I am not opposed to no fly zones but not necessarily a fan either. In this case a no fly zone only for Syrian air Force or does that include Russian jets as well? Thoughts?
OT: US BOMBS SYRIA
- Thread starter sparky62
- Start date
- Status
Knowing your political views, This is rich.
Also..how much do we come up with if we tax everyone at 100percent? We aint taxing ourselves anywhere near out of this one, buddy.
Youre forgetting world war two and the economic boom it provided.
Youre forgetting this was a period of low inflation.
Youre forgetting all the tax shelters that existed but rate was still higher in 50s.
Entitlement spending was lower. Tax revenue was a lower percentage of GDP in the fifties than in the reagan years, despite higher rates.
Yes there was infastructure spending and highway systems had huge benefits...
..too bad our last stimulus bill by Obama was nothing but pork for his buddies. Hipefully if Trump and Congress do it again it will be for realz this time, and i think it will cuz dems arent sackless like the fickle repubs who are scared f their own shadow.
The fifties had their recessions too, and JFK had tax cuts that worked tremendously. As did Reagan in the eighties.
We agree on some points you made above about why the country was strong ...but disagree on how to get there?
That's the wrinkle.
Russia generally shoots at bad guys too and we have set up a deconfliction arrangement with them. We will not be forcing them from the sky IMO. It basically would require a declaration of war against Russia, they have ground based air defenses deployed and will not let our planes just harrass theirs willy nilly. Putin is all hot and bothered now and we didn't even shoot at his peeps. Those ground defenses would be destroyed by doctrine before any such no fly zone against *them* would be attempted.
Whether we are talking ground, air or sea action, this is not Iraq 2003. There is no big empty country for us to waltz into and do as we please.
This is like trying to shoot a felon hiding in the ball pit at Burger King with multiple sets of kids in there.
Although Russia and Syria are allies. Putin could choose to not retaliate for us forcing his host nation partner out of the sky. Or he could use it as a justification to fire on American air assets and start a general war. Hard to guess which way the wind blows.
Putin will not shoot our planes down on purpose. STILL believe there's mutual respect between super powers. Still prefer proxy wars IMO.
Ever see the movie Stripes? The problem for Putin is his guys in the field doing something like they did shooting down a UPS cargo plane in the Ukraine. Putin has to do something in order to save his ego.
You boys overestimate my liberalism. We need more revenue AND less spending. We don't have the money to always be in 3 wars...And math doesn't care who you vote for.
Jflores is spot on, currently I think we give vets a bum deal while we roll out the world's shiniest new toys. The homeless problem among vets is an odd thing to see in a nation that screams so loudly their support for the active duty folks. And again, it costs less to house the homeless than it does to pay cops and hospitals to deal with the aftermath of their homelessness. That's a fiscal stance, you think I don't know you can't cure them by building them apartments?
The VA is a disgrace and the LAST place any good doc wants to work because the money sucks and the system is stupid. It takes funds to fix that.
I am of the opinion that the cost of a war includes keeping the promises you made to the guys and gals who fought the old wars. I don't wanna pay for us to be the World Police. What's liberal about that?
Last edited:
The restrike at the site of the chemical attack may be a little bit of messaging too.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/middleeast/syria-strikes-russia-donald-trump/index.html
Saw that this morning too on Fox as opposed to CNN. Troubling but not surprised. They are trying to see our reaction. I agree with many, are we only going to react to chemical use or what happens if they conventional bomb even more.
Both are bad but the difference being chemical use has been agreed by the world to be a different story since ww1. To me that is the difference.
Definitely a game changer and I am hoping brilliant minds on it.
Well, you did vote for Hillary
On this issue Hillary certainly more hawkish than Trump had been. One of many pivots for him.
Several key folks in the senate who are happy to see him depart from flaming populism to more of a traditional/establishment GOP stance
That anchor was hoping for a different reaction. She sits there and looks like a sour beeyatch.
Agreed about the VA. Didnt know you were talking about veterans before. Also not debating if we should have done this strike or not. Trump was stuck between a rock and a hard place. They violated a pact from 2014. Damned if you do, damned if you dont, but I doubt this ends up in another war.
We probably disagree on where to cut spending. Im not against military spending cuts, but there is far more waste elsewhere in entitlement programs and obamas pork spending didnt help either.
Many people are worried about our country carrying debt as if our country is a person. The reality is carrying debt does not stop a country's economy from performing. And frankly if it comes down to it, how is any other country going to collect on that debt? It's not like they send a guy with a threat to knock your knees out.
Japan carries great debt and their country's economy is humming along just fine.
No one likes the idea of carrying debt and I get that. And ideally we won't but it also doesn't matter really.
Japan's economy hasn't been humming for quite some time. It's a relatively stable economy compared to a lot of countries - but "humming"? Japan hasn't hit 2% GDP growth in five years - and even then it was just barely 2%.
Your rebuke says it isn't growing fast enough? It's growing. Simple people hear our country is in debt and instantly compare to individual debt and say "debt is bad". Only stating that people who aren't economists are not suited to truly understand the economic debt situation.
I wasn't arguing with you about debt, I was only pointing out that nobody who knows anything about Japan's economy would use the word "humming" to describe it. The Abe Administration has taken some pretty drastic measures to get the economy moving, which have drawn mixed reviews. But he came into power in large part because Japan's economy was stuck in neutral.
Last edited:
It affects you, you just dont notice.
It matters to exchange rates which can lead to inflation at home, it also matters that interest on debt gets bigger and we spend money on that instaed of whatever else, it even affects domestic interest rates not to mention people thinking we can tax our way out of it which hurts your pockets
The hand wringing over antagonizing Putin has me wondering if maybe Putin isn't all that upset about us taking out the chemical weapon delivery capacity at that base. Everyone is assuming that every strike Assad's military carries out is endorsed by Putin and I don't think that is necessarily accurate. Putin might not have exactly been happy about Assad's men using chemical weapons knowing the international concern that would cause. I guarantee you that Putin didn't want his guys to shoot down that UPS plane in the Ukraine but he covered their butts for them when it did happen.
Yes. They have a few planes left. Not sure if they have any pilots or maybe the Russians didn't bother waking them up when they got the heck out of town.
The relationship of inflation, interest rates, public debt, taxes etc is complicated at the very least and has been debated for decades by economists in either the Keynes or Friedman camps. I took a monetary and fiscal analysis class a few years back just for fun and I don't think you guys are going to solve this question on the free board.
BTW, I don't like having a banker holding my debt and I REALLY don't like foreign governments holding our debt. At one point China I believe was the number one owner of our debt.
You can get me in deeper trouble, I primaried for Bernie!Well, you did vote for Hillary
I don't have a problem with the idea of fiscal conservatism at all. But to say, "We're gonna keep right on increasing spending, then cut tax rates a TON for rich guys and a liiiiiiitle for the middle class" and then call yourself a fiscal conservative is flaming BS.
People always wanna say, "You can't tax your way out of debt." Well you can't slash your way out of it, either. You need to bring the revenue back in line AND bring the spending back in line.
As to debt not stopping an economy, no it doesn't...as long as somebody is buying the debt.
Last edited:
Why would anyone of any class want to give our bloated govt more money? Hell no, its like giving knives to children. Taxing anyone more wont make a dent, people like you just wanna stick it to someone esle because you believe all your ills are because of them and itll help you sleep better at night. Politicians need a cause and a bad guy, thats the storyline youve bought,
And who in the hell ever said lets cut taxes a ton for the rich guys and a little for the middle class? Middle class rates are too high as it is as well, but no ones should be raised. Im ok with a progressive tax system im just realistic enough to know that taking more money from others isnt going to make my life nor anyone elses any better with our bloated cash cow govt. keep it in the economy.
And bernie freaking sanders? Watch what happens to the taxes of the middle class you spposedly love when we get our "free" college and " free" healthcare. Youre clueless.
Who said anything about shaking? Pretty sure they aren't laughing however.
Agree. She should be ashamed by the question she asked.
The point is, for all the gloating about what kind of message this sent to folks like KJU, this bought us little to no deterrence. Its merit should rest upon the action itself, not how much peacocking we think we are going to get out of the deal. But repeating again, I'm 1000% for strikes like this.
"South Korean acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn warned of "greater provocations" by North Korea and ordered the military to intensify monitoring and to ensure close communication with the United States.
Hwang said: “It is possible the North may wage greater provocations such as a nuclear test timed with various anniversaries including the Supreme People's Assembly.”"
The idea that knocking over a few shelters in Syria is going to seriously dissuade KJU's course of action is going to die a quick death as soon as he does another nuke or missile test for some crazy reason.
Edit: One might also point out that Syria is still barrel bombing their people, despite our stern warnings. We just got done blowing them up.
Last edited:
I think in general, absent any outside implications, most Americans could agree this was the right thing to do.
However, most Americans realize that this is not usually a one night stand where you go home with a smile on your face. This action inevitably leads to other actions, which inevitably lead to more involvement, more body bags, more dollars out the door. So the feeling is that they can't possibly rate this a good thing, because in all likelihood, it'll lead to things they *don't* want. (This is more or less analogous to being happy your teenage daughter is well adjusted and picked a good boyfriend, and then some months down the road finding out your new title is "Grandpa"). A number of polls rate this as historically low support (~50%) for a US military strike.
This is one area where the Trump admin will catch a break. Had the Congress given Obama the proper military authorizations some years ago as he requested, for good or bad, the US would already be neck deep in this war and would certainly own it. Trump would have basically been in the same position as Obama was in 09. He certainly has the freedom now, to figure out how involved he wants to get.
At least by keeping us out of it, there has been one somewhat fortunate side effect for follow on administrations (even though they won't admit it). With Russia in there, the US will never own all of Syria. That's gives us more flexibility to have more "one night stands" without having to own the war ourselves. (There was no power in 2003 Iraq, for example, who we could reasonably pawn responsibility off to or even point to as being "in the way").
However, the whole thing is a mess. There's nothing really pretty about any of the options.
Last edited:
Having you on this board helps me feel like I'm not taking crazy pills for thinking essentially the same things. I don't know what causes people to think you can frighten an insane person into acting sane with a couple of airstrikes. You can't fix stupid and you can't cure crazy.
- Status
