Obama will not win

Security leaks can be good, bad or meaningless depending on the situation. Security leaks can be intentional or unintentional. They can also be political, both in the leaking of information and in how that leak is spun by the opposition.

Clearly, some leaks are strategic and intended to deceive an enemy. During the buildup to the 1991 Kuwait War, we badly needed to get a huge army transported around the world which was going to take six months and we did not want Saddam to invade Saudi Arabia before we had the force in place. So we leaked a lot of information that suggested that many units were on the move, some had already arrived, and the effort would require only weeks to accomplish. It deterred Saddam. Good leak.

Some leaks are stupid blunders and quite bad. Like the Congressman during the 2002 Afghanistan War who leaked that we were listening to Al Qaeda's satellite telephones which they had though were secure. They quickly went dead and the Congressman lost all his clearances.

Some leaks are political and quite bad, like Scooter Libby leaking the name of a covert CIA agent in an attempt to politically discredit her husband.

Some leaks are meaningless. For example, after the bin Ladin raid it was leaked that the SEAL team had used special stealth helicopters. Well, that was no big deal since we left one behind that was captured, photos were broadcast internationally, and parts of it given to the Chinese. It wasn't a secret anymore.

Allegations of recent White House leaks are still being investigated and could fall into any of the categories above. Time will tell. But political speculation about conspiracies should be taken with a grain of salt. Strategic political leaking is carried out with great subtlety because they realize the scrutiny being received and the possible consequences. Most real leaks turn out to be some individual who just can't keep his mouth shut.

 

Because Bush was a Republican and we don't want to go back to that kind of Republican Party irresponsibility.

On this we can agree.

 

Probably. Not a huge amount, but at least back to the levels of the prosperous 90's. All of those tax cuts were supposed to stimulate the economy, but instead the economy crashed. It was a failed policy like the "trickle down" Reaganomics turned out to be. You don't stick with a failed policy. We will never pay down our debt with tax cuts. We need to make spending cuts and raise taxes to produce the budget surpluses that are required to pay down the debt. Taxes should especially be raised during wartime so that the politicians and the citizens share in the sacrifice we ask our troops to make. We paid for WWII with higher taxes, rationing, and emergency war production. We should pay for any war we undertake, not borrow the money. It will cost less in the long run and we will make better decisions about going into a war.

This is difficult due to the fact that so many corporations are multinational companies, not American companies. Their corporate interests do not have to be compatible with America, they will just go to where politicians can be easily bought and taxes are lower. Countries that do not have to spend what superpowers have to spend. It has hurt us strategically, not just in unemployment. Other countries have protected their vital national industries and forbid foreign takeovers or outsourcing. Sweden for one. They make their own fighter planes, cars, trains, everything they need to survive on their own. We have lost so many shipyards that we could not fight WWII again. We simply don't have the capacity. We are losing vital industries at an alarming rate. Most of our shipping is registered in Panama or Liberia instead of in America for tax reasons. Good for the rich ship owners, bad for America. One thing we could do is protect our vital national industries better . . . and the jobs that go with them. Balance is the key. Let Wal-Mart buy its brooms from cheap Mexican factories. But we should not allow our steel industry to go overseas, it is a vital national industry.

I would cut spending of the big ticket items. That is where most of the waste is. Defense. Social Security. Medicare. Defense wastes too much money on unneeded bases that politicians protect, thousands of unneeded National Guard Armories and units, and facility care. Too much tail and too little tooth. We should stop gold-plating weapons that are not needed and stop fighting a Cold War that no longer exists. The military must be lean, mean, and extremely violent. Money should be spent on fighting units and logistical support . . . we must be quicker and more mobile. We must maintain naval ship levels, the whorl has not gotten any smaller. We must focus on Special forces right now with the terrorism threat and mothball much of the heavy tank units until the circumstances change. But there is way too much waste. Ask any serviceman, they have seen waste up close.

We must pay more for Social Security and Medicare or receive less benefits, there is little way around this. I'd draw up a list of 10 options ranging from low tax-low benefits to high-tax-high benefits and let the american People decide what level works best for them. We must FORBID another generation of politicians from promising high benefits AND lower taxes. This is a recipe for failure. And Medicare waste deserves its own thread. Everybody who has death with Medicare knows that the waste and unneeded expenses are HUGE.

A confusing question. Taxpayers are responsible for their own finances. Politicians are responsible for public finances. Taxpayers need to be smarter about who they elect as politicians. Too many taxpayers only want to hear the good news . . . lower taxes. They don;t address its inevitable corollary . . . lower services and benefits. We cannot expect both. A balance must be found. And the current polarization of the parties and lack of a moderate third party is preventing the establishment of any kind of a balance point.

 

I have no problem with a flat tax as long as all the loopholes, exemptions, rebates, tax credits, and deductions disappear and it is a true flat tax. But you always have to cut spending first and then tax at the level needed to pay for it all, with a reasonable surplus to start paying down the NAtional Debt. Else it is a recipe for a deficit.

 

He has proposed more spending than Bush, but Bush has still added more to the national debt so far and will continue adding to the debt as long as "No Child" and Medicare Prescripton Drug exist unaltered.

Then why bring back the party of Bush? I want to bring back the party of Bill Clinton and if Hillary could run against Obama, I'd vote for her.[/quote]