We Can't Afford To Be Everywhere Forever

[jwoodie]

Neocons like Rick Perry and John McCain want our troops to be everywhere forever. We can't afford the obligations we currently have overseas, much less protracted battles in all four corners of the globe.

We have problems to address here at home, like the debt, infrastructure, the borders, and Social Security solvency. We would be wise to focus our money at home for a while so we can get caught up on things here

You are parroting the same arguments which contributed to the decline of the Roman and British Empires. Do you have a successor in mind to the American Empire, or do you favor a return to the Dark Ages?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You're not actually responding to any of my points, and that's the most nonsensical analogy I've seen in a while. Ford does not compel you to pay them against your will, you voluntarily choose to purchase their vehicle, and of course they're spending the money you pay them on other things because there's no reason that they would be taking your money on the basis that they're going to invest it for you and return it to you at a later date. The money you pay them becomes their money to invest in growing their company and innovating.

How you think buying a car from Ford is in anyway comparable to the government taking your money for Social Security is beyond me.

What the fuck ever. Fact of the matter is YOU PAY for SS.
In your mind because the gov misused the funds you no longer have a right to them.
Again,in your mind it's kinda like depositing cash in the bank and expecting to get back the exact bills you deposited,and if the bank spent those bills you're shit out of luck. Seriously?
And like I said,I would have gotten a much better return if I'd have kept my own money.
I wont be needing SS,but I'm damn sure going to take it because they OWE it to me.

Do they owe you more than you paid in? You haven't addressed that point at all.

Absolutely not. And thats the flaw in the whole system,or shall we say ponzi scheme.
And it's going to get worse now that we have record numbers of people under employed and unemployed.

Well there you go. Welfare.

Because of government mismanagement.
Welfare in the traditional sense does not fit the definition of SS. It's through no fault of the tax payer that the gov mismanaged the funds and they at least contributed,unlike a traditional welfare recipient.

The moment the government gets involved in something like this it becomes welfare. Government management of your money, even if against your will and assuming you get out only what you pay in, is still a form of welfare. The insulation from the profit and loss mechanism of the market makes it welfare.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Neocons like Rick Perry and John McCain want our troops to be everywhere forever. We can't afford the obligations we currently have overseas, much less protracted battles in all four corners of the globe.

We have problems to address here at home, like the debt, infrastructure, the borders, and Social Security solvency. We would be wise to focus our money at home for a while so we can get caught up on things here

You are parroting the same arguments which contributed to the decline of the Roman and British Empires. Do you have a successor in mind to the American Empire, or do you favor a return to the Dark Ages?

Historically bunk. The Roman and British empires overextended themselves, much like the American empire is currently doing, and collapsed of their own weight. As for a return to the "Dark Ages," much peaceful innovation occurred during this period and it wouldn't be so bad if we had no empires going around killing people and instead were able to focus instead on bringing about a rise in the standard of living for people.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What the fuck ever. Fact of the matter is YOU PAY for SS.
In your mind because the gov misused the funds you no longer have a right to them.
Again,in your mind it's kinda like depositing cash in the bank and expecting to get back the exact bills you deposited,and if the bank spent those bills you're shit out of luck. Seriously?
And like I said,I would have gotten a much better return if I'd have kept my own money.
I wont be needing SS,but I'm damn sure going to take it because they OWE it to me.

Do they owe you more than you paid in? You haven't addressed that point at all.

Absolutely not. And thats the flaw in the whole system,or shall we say ponzi scheme.
And it's going to get worse now that we have record numbers of people under employed and unemployed.

Well there you go. Welfare.

Because of government mismanagement.
Welfare in the traditional sense does not fit the definition of SS. It's through no fault of the tax payer that the gov mismanaged the funds and they at least contributed,unlike a traditional welfare recipient.

The moment the government gets involved in something like this it becomes welfare. Government management of your money, even if against your will and assuming you get out only what you pay in, is still a form of welfare. The insulation from the profit and loss mechanism of the market makes it welfare.

So would you consider obamacare welfare?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Do they owe you more than you paid in? You haven't addressed that point at all.

Absolutely not. And thats the flaw in the whole system,or shall we say ponzi scheme.
And it's going to get worse now that we have record numbers of people under employed and unemployed.

Well there you go. Welfare.

Because of government mismanagement.
Welfare in the traditional sense does not fit the definition of SS. It's through no fault of the tax payer that the gov mismanaged the funds and they at least contributed,unlike a traditional welfare recipient.

The moment the government gets involved in something like this it becomes welfare. Government management of your money, even if against your will and assuming you get out only what you pay in, is still a form of welfare. The insulation from the profit and loss mechanism of the market makes it welfare.

So would you consider obamacare welfare?

Another form of it yes.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Absolutely not. And thats the flaw in the whole system,or shall we say ponzi scheme.
And it's going to get worse now that we have record numbers of people under employed and unemployed.

Well there you go. Welfare.

Because of government mismanagement.
Welfare in the traditional sense does not fit the definition of SS. It's through no fault of the tax payer that the gov mismanaged the funds and they at least contributed,unlike a traditional welfare recipient.

The moment the government gets involved in something like this it becomes welfare. Government management of your money, even if against your will and assuming you get out only what you pay in, is still a form of welfare. The insulation from the profit and loss mechanism of the market makes it welfare.

So would you consider obamacare welfare?

Another form of it yes.

So everything the gov does is welfare in your opinion. Road maintenance,police and fire dept..because it all boils down to the same thing. Money for services.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well there you go. Welfare.

Because of government mismanagement.
Welfare in the traditional sense does not fit the definition of SS. It's through no fault of the tax payer that the gov mismanaged the funds and they at least contributed,unlike a traditional welfare recipient.

The moment the government gets involved in something like this it becomes welfare. Government management of your money, even if against your will and assuming you get out only what you pay in, is still a form of welfare. The insulation from the profit and loss mechanism of the market makes it welfare.

So would you consider obamacare welfare?

Another form of it yes.

So everything the gov does is welfare in your opinion. Road maintenance,police and fire dept..because it all boils down to the same thing. Money for services.

Yes, those are forms of welfare as well, but those are not examples of money for services. Those are more akin to protection money from the mob than honest business transactions on a free and competitive market.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Because of government mismanagement.
Welfare in the traditional sense does not fit the definition of SS. It's through no fault of the tax payer that the gov mismanaged the funds and they at least contributed,unlike a traditional welfare recipient.

The moment the government gets involved in something like this it becomes welfare. Government management of your money, even if against your will and assuming you get out only what you pay in, is still a form of welfare. The insulation from the profit and loss mechanism of the market makes it welfare.

So would you consider obamacare welfare?

Another form of it yes.

So everything the gov does is welfare in your opinion. Road maintenance,police and fire dept..because it all boils down to the same thing. Money for services.

Yes, those are forms of welfare as well, but those are not examples of money for services. Those are more akin to protection money from the mob than honest business transactions on a free and competitive market.

You're free to hire your own security and or fire dept.
And I wouldnt call it protection money,they usually show up after the crime has been committed or just in time to hose down the slab.

 

[jwoodie]

Neocons like Rick Perry and John McCain want our troops to be everywhere forever. We can't afford the obligations we currently have overseas, much less protracted battles in all four corners of the globe.

We have problems to address here at home, like the debt, infrastructure, the borders, and Social Security solvency. We would be wise to focus our money at home for a while so we can get caught up on things here

You are parroting the same arguments which contributed to the decline of the Roman and British Empires. Do you have a successor in mind to the American Empire, or do you favor a return to the Dark Ages?

Historically bunk. The Roman and British empires overextended themselves, much like the American empire is currently doing, and collapsed of their own weight. As for a return to the "Dark Ages," much peaceful innovation occurred during this period and it wouldn't be so bad if we had no empires going around killing people and instead were able to focus instead on bringing about a rise in the standard of living for people.

Praising with faint damnation? You seem to agree with the historical analogies but attribute the declines to "overextension." Should Rome has remained a small city-state? Should England have remained an island fiefdom? Where would you draw the line? The world today would be much less civilized without their imperial influences. And both were brought down insufficient resolve to confront external threats, attempting to appease their enemies while providing ever greater amounts of food and circuses to the masses.

P.S. Your idyllic conception of the Dark Ages is almost comical. Pax Romanica was replaced with nearly continuous warfare throughout Europe. Perhaps you have confused it with the Renaissance?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The moment the government gets involved in something like this it becomes welfare. Government management of your money, even if against your will and assuming you get out only what you pay in, is still a form of welfare. The insulation from the profit and loss mechanism of the market makes it welfare.

So would you consider obamacare welfare?

Another form of it yes.

So everything the gov does is welfare in your opinion. Road maintenance,police and fire dept..because it all boils down to the same thing. Money for services.

Yes, those are forms of welfare as well, but those are not examples of money for services. Those are more akin to protection money from the mob than honest business transactions on a free and competitive market.

You're free to hire your own security and or fire dept.
And I wouldnt call it protection money,they usually show up after the crime has been committed or just in time to hose down the slab.

The moment the government gets involved in something it becomes uneconomical, or illegal, to compete, and not to mention that I must then not only pay for my private security or fire department but am still being forcibly taxed for the state's version.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Neocons like Rick Perry and John McCain want our troops to be everywhere forever. We can't afford the obligations we currently have overseas, much less protracted battles in all four corners of the globe.

We have problems to address here at home, like the debt, infrastructure, the borders, and Social Security solvency. We would be wise to focus our money at home for a while so we can get caught up on things here

You are parroting the same arguments which contributed to the decline of the Roman and British Empires. Do you have a successor in mind to the American Empire, or do you favor a return to the Dark Ages?

Historically bunk. The Roman and British empires overextended themselves, much like the American empire is currently doing, and collapsed of their own weight. As for a return to the "Dark Ages," much peaceful innovation occurred during this period and it wouldn't be so bad if we had no empires going around killing people and instead were able to focus instead on bringing about a rise in the standard of living for people.

Praising with faint damnation? You seem to agree with the historical analogies but attribute the declines to "overextension." Should Rome has remained a small city-state? Should England have remained an island fiefdom? Where would you draw the line? The world today would be much less civilized without their imperial influences. And both were brought down insufficient resolve to confront external threats, attempting to appease their enemies while providing ever greater amounts of food and circuses to the masses.

P.S. Your idyllic conception of the Dark Ages is almost comical. Pax Romanica was replaced with nearly continuous warfare throughout Europe. Perhaps you have confused it with the Renaissance?

Continually invading and occupying the far reaches of the globe tends to get expensive, and since those campaigns are funded by exploiting not only your own citizens, but those you've conquered, it tends to create resentment that leads to revolutions that cost money to put down and on and on the cycle goes.

Top 10 Reasons The Dark Ages Were Not Dark - Listverse

Which is not to say the "Dark Ages" were wonderful and everything was joyous. Merely that they're often simply dismissed with no historical basis whatsoever.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So would you consider obamacare welfare?

Another form of it yes.

So everything the gov does is welfare in your opinion. Road maintenance,police and fire dept..because it all boils down to the same thing. Money for services.

Yes, those are forms of welfare as well, but those are not examples of money for services. Those are more akin to protection money from the mob than honest business transactions on a free and competitive market.

You're free to hire your own security and or fire dept.
And I wouldnt call it protection money,they usually show up after the crime has been committed or just in time to hose down the slab.

The moment the government gets involved in something it becomes uneconomical, or illegal, to compete, and not to mention that I must then not only pay for my private security or fire department but am still being forcibly taxed for the state's version.

Than dont pay taxes.
This has gotten a little tiresome,you want to call everything welfare when clearly thats not the case.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Another form of it yes.

So everything the gov does is welfare in your opinion. Road maintenance,police and fire dept..because it all boils down to the same thing. Money for services.

Yes, those are forms of welfare as well, but those are not examples of money for services. Those are more akin to protection money from the mob than honest business transactions on a free and competitive market.

You're free to hire your own security and or fire dept.
And I wouldnt call it protection money,they usually show up after the crime has been committed or just in time to hose down the slab.

The moment the government gets involved in something it becomes uneconomical, or illegal, to compete, and not to mention that I must then not only pay for my private security or fire department but am still being forcibly taxed for the state's version.

Than dont pay taxes.
This has gotten a little tiresome,you want to call everything welfare when clearly thats not the case.

And get violently attacked. Yeah, ok. Yes, "clearly," except you haven't put forward an argument against it.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Even if we officially chose today to stop sticking our nose into the business of other sovereign countries without their consent -- was that a nice way to put it? -- it would be a long, long time before we could extricate ourselves from the various obligations we have created.

For example, Bush stuck us in Iraq & Afghanistan, and we now have to somehow clean up the mess we created.

We can only hope to learn from our mistakes in the future.

Self-inflicted wound.

.

 

[jwoodie]

Neocons like Rick Perry and John McCain want our troops to be everywhere forever. We can't afford the obligations we currently have overseas, much less protracted battles in all four corners of the globe.

We have problems to address here at home, like the debt, infrastructure, the borders, and Social Security solvency. We would be wise to focus our money at home for a while so we can get caught up on things here

You are parroting the same arguments which contributed to the decline of the Roman and British Empires. Do you have a successor in mind to the American Empire, or do you favor a return to the Dark Ages?

Historically bunk. The Roman and British empires overextended themselves, much like the American empire is currently doing, and collapsed of their own weight. As for a return to the "Dark Ages," much peaceful innovation occurred during this period and it wouldn't be so bad if we had no empires going around killing people and instead were able to focus instead on bringing about a rise in the standard of living for people.

Praising with faint damnation? You seem to agree with the historical analogies but attribute the declines to "overextension." Should Rome has remained a small city-state? Should England have remained an island fiefdom? Where would you draw the line? The world today would be much less civilized without their imperial influences. And both were brought down insufficient resolve to confront external threats, attempting to appease their enemies while providing ever greater amounts of food and circuses to the masses.

P.S. Your idyllic conception of the Dark Ages is almost comical. Pax Romanica was replaced with nearly continuous warfare throughout Europe. Perhaps you have confused it with the Renaissance?

Continually invading and occupying the far reaches of the globe tends to get expensive, and since those campaigns are funded by exploiting not only your own citizens, but those you've conquered, it tends to create resentment that leads to revolutions that cost money to put down and on and on the cycle goes.

Top 10 Reasons The Dark Ages Were Not Dark - Listverse

Which is not to say the "Dark Ages" were wonderful and everything was joyous. Merely that they're often simply dismissed with no historical basis whatsoever.

LOL, Fantastic Weather?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

.

Even if we officially chose today to stop sticking our nose into the business of other sovereign countries without their consent -- was that a nice way to put it? -- it would be a long, long time before we could extricate ourselves from the various obligations we have created.

For example, Bush stuck us in Iraq & Afghanistan, and we now have to somehow clean up the mess we created.

We can only hope to learn from our mistakes in the future.

Self-inflicted wound.

.

Except that by remaining we only make the mess that much worse.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Neocons like Rick Perry and John McCain want our troops to be everywhere forever. We can't afford the obligations we currently have overseas, much less protracted battles in all four corners of the globe.

We have problems to address here at home, like the debt, infrastructure, the borders, and Social Security solvency. We would be wise to focus our money at home for a while so we can get caught up on things here

You are parroting the same arguments which contributed to the decline of the Roman and British Empires. Do you have a successor in mind to the American Empire, or do you favor a return to the Dark Ages?

Historically bunk. The Roman and British empires overextended themselves, much like the American empire is currently doing, and collapsed of their own weight. As for a return to the "Dark Ages," much peaceful innovation occurred during this period and it wouldn't be so bad if we had no empires going around killing people and instead were able to focus instead on bringing about a rise in the standard of living for people.

Praising with faint damnation? You seem to agree with the historical analogies but attribute the declines to "overextension." Should Rome has remained a small city-state? Should England have remained an island fiefdom? Where would you draw the line? The world today would be much less civilized without their imperial influences. And both were brought down insufficient resolve to confront external threats, attempting to appease their enemies while providing ever greater amounts of food and circuses to the masses.

P.S. Your idyllic conception of the Dark Ages is almost comical. Pax Romanica was replaced with nearly continuous warfare throughout Europe. Perhaps you have confused it with the Renaissance?

Continually invading and occupying the far reaches of the globe tends to get expensive, and since those campaigns are funded by exploiting not only your own citizens, but those you've conquered, it tends to create resentment that leads to revolutions that cost money to put down and on and on the cycle goes.

Top 10 Reasons The Dark Ages Were Not Dark - Listverse

Which is not to say the "Dark Ages" were wonderful and everything was joyous. Merely that they're often simply dismissed with no historical basis whatsoever.

LOL, Fantastic Weather?

So nothing then?

 

[Mac1958]

.

Even if we officially chose today to stop sticking our nose into the business of other sovereign countries without their consent -- was that a nice way to put it? -- it would be a long, long time before we could extricate ourselves from the various obligations we have created.

For example, Bush stuck us in Iraq & Afghanistan, and we now have to somehow clean up the mess we created.

We can only hope to learn from our mistakes in the future.

Self-inflicted wound.

.

Except that by remaining we only make the mess that much worse.

Yeah, could be.

We really need to learn.

.

 

[jwoodie]

You are parroting the same arguments which contributed to the decline of the Roman and British Empires. Do you have a successor in mind to the American Empire, or do you favor a return to the Dark Ages?

Historically bunk. The Roman and British empires overextended themselves, much like the American empire is currently doing, and collapsed of their own weight. As for a return to the "Dark Ages," much peaceful innovation occurred during this period and it wouldn't be so bad if we had no empires going around killing people and instead were able to focus instead on bringing about a rise in the standard of living for people.

Praising with faint damnation? You seem to agree with the historical analogies but attribute the declines to "overextension." Should Rome has remained a small city-state? Should England have remained an island fiefdom? Where would you draw the line? The world today would be much less civilized without their imperial influences. And both were brought down insufficient resolve to confront external threats, attempting to appease their enemies while providing ever greater amounts of food and circuses to the masses.

P.S. Your idyllic conception of the Dark Ages is almost comical. Pax Romanica was replaced with nearly continuous warfare throughout Europe. Perhaps you have confused it with the Renaissance?

Continually invading and occupying the far reaches of the globe tends to get expensive, and since those campaigns are funded by exploiting not only your own citizens, but those you've conquered, it tends to create resentment that leads to revolutions that cost money to put down and on and on the cycle goes.

Top 10 Reasons The Dark Ages Were Not Dark - Listverse

Which is not to say the "Dark Ages" were wonderful and everything was joyous. Merely that they're often simply dismissed with no historical basis whatsoever.

LOL, Fantastic Weather?

So nothing then?

Byzantine Golden Age? "In the Byzantine empire during this period we saw a massive outpouring of books – encyclopedias, lexicons, and anthologies. While they did not create a lot of new thinking, they solidified and protected for the future much of what was already known." Whoopee.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Historically bunk. The Roman and British empires overextended themselves, much like the American empire is currently doing, and collapsed of their own weight. As for a return to the "Dark Ages," much peaceful innovation occurred during this period and it wouldn't be so bad if we had no empires going around killing people and instead were able to focus instead on bringing about a rise in the standard of living for people.

Praising with faint damnation? You seem to agree with the historical analogies but attribute the declines to "overextension." Should Rome has remained a small city-state? Should England have remained an island fiefdom? Where would you draw the line? The world today would be much less civilized without their imperial influences. And both were brought down insufficient resolve to confront external threats, attempting to appease their enemies while providing ever greater amounts of food and circuses to the masses.

P.S. Your idyllic conception of the Dark Ages is almost comical. Pax Romanica was replaced with nearly continuous warfare throughout Europe. Perhaps you have confused it with the Renaissance?

Continually invading and occupying the far reaches of the globe tends to get expensive, and since those campaigns are funded by exploiting not only your own citizens, but those you've conquered, it tends to create resentment that leads to revolutions that cost money to put down and on and on the cycle goes.

Top 10 Reasons The Dark Ages Were Not Dark - Listverse

Which is not to say the "Dark Ages" were wonderful and everything was joyous. Merely that they're often simply dismissed with no historical basis whatsoever.

LOL, Fantastic Weather?

So nothing then?

Byzantine Golden Age? "In the Byzantine empire during this period we saw a massive outpouring of books – encyclopedias, lexicons, and anthologies. While they did not create a lot of new thinking, they solidified and protected for the future much of what was already known." Whoopee.

Right, progress of civilization. What a bunch of losers.