Quote:
Originally Posted by PIMking
If I'm reading this right I have two issues:
1) military spending isn't that bad, Think of it this way, the business center isn't located in Vietnam or India like Nike and Microsoft. So in affect keeping the money at home. It doesn't mean that you have to be at war, but being ready for action would be nice too. (thanks Clinton)
2) Raise taxes? really? haven't we learned enough from history about raising taxes? Romans did that and the rich took their money elsewhere. When the money and the rich are gone and your "tax profit" is down due to the people that did have money are now gone.
Mr. Obama and his 200 million/day trip to Mumbai are great for the deficit too....
|
1) With regards to military spending, we're simply pointing out large expenditures in the budget. If you want to reduce your annual spending, it's reasonable to look where most of your money is going. And currently, military spending (domestic spending + two wars) is a large proportion.
2) The argument that the defense spending stays home is irrelevant. By that regard, the US should be spending most of its money on health care because that spending necessarily stays home. Therefore, that argument is no more applicable to defense than any other domestic initiative.
3) I realize the "raise taxes - lose the rich" is a mantra. For over 30 years between 1950 and 1986, the top marginal rate was greater than 50%. In fact, for all but 5 of those years, it was 69% or above. Am I to believe that the rich just couldn't find the opportunity during 30 years to flee the US and leave it as a cratered, wanna-be economic power that lost its rich business producers to other countries? The real world fact is that people are not that infinitely mobile that they're going to start swapping countries every time their marginal income tax is altered by 2-3%.
4) As far as businesses are concerned, it's all irrelevant because most of the large, profitable companies are paying effective tax rates below 10%. US companies aren't moving production to other countries because they're being squeezed by taxes, but rather because the inherent employment costs in a developed country like the US are higher than China / Taiwan / etc. There is practically nothing the government can do in this regard outside of directly subsidizing wages and/or advocating the impoverishment of its citizens.
5) Good point about Obama going to India. If he only stayed home the budget would be ok. I don't know where he got the idea that, as president, he should be taking diplomatic trips to other countries. He should at least fly coach like Bush, Clinton and Bush before him.