With taxes, like everything else, you get what you pay for.
Not really, IMHO. When it comes to taxes, you get considerably *less* than what you pay for.
But the fundamental difference between us in this area is that what you
want to pay for is not what I
am willing to pay for. Resolving such differences is what elections are for.
Safety net/Universal health care. Why can't we afford it? We "afford" $10B a month in Iraq. Its not a question of "affording" but of priorities.
But in the next breath you rightfully complain about the national debt ... it's not going to go down unless we *stop* huge amounts of spending. Shifting it around isn't going to do the job.
And as to priorities: universal health care isn't going to do the country much good if we allow countries that openly wish for our destruction to gain nuclear weapons or threaten us in more subtle but just as deadly ways.
As for the war, I'm sure we'd all be a lot less ambivalent about it if it actually had something to do with the defense of the USA.
And there, of course, is one of the fundamental left-right differences. I say getting rid of a dangerous military dictator who had used nerve gas on his own people, overrun a tiny neighbor and threatened others in the region, IS an action in defense of the USA. Unopposed, who's to say he wouldn't have decided to start gassing his neighbors or even taken his attacks to the West? A well-funded gang like al Qaeda has international reach in this day and age; how much the more so a man with an entire nation and huge oil reserves?
I think that invading Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein was exactly the correct thing to do.
I would also argue that the unintended consequence of having al Qaeda move heavily into Iraq to oppose us was, in the long run, a fortuitous circumstance. Initially, it created difficulties for our military, to the point where the left was ready to give up; but in the end, we've prevailed and dealt a HUGE blow to al Qaeda, a sworn enemy of the U. S.
If I see my best friend walk up to some weakling and start pounding on him while shouting slogans about how evil he is, I'd have a hard time deciding how to feel about that, too.
What you're missing in this analogy is that the "weakling" was a mass murderer who killed tens of thousands of people, and was UNDENIABLY evil. And that everybody *knew* that before your friend started pounding on him.
... if you get your news from anywhere but FOX you may have heard that Putin claims that it was the US that instigated the Georgians to help McCain's election chances. BS you say? The EU believed enough of it to abandon sanctions against Russia.
The left sure likes to believe that Fox isn't a real news organization, just because they don't spout the liberal line (vice CBS, NBC, MSNBC, various newspapers). As a matter of fact, I did hear this story ... ON FOX. And yeah, I think it's BS; I'm quite certain that the truth is that we told Georgia NOT to provoke Russia. The EU may have had reasons for declining to saction Russia, but I doubt that taking Putin's babbling seriously was one of them.
Blood baths like Nicaragua, Phillipines,Korea, and Viet Nam were all brought to you by the GOP and its big business masters,
You'll have to be more specific here; I don't know what "blood bath" you're referring to in Nicaragua or the Philippines (outside of World War II). Korea? Truman was a Democrat. Viet Nam? Kennedy and Johnson were Democrats; Nixon inherited a bad situation and took far too long to decide to just get out.
"big business masters" can be safely ignored as standard left-wing ideologue claptrap.
Detention camps: Vile then, vile now.
But the alternative in Iraq and Afghanistan was what? Let 'em go so they can shoot at us some more? Or just shoot 'em rather than take them prisoner at all? The only way to avoid detention camps is to not bother detaining anybody, one way or the other.
t's highly debatable how many of our "combatant" prisoners are really combatants. I sure don't expect their jailers to tell us.
So your alternative thesis is that we just rounded up a few thousand people at random and hauled them to Guantanamo? Why, when actual enemy combatants were thick on the ground? The idea that these prisoners are poor innocent victims is just plain fantasy.
Thats BS but that horse has already been beaten to glue. Wreck the environment to extract the last drop of oil and it might last US 10 years. What then?
No, it's *not* BS. A trillion dollars worth of oil in ANWR is a trillion dollars in *our* pockets rather than some foreign government's. Ten years of oil is ten years we don't have to ship money overseas to buy the stuff; the money stays here in our own economy.
Nobody's talking about "wrecking the environment". A few oil wells aren't going to "wreck" ANWR. If the oil's pumped out after 10 years, the wells disappear. Soon you'd never know they were there.
The pipeline to the north slope of Alaska was supposed to be a monstrous environmental disaster, too -- didn't happen, despite all of the left-wing hysteria. And they were so *sure*, too ...
What then? Well, that buys us ten years to get a lot better at alternative fuels, which is an absolute necessity, but can't be done overnight.
Oh, and as for "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter!". It's easy to spin that, if you want. But were I the President, listening to folks loudly proclaiming that the U. S. is the world's biggest polluter day after day, it's exactly the departing line I might deliver myself, intending it purely as humor. Your "puerile grin" is my sarcastic-humor smirk. It all depends on just how humor-challenged you are.
... as might anyone whose heroes aren't Beevis and Butthead.
This is another reason why I generally just refuse to get involved in debating the liberal left. They seem to have this fundamental inability to accept the fact that other people might simply disagree with their opinions. If you disagree with a left-winger, or don't take the action that a left-winger deems correct, it's most often taken as evidence that you are ignorant or idiotic, and responds with denigration and name-calling rather than serious debate.
By the way, this "Grossman" guy that Les is citing is hardly a dispassionate observer. His "briefing" is loaded with distortion, innuendo, and negative spin. As a historian, he's not worth listening to.