most people dont agree that it is ok to lower taxes without lower spending, because of the debt, but debt isnt really that bad, particularly when you can borrow at the rates that the US can. also an argument can be made that tax revenue will rise as rates are lowered, by growing the economy. this is far too nuanced of a position to be presented to the general public, and will be defeated in a debate with the the phrase "voodoo economics". the point remains that lower taxes are almost always better for a myriad of reasons that cajun sensation might be able to find a funny link to explain.
I think no matter who we vote for we get practically the same government. I think our whole government is being set up to help corporations maximize their profits. To answer your question though, I'd start with reducing the military, not expanding. Combine the spending of every other military in the world and America still has them beat.
i am gonna respond to that as if you had any intention of having real opinions. the real expenses to consider that can actually be managed without the chaos-inducing effects of fewer fighfighters and defense are medicare and social security and the like, which is what paul ryan specializes in reducing. but john stewart, who is "just a comic" and not the left most respected journalist and satirist has probably told you that ryan is a tool lolz.
and your contention is that romney does not intend to reduce military spending, but obama does? also i disagree that we spend too much on the military. als your contention that we spend more than all the others combined is not true, and i have a link for you: "although the United States led the world in military spending in 2009, it did not exceed the total spending of the rest of the world." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ntsman-says-us-spends-more-all-othre-countri/
who? you mean the guy who is just a comic? which guy are you talking about? the liberal political satirist or the guy who is a comic just like gallagher?
Not at all, I don't support either of these two puppets. You asked what I would do, not Obama. Even if that's not true we still spend way more on defense than any other country does. I agree that we do need a big military because our foreign policy has made a lot of people angry with us.
we o spend way more than any single country. that makes sens because we are the richest country on earth. and we are also the safest country to be in control. the germans and french and the like like to whine about our use of our power, but they should tallk. the US is not, and never has been, a dangerous empire. the US is a force for peace in the world. better that the US spends like mad and keeps other fools in check than anyone else. when iran or n korea acts up, its gonna be the whle world that looks to us to threaten them. and Romney would probably threaten them more than obama. so that is a point for romney, even though he is terrible.
martin, you need to swallow your ACE inhibitors, take a Primo one-hit, chill out and chant "Serenity Now" until you are cool. Then try to find your sense of humor.
What a load of naive, ignorant, phony flag-waving bullshit. Try for once to look at it like a non-American. The US has been the ruination of almost everyone we come in contact with starting with the Natives who we slaughtered and assimilated. Then Britain/Canada from who we first established independence, then established parity followed by dominance and then assimilated them. Then Mexico from who we invaded conquered and stole the north half of their country and then assimilated its populace. After a brief period of trying to be the dangerous ruination of itself in the worlds bloodiest civil war, The US has merrily fought the "bad" Europeans and conquered and assimilated their new world colonial possessions (Spain) or fought them (Germany) for the right to assimilate the "good" Europeans (NATO). We have been dangerous for Russia, dangerous for China, Exceptionally Dangerous for Japan, Dangerous for Vietnam, Dangerous for Panama and the other 12 Caribbean/Central American countries we have invaded, Dangerous for Iran, Iraq and a dozen other hosts of our islamic enemies . . . the list goes on. And thus we define the term hegemony and join history's dangerous empires. The US is not the worlds policeman. Why should the US taxpayer bear the entire burden of world peace? Let the other countries offer some of their treasure to help pay for. They must pay tribute to the Collective or be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
