to disrupt the "natural order of things."
That is not to say it couldn't happen.
I do not think there are any more gays today percentage-wise than there were 2,000 years ago. They are a few percent of the population, maybe as large as 10% by some estimates, if including bisexuals and ones still in the closet. I do not see how this can destabilize the modern family. The argument is particularly questionable considering some 50% divorce rates among the heterosexuals. Further, gays have children and rear them just fine. They use surrogate mothers or sperm donors or simply adopt. I do not see how abandoned children getting a loving family of gays to take care of them is worse than the child growing up in a home and the gays spending their lives childless.
Both Greece and Rome developed a profound lack of respect for traditional relationships (or lacked such respect from the onset if some historians are correct) and history records what happened to those cultures. However, homosexuality was more of a "symptom" of a far more serious disease in both those cultures. It was also more widely practiced then than it is today.
Rome existed for centuries after they developed the lack of respect for traditional relationships. May our own country be so lucky to exist another 500 years.
In reality only about the top half of income earners pay an income tax. The higher the income the more is paid in taxes.
The top one per cent of income earners pay @ 39.89% tax revenues received by the govt.
The top five per cent pays @60.14%
The top ten per cent pays @70.79%
The top twenty five per cent pay 86.27% and the top half pay 97.01% of the tax revenues
(National Taxpayers Union & National taxpayers Union Foundation provide the stats)
This only tells me that a change of taxes for them will impact the fed revenue disproportionately than one for the average person.
The very rich can "always afford" a few higher percentage points added on their tax bills for very little gain by the government. Keep in mind that the top 1% of income starts at a yearly salary of $388,806.00 yearly.
That's three hundred thousand -- NOT million -- dollars there. Just sayin.'
What is your point? If you are making 400k an year you are making the same as POTUS. The average voter makes about 50k. If you go and tell him, "Hey, I am not rich. The fed is taxing me too much already.", what will his reaction be? Most likely, "JFC, I barely live paycheck from paycheck supporting my family. Difficult to have much sympathy for you, buddy." I personally want ideally no more than 5% tax on everybody, but that is a different story. Here we are talking about what will fly with voters and how conservatives mishandle the issue.
What is very likely to happen is government will be hitting small business owners with a whopping new burden of taxes and regulations. It's already beginning; have you kept your eyes open? Already there are people being laid off.
Obamacare is going to hurt as well, as restaurants fire some employees and then move others down to part-time status in order to avoid the ramifications of St. Obama's wonderful new healthcare law, now firmly ensconced into American jurisprudence due to Justice Roberts' shenanigans and Obama's reelection.
I have no doubt that that is exactly what is going to happen. That is one of the reasons I abhor Obamacare. However, the tax issue remains mishandled, because the conservatives obstinately refuse to admit that there is an upper bound of income bracket that makes sense to protect. Sure, there are many small businesses that look wealthy to the average person, but employ many people, and will lay people off if taxes increase. But, there is an even further crust that is even wealthier, and does not give a *expletive deleted*it about even a large increase percentage wise. They are so rich personally and their assets are so protected, that to them it will make a small difference if any. Instead, the Reps got bogged down in a stupid argument about plumber Joe type outfits.
The idea that taxing the very rich affects no one else is also a myth. During the 1990s a "luxury tax" was instituted on luxury items only "rich" people could afford -- like yachts. That tax nearly destroyed America's yachting industry as the malevelant rich people stopped buying yachts and began refurbishing the old yachts they already owned. The tax was quickly abandoned afterwards.
If you do it like that, it will certainly not work. People find loopholes or simply readjust. But, I would also counter-argue that they just spent their money elsewhere or reinvested it, so while the yacht-makers lost business, others gained.
I do not want income tax for anybody. But, if there must be one, let's apply it fairly and intelligently. What is happening now is a joke. There are extremely rich people who pay lower rates than their secretaries. To them, the accumulation of wealth has become a surreal exercise. Conservatives say, don't touch them. The average person cannot take such a position seriously.
"Trickle-down" economics may be an old saw by now, but if you believe it doesn't work, I invite you to resign your present position and then go find a poor person and ask him to hire you. Even contemplating this excercise illustrates why "trickle down" works. It's the natural order of things. I've worked for a number of employers over the years and never, ever, for one worth less than me. Don't like that? Tough.
I personally have no problem with wealth. If you are smart and work hard and make billions, all the more power to you. Yeah, go ahead and hire people and generate prosperity. But you cannot seriously expect your employees to pay higher percentage taxes on their piddly income, when you use CPAs and a thousand loopholes, in the misguided self-validating surreal impetus to be even richer, faster.
MOST people are still believers.
Except they don't act like it, even if they are. I cannot tell them apart with a scorecard.
Secularism has caught on in the popular culture and is making inroads which will only be tolerable so long as it does not become overbearing.
They younger generations are more comfortable with secularism than with religion. There are concomitant consequences on the electorate.
