Register to leave a comment, or log in if you already have an account
“Power projection requires equipment.
Less equipment means less effective power projection.”
But what level is the right amount?
Right now in some measurements, we have as much as the rest of the world combined.
Is this too much, too little, just right?
From my incredibly limited knowledge, it seems like we cut our military assets by a third and still be able to effectively project into several regions at a time.
How stupid and depraved is this: Obama prevents oil drilling and exploration in the gulf and Alaska, but then shuffles down to Rio to praise Brazilian deep water oil exploration. Guy is a moron, and YOU like him.
“Top marginal rates went up 8% in 93, right before the longest period of economic expansion the country has seen.”
But from what? Tax rates don’t determine everything, but they are a major factor. In your golden age 1990’s the Republicans controlled Congress, so moronic, growth killing legislation was kept to a minimum. The economy always “seems” to tank when Dems take over Congress, 2006 being the latest example.
Because of the commodity boom, Brazil has been extremely important to China and has disintermediated the merchant traders (European and US) allowing China to lock in long term raw material deals. I was more upset with Brazil and Iran than China — with China the deal is more a matter of raw material suppliers. Many commodity traders are scared of China because they flake on contracts and Brazil has stepped in, taking the risk on themselves. I don’t see anything wierd or dangerous about this. I think it is a natural outgrowth of the growth of China. I have other concerns about China but locking in commodity deals isn’t one of them.
In the 1950’s we were recovering from a period of depression (which FDR made far worse with his policies); we were essentially alone on top in the industrialized world; raw materials were cheap; and actually how wealthy were we really? We were poor as compared to now (at least we weren’t getting poorer until Obama and the Dems showed up in 2006). Today, we have essentially the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
I don’t have the stats, but also, who actually paid those high tax rates? What percentage of the population? I suspect it was tiny.
If you want to come out and play, I’m on Twitter as ParisParamus. I need to get back to work.
What the whack-a-mole analogy suggests is that
simple solutions are just that: simplistic.
Economics like the weather follows Chaotic principles where repeated patterns are discernable but their frequency random.
Why the current administration continues to believe that we can spend our way out of this problem, without regard to the other consequences, is a mystery to me.
“Power projection requires equipment.
Less equipment means less effective power projection.”
But what level is the right amount?
Right now in some measurements, we have as much as the rest of the world combined.
Is this too much, too little, just right?
From my incredibly limited knowledge, it seems like we cut our military assets by a third and still be able to effectively project into several regions at a time.
“It answers your question on why Defense spending
is important.”
not really. i don’t agree with any point you made.
how is cutting military spending synonymous with leaving ourselves open for attack?
can’t we maintain our power without using it (by getting involved with expensive, pointless conflicts)
because we spend more on defense today, does that mean we are safer than we were in 2000?
i don’t think so.
that spending is going to rebuild infrastructure in iraq (that we destroyed) that promptly gets blown up by some homemade truck bomb.
but by all means – lets have our dicks appear bigger than the rest – we’re big bad america.
I am omniscient.
How stupid and depraved is this: Obama prevents oil drilling and exploration in the gulf and Alaska, but then shuffles down to Rio to praise Brazilian deep water oil exploration. Guy is a moron, and YOU like him.
“Top marginal rates went up 8% in 93, right before the longest period of economic expansion the country has seen.”
But from what? Tax rates don’t determine everything, but they are a major factor. In your golden age 1990’s the Republicans controlled Congress, so moronic, growth killing legislation was kept to a minimum. The economy always “seems” to tank when Dems take over Congress, 2006 being the latest example.
By lechacal on April 25, 2011 4:28 PM
I am 100% right.
By benson on April 25, 2011 4:30 PM
I am 1000% right
Again, by the power invested in me I hereby pronounce the above “UNHINGED AND IN NEED OF MEDICATION.” Ok, need to do some “work” now….
Legion,
Because of the commodity boom, Brazil has been extremely important to China and has disintermediated the merchant traders (European and US) allowing China to lock in long term raw material deals. I was more upset with Brazil and Iran than China — with China the deal is more a matter of raw material suppliers. Many commodity traders are scared of China because they flake on contracts and Brazil has stepped in, taking the risk on themselves. I don’t see anything wierd or dangerous about this. I think it is a natural outgrowth of the growth of China. I have other concerns about China but locking in commodity deals isn’t one of them.
“Please back this up with historic evidence.”
In the 1950’s we were recovering from a period of depression (which FDR made far worse with his policies); we were essentially alone on top in the industrialized world; raw materials were cheap; and actually how wealthy were we really? We were poor as compared to now (at least we weren’t getting poorer until Obama and the Dems showed up in 2006). Today, we have essentially the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
I don’t have the stats, but also, who actually paid those high tax rates? What percentage of the population? I suspect it was tiny.
If you want to come out and play, I’m on Twitter as ParisParamus. I need to get back to work.
brooklyncouch,
What the whack-a-mole analogy suggests is that
simple solutions are just that: simplistic.
Economics like the weather follows Chaotic principles where repeated patterns are discernable but their frequency random.
Why the current administration continues to believe that we can spend our way out of this problem, without regard to the other consequences, is a mystery to me.