Author Topic: The next Obama  (Read 80570 times)

Monkeyleg

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Tattaglia is a pimp.
    • http://www.gunshopfinder.com
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #250 on: November 18, 2012, 07:34:31 PM »
Ronny either knows exactly what I'm talking about, or he's a complete idiot. And I know he's not an idiot.

The SEIU goons beating Tea Party protestors, Chris Matthews crying racism, any Democrat member of congress crying racism... you can't go one day without some conservative being labeled a racist. Hell, my best friend calls me a *expletive deleted*ing Nazi.

Strings

  • APS Pimp
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,195
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #251 on: November 18, 2012, 09:28:21 PM »
Heh... most of my liberal friends don't try labeling me with derogatory terms anymore.

A fringe benefit of some of my stances, so to say
No Child Should Live In Fear

What was that about a pearl handled revolver and someone from New Orleans again?

Screw it: just autoclave the planet (thanks Birdman)

zxcvbob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,257
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #252 on: November 18, 2012, 09:30:39 PM »
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/racist-370103-white-dog.html
 

The money-quote:  On the matter of those racist dog whistles all these middle-age white liberals keep hearing, the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto put it very well: "The thing we adore about these dog-whistle kerfuffles is that the people who react to the whistle always assume it's intended for somebody else," he wrote. "The whole point of the metaphor is that if you can hear the whistle, you're the dog."
"It's good, though..."

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,456
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #253 on: November 18, 2012, 10:42:06 PM »
The money-quote:  On the matter of those racist dog whistles all these middle-age white liberals keep hearing, the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto put it very well: "The thing we adore about these dog-whistle kerfuffles is that the people who react to the whistle always assume it's intended for somebody else," he wrote. "The whole point of the metaphor is that if you can hear the whistle, you're the dog."


Yeah, I think that was my favorite as well.

I am a little disappointed in all those dog whistles, though. I mean a whole Republican campaign intended to secretly reach my inner Republican Klucker, and I didn't even understand it? What a shame.  =(
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #254 on: November 19, 2012, 01:22:36 AM »
Ronny either knows exactly what I'm talking about, or he's a complete idiot. And I know he's not an idiot.

The SEIU goons beating Tea Party protestors, Chris Matthews crying racism, any Democrat member of congress crying racism... you can't go one day without some conservative being labeled a racist. Hell, my best friend calls me a *expletive deleted* Nazi.

Not much of a friend.  I've started carving any true believers out of my life. Don't need em.
JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”

Monkeyleg

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Tattaglia is a pimp.
    • http://www.gunshopfinder.com
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #255 on: November 19, 2012, 02:07:52 AM »
Quote
Not much of a friend.  I've started carving any true believers out of my life. Don't need em.

If I did that, I would have very, very few friends, and wouldn't speak to many relatives. I'm from Wisconsin, home of Russ Feingold.

CAnnoneer

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,136
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #256 on: November 19, 2012, 10:27:10 AM »
No, you can't apply that logic.  Wages are business expenses, and not taxed.  Profits (earnings minus expenses) ARE taxed at the corporate level and then at the personal level. 

You just aren't getting the argument.

I understand your argument. On paper you are right: yes, investor income is taxed twice - first on the corporate level, then on the individual level. Also, yes, salaries are expense, therefore subtracted before applying tax on the corporate level. So, on paper, employees are taxed only once - on the individual level. But, this does not mean employees are not taxed twice in reality. I think this is the part that I have so far failed to get across.

Let's take an example from real life. My wife works in the corporate world. Their company's leadership tightens all belts there are to make the company look as profitable as shareholders and investors expect it to be. That bottom line is achieved by slashing the work force, driving the remaining force even harder, refusing to match retirement plans, and giving only token increases in salary, if any. The taxes the company has to pay are part of that bottom line. If the company paid less in tax, they could give employees more pay and better working conditions, while still achieving the performance the investors expect. So, corporate taxes DO affect employee's individual effective tax burden. You can say that technically the above paragraph is true, but the bottom line is different.

Now, let's look at the psychological side of things as well. Average Joe likely does not know tax structure or spends much time thinking about effective tax burden and such. What he knows is some money is coming his way and the gov takes a chunk of it. He also knows investor Bob has some money coming to him, and the gov takes a chunk of it. He is not happy to know percentage-wise he may pay more than Bob who makes more money in absolute terms. When somebody shows up on TV and tries to convince Joe that it is in Joe's best interest to cut further breaks to Bob, Joe will turn off at best.

birdman

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,831
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #257 on: November 19, 2012, 10:45:00 AM »
I understand your argument. On paper you are right: yes, investor income is taxed twice - first on the corporate level, then on the individual level. Also, yes, salaries are expense, therefore subtracted before applying tax on the corporate level. So, on paper, employees are taxed only once - on the individual level. But, this does not mean employees are not taxed twice in reality. I think this is the part that I have so far failed to get across.

Let's take an example from real life. My wife works in the corporate world. Their company's leadership tightens all belts there are to make the company look as profitable as shareholders and investors expect it to be. That bottom line is achieved by slashing the work force, driving the remaining force even harder, refusing to match retirement plans, and giving only token increases in salary, if any. The taxes the company has to pay are part of that bottom line. If the company paid less in tax, they could give employees more pay and better working conditions, while still achieving the performance the investors expect. So, corporate taxes DO affect employee's individual effective tax burden. You can say that technically the above paragraph is true, but the bottom line is different.

Now, let's look at the psychological side of things as well. Average Joe likely does not know tax structure or spends much time thinking about effective tax burden and such. What he knows is some money is coming his way and the gov takes a chunk of it. He also knows investor Bob has some money coming to him, and the gov takes a chunk of it. He is not happy to know percentage-wise he may pay more than Bob who makes more money in absolute terms. When somebody shows up on TV and tries to convince Joe that it is in Joe's best interest to cut further breaks to Bob, Joe will turn off at best.

You counter your own argument.  IF there were no corporate taxes, yes, employees could be paid more, but then that money would only be singly taxed as income.  Correspondingly, in that case, dividends would also only be taxed singly, and buffets argument would be correct.

HOWEVER, in the current real world (and not on paper) company revenue that goes to wages is ONLY taxed at the personal income level, while PROFIT (revenue minus expenses) is taxed at the corporate level and that profit whether realized as stock repurchase or dividends is ALSO taxed at the personal level.  Meaning BY DEFINITION buffet's point isn't true.

I realize what you are saying, but my basic point that in the current tax regime a dollar that buffet earns is taxed twice, while a dollar his secretary earns is taxed once is entirely accurate.  You are making the argument that if corporate taxes were eliminated, his dollar would be taxed once, and at a lower rate. 

Your argument is entirely accurate, as 2 minus 1 is indeed 1, however, IN THE CURRENT TAX REGIME your point is invalid.

Monkeyleg

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Tattaglia is a pimp.
    • http://www.gunshopfinder.com
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #258 on: November 19, 2012, 11:13:03 AM »
Maybe I can illustrate with a personal example.

I'm a corporation. A one man corporation.

If I have $10,000 unspent at the end of the year, I'll pay 15% federal corporate tax (the rate on a profit that low) and a 5.5% state corporate tax. That money is then "retained earnings", as it's already been taxed. I can pay myself a dividend with that money in the following year, but I'll have to personally pay a tax on the dividend.

If I cut myself a bonus check for $10,000, I pay federal, state and FICA taxes on that money. I would then loan it back to the corporation after the first of the year, and then each month have the corporation repay the loan in increments, rather than take a salary for those months. In doing so, the money is only taxed once.


CAnnoneer

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,136
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #259 on: November 19, 2012, 11:19:12 AM »
Your argument is entirely accurate, as 2 minus 1 is indeed 1, however, IN THE CURRENT TAX REGIME your point is invalid.

I am not defending Buffet. I cannot say what was going on in his head and do not know what his motivations are.

I am trying to explain how things look to Average Joe. Mitt made the same argument at least once during the debates. Average Joe did not buy it. Mitt lost. That goes also to the argument that Mitt was strong on the economy. I'd say he was strongest on the economy, but that does not mean he was strong on the economy.

CAnnoneer

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,136
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #260 on: November 19, 2012, 11:24:26 AM »
Maybe I can illustrate with a personal example.

I'm a corporation. A one man corporation.

If I have $10,000 unspent at the end of the year, I'll pay 15% federal corporate tax (the rate on a profit that low) and a 5.5% state corporate tax. That money is then "retained earnings", as it's already been taxed. I can pay myself a dividend with that money in the following year, but I'll have to personally pay a tax on the dividend.

If I cut myself a bonus check for $10,000, I pay federal, state and FICA taxes on that money. I would then loan it back to the corporation after the first of the year, and then each month have the corporation repay the loan in increments, rather than take a salary for those months. In doing so, the money is only taxed once.



Interesting. I am not a CPA, but the first thing that I would think about is to loan the 10k from the company to yourself as a private citizen. Then it is investment or inventory or something, so it will not be taxed for your corporation. Then after the first, waive the loan and write it off as a loss. There must be something preventing you to do this though. Don't do it.

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #261 on: November 19, 2012, 11:31:11 AM »
If I did that, I would have very, very few friends, and wouldn't speak to many relatives. I'm from Wisconsin, home of Russ Feingold.

I hear you, but friends today may be collaborators tomorrow.  It is not paranoid to recognize that the amount of spite in this body politic is going to create useful targets in the future.  And the authorities need to get their leads from somewhere; count on someone close to do his duty and provide the information.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

CAnnoneer

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,136
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #262 on: November 19, 2012, 11:45:08 AM »
My point was a stronger China with an improved navy, which has developed the police-the-world mentality is going to be an adversary.  They will have the power to close off those trade routes that we depend upon for our trade at their whim... China will blockade trade routes if it is in their interest to do so.  It won't matter if it hurts them too.  The Nazis did a lot that redounded against their own people but that didnrant't stop them.

I grant that they would be able to, but I do not see why they would. And I do not see how that affects us, even if they did. There are a lot of pieces missing from the argument.

Nazi Germany is a very poor comparison for China. For one, the Nazis were driven by an extreme ideology, desire to unite all ethnic Germans, and (perceived) lack of space. China does not have such ideology, they do not have territories out there to claim, except for Taiwan, and they got all the space they need. If anything, they are facing a looming severe economic and demographic crisis that will occupy them internally for at least a couple of decades.

Finally, to put it bluntly, there is nothing we can do about it militarily anyway. Our country is broke. We are a debtor nation. We cannot maintain our current military assets appropriately, let alone continue a global stance.

Even if we had the money, technology has turned against us. Capital ships cost billions of dollars. Anti-ship cruise missiles and cavitation torpedoes cost a tiny fraction of that. A full-scale conventional encounter will see our fleet on the bottom. We can bully smaller backward nations and whack pirates, but going up against another modern state close to shore is suicidal.

I will grant the China is and will be an economic adversary. But the way to combat that is to be strong economically as well. We cannot bully them, and if we are strong economically and technologically, they will not be able to bully us either.
  
Quote
You won't have the choice, either way, not really.    What makes you think having corporations hiring their own security thugs will allow you a choice?
Either way you buy the product .... or you don't.  THERE is your choice.

I do not understand what you are saying here. How does the corporation having mercs hunt pirates allow it to get their hands on taxpayer money?

CAnnoneer

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,136
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #263 on: November 19, 2012, 11:53:24 AM »
I'd explain to you why Romney lost, but it would be like explaining a Tina Turner concert to Helen Keller.

While resenting the allusion to a deafblind, I'd like to know why.

birdman

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,831
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #264 on: November 19, 2012, 11:53:52 AM »
Interesting. I am not a CPA, but the first thing that I would think about is to loan the 10k from the company to yourself as a private citizen. Then it is investment or inventory or something, so it will not be taxed for your corporation. Then after the first, waive the loan and write it off as a loss. There must be something preventing you to do this though. Don't do it.

You'd be amazed.  For instance, deferring paying a salary that is contracted (with the employee's permission) effectively amounts to a loan from person to corporation.  The following year, if the employee forgives the loan, it shows up as a loss to the person, effectively negative income.  Interestingly enough, as far as I know, this is actually legal, and I have had legitimate, audited accountants implement such a process when I owned a small startup company that couldn't pay all it's salaries...in effect my K-1 earnings were negative, which offset gross income from other sources.

It's a legitimate way to depict personal investment into a company--you are in effect loaning your time (valued at some salary) to a entity, and then writing off the loan--on the personal tax side, it provides a legally auditable way to quantify the "investment loss".  Of course, you can't do this for an extended period, AND you can't do this if the company is actually profitable, as any profits counter-act the loss, meaning it would appear you had no wages and were paid only in dividends, which is ILLEGAL (because you don't hve any payroll taxes on the dividends)--you must be paid a reasonable salary, and it must be a legitimate business.

Anyway, YMMV, and talk to an accountant, there are a lot of caveats to the above and it requires very special circumstances.  

CAnnoneer

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,136
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #265 on: November 19, 2012, 11:56:48 AM »

Look for more nuanced republicans in 2014 & 2016.


I hope you are right, but I fear nobody can nuance himself out of a deep, solid, dead-end.

CAnnoneer

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,136
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #266 on: November 19, 2012, 12:03:18 PM »
If that is true, and I'm not really buying into it, then we're only going to be digging our grave even deeper.  

Yes, that is what I predict will happen under Bambie & co., unless there is a discontinuity event. My hopes are the folks predicting a US oil production boom are correct. The resulting prosperity will be claimed as an accomplishment of the Fearless Leader, but after folks cash their checks and figure out what the government is taking, they will switch to conservatism. However, without a discontinuity event, we are going downhill, fast.

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #267 on: November 19, 2012, 12:05:52 PM »
Classic. We got here by "nuance."  Wasn't that John Kerry's favorite word?  Nuance means you plebes are too f'g stupid to understand why we rule and you obey.  Please.

Republicans will say and do anything, nuanced or otherwise, to reflect the insanity of the times if it gets them elected.  If you start with a people bent on serfdom it doesn't matter what letter you put after the name of the people who will gladly help them get there.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

TommyGunn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,956
  • Stuck in full auto since birth.
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #268 on: November 19, 2012, 12:36:44 PM »
Quote from: TommyGunn
If that is true, and I'm not really buying into it, then we're only going to be digging our grave even deeper.

Yes, that is what I predict will happen under Bambie & co., unless there is a discontinuity event. My hopes are the folks predicting a US oil production boom are correct. The resulting prosperity will be claimed as an accomplishment of the Fearless Leader, but after folks cash their checks and figure out what the government is taking, they will switch to conservatism. However, without a discontinuity event, we are going downhill, fast.

Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote from: TommyGunn
Look for more nuanced republicans in 2014 & 2016.
I hope you are right, but I fear nobody can nuance himself out of a deep, solid, dead-end.

Do you realize for much of my life the democrats held congress?  I have seen  these epitaphs being written before.  "It's the end of conservatism."  "The days of the republican party are over."  It was HORRIBLE after Nixon left office.  We had two rather incompetent presidents afterwords -- the second one especially so.


Quote from: CAnnoneer
Quote from: TommyGunn
My point was a stronger China with an improved navy, which has developed the police-the-world mentality is going to be an adversary.  They will have the power to close off those trade routes that we depend upon for our trade at their whim... China will blockade trade routes if it is in their interest to do so.  It won't matter if it hurts them too.  The Nazis did a lot that redounded against their own people but that didn't stop them.
.

I grant that they would be able to, but I do not see why they would. And I do not see how that affects us, even if they did. There are a lot of pieces missing from the argument.

Nazi Germany is a very poor comparison for China. For one, the Nazis were driven by an extreme ideology, desire to unite all ethnic Germans, and (perceived) lack of space. China does not have such ideology, they do not have territories out there to claim, except for Taiwan, and they got all the space they need. If anything, they are facing a looming severe economic and demographic crisis that will occupy them internally for at least a couple of decades.

Finally, to put it bluntly, there is nothing we can do about it militarily anyway. Our country is broke. We are a debtor nation. We cannot maintain our current military assets appropriately, let alone continue a global stance.....

You don't see how closing down trade routes would affect our econmy?  Good grief.  Historians will hash out the reasons why. 
As for the allusion to Nazism, I suggest you get a book called Hitlerland by Andrew Nagorski and read it; it recounts how two economic downturns fed Germany's Nazi Party's rise to power and the subsequent WW2.  They had "looming economic and demographic crises" as well -- and that is what helped feed their powerlust.  China has, already, the totalitarian government, so the rest ought to be so easy "a caveman could do it."

Maintaining a strong military is NOT what is killing us economically.  It's the entitlement society that doing that.  Should we somehow magically get that pert under control the military expenditures won't kill us.
However I have already dealt with how realistic it is to believe we're going to cure our entitlement addiction . . . . .
MOLON LABE   "Through ignorance of what is good and what is bad, the life of men is greatly perplexed." ~~ Cicero

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,982
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #269 on: November 19, 2012, 12:49:08 PM »


Maintaining a strong military is NOT what is killing us economically.  It's the entitlement society that doing that.  Should we somehow magically get that pert under control the military expenditures won't kill us.
However I have already dealt with how realistic it is to believe we're going to cure our entitlement addiction . . . . .


And Democrats say that maintaining a strong military is what is stopping us from having a strong domestic policy with great healthcare and social services.


We don't need either the $700 billion military budget or the $725 billion social security budget or the $835 billion medicare budget.

It doesn't take 2 dozen aircraft carriers to police the world.  Or dozens upon dozens of US air force and army bases all over the world.  We are going to repeat history... we are the Romans, we are the Spaniards, we are the Brits.  It's economic colonialism rather than governmental, but still the same thing.

The problem is the "don't touch the military!" defendants butting heads with the "don't touch the social services!" defendants. 

Whack 'em both.  Or they'll get whacked involuntarily.

You do realize there is an ARMY OF ACCOUNTANTS that has MORE POWER than the combined might of all US ARMED FORCES annual expenditures FOR 20 YEARS with a financial hammer over this country's head, right?
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

TommyGunn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,956
  • Stuck in full auto since birth.
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #270 on: November 19, 2012, 12:56:01 PM »
Quote from: AZRedhawk44
And Democrats say that maintaining a strong military is what is stopping us from having a strong domestic policy with great healthcare and social services.

They're wrong.  The reason why we don't have great healthcare is too much government involvement in it.  Look for this situation to drastically worsen as Obamacare gets a greater toehold and goes on a fullbore tilt.
As for social services, that isn't supposed to be what this country is about.

We're not going to be the world's "policeman" in the coming decades. 
The unintended consequences from this will be unthinkable, horrible, and even devastating. 
But no one seems to be able to get their heads around that.
I guess we think this world is just one big happy family....... [tinfoil]
 
MOLON LABE   "Through ignorance of what is good and what is bad, the life of men is greatly perplexed." ~~ Cicero

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,982
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #271 on: November 19, 2012, 01:06:59 PM »
They're wrong.  The reason why we don't have great healthcare is too much government involvement in it.  Look for this situation to drastically worsen as Obamacare gets a greater toehold and goes on a fullbore tilt.
As for social services, that isn't supposed to be what this country is about.

We're not going to be the world's "policeman" in the coming decades. 
The unintended consequences from this will be unthinkable, horrible, and even devastating. 
But no one seems to be able to get their heads around that.
I guess we think this world is just one big happy family....... [tinfoil]
 


The Brits were the world's policeman back in the 18th century. ;/

We didn't need them to protect us... from them.  And we didn't need some mythical 3rd party super-liberator-nice-guy-worlds-policeman Nation to save us from the Brits, either.  We found our own liberty.  The rest of the world can do the same.  The big reason most of our "nation building" attempts fail is because those countries don't WANT the governments we put in place for them.  It's wasted blood, and wasted treasure, borrowed from an army of accountants that have no love of our liberty.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #272 on: November 19, 2012, 01:08:21 PM »
+1

Health requires civilization, not barbarism.  Something lost on most liberals who have never been close to war.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

CAnnoneer

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,136
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #273 on: November 19, 2012, 01:20:34 PM »
Do you realize for much of my life the democrats held congress?  I have seen  these epitaphs being written before.  "It's the end of conservatism."  "The days of the republican party are over."  It was HORRIBLE after Nixon left office.  We had two rather incompetent presidents afterwords -- the second one especially so.

I am too young to remember those years. However, the demographic and cultural arguments stand. I do not see how Reps can attract young people, minorities, and women, with the current menu. Taking into account the younger generations and minorities will be an increasing part of the electorate, gaining their support is the only way to remain politically relevant.

Quote
You don't see how closing down trade routes would affect our econmy?  Good grief.  Historians will hash out the reasons why. 

I should have qualified to say "affect negatively long-term". Yeah, sure it will affect us, but we are sitting on a continent of resources, and likely a large amount of now extractable oil. We have relatively easy communication with another continent (South America) and if we keep a meaningful Atlantic fleet, also with Africa, and Europe. The Pacific distances are just too great. Why do we need to stick our noses in Asia and vie with China there?

Cut routes are not necessarily a bad thing. Look at the major examples in history. The Ottomans cut off land trade to the Orient. So, Europeans built ocean going ships, circled Africa, and discovered the Americas. I think that worked out pretty well for the Europeans. Not so much for the Ottomans. Similarly, the USSR essentially cut off itself and Eastern Europe from the rest of the world. The free societies of the West ultimately won the Cold War not by military superiority but through the nuclear deterrent, superior technology, and stronger economy.

The only real problem in terms of resources is China sits on some rare earths, which are needed in high-tech devices. We'll just have to find a technological way around it, if needed.

Quote
it recounts how two economic downturns fed Germany's Nazi Party's rise to power and the subsequent WW2.  They had "looming economic and demographic crises" as well -- and that is what helped feed their powerlust.  China has, already, the totalitarian government, so the rest ought to be so easy "a caveman could do it."

First off, the economic crisis simply pushed traditional parties out of the way to allow the Nazis access to power. The economic crisis did not prompt expansionism. Nazi Germany was doing pretty well economically before the war, although some historians maintain it would have been unsustainable. Expansionism had purely ethnic and political reasons, although Nazis talked about running out of space, which modern intensive agricultural methods would have solved. If anything, they had a lot of young population before WW1, which got culled in the war, then another smaller boom preceding WW2.

In contrast, China has the opposite demographic crisis - aging population. Because of one-child policy over decades, they are looking at a demographic heavily skewed towards the aging side. They will have to find a way to provide for those people or face upheavals. You can't fight wars with seniors, so this supports my thesis better. Furthermore, the economic crisis is one of planned economy and empty cities, when artificially boosted capacity outstrips domestic demand. No matter what happens, they cannot sustain that, unless they bomb their own cities, so they can rebuild them.

Quote

Maintaining a strong military is NOT what is killing us economically.  It's the entitlement society that doing that.  Should we somehow magically get that pert under control the military expenditures won't kill us.

Normally, maybe. But for the past 11 years, military spending has been by far the bigger culprit.

Entitlements, however, are things that I promised to go back to. So, riddle me this. Reps are supposed to be fiscally conservative, yet they support Medicare and Medicaid, and I almost constantly see AARP ads in California about how "I am a senior, and a voter, so don't you be touching my drugs or benefits, or I kick your bum politician butt out of office." As a guy below 40, I look at this and just shake my head knowing those things cost hundreds of billions of dollars per year, and add to the national debt that will affect the second half of my life.

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: The next Obama
« Reply #274 on: November 19, 2012, 01:32:54 PM »
I am too young to remember those years. However, the demographic and cultural arguments stand. I do not see how Reps can attract young people, minorities, and women, with the current menu. Taking into account the younger generations and minorities will be an increasing part of the electorate, gaining their support is the only way to remain politically relevant.

If these groups believe they are going to get--and more importantly, hold--what they most desire with the current leftist agenda they are sadly mistaken.  Perhaps they will find that their much-desired sexual freedom will be the ONLY freedom left to them in the world that's a-building, enjoyed furtively behind locked doors with a hostile and unsafe and fragile reality outside the barred window.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.