Increase taxes. Don't increase taxes. Huh? by Geezer

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Next, we got the payroll tax reduction, that lowers revenue and puts us further in debt. Now Pres. Obama says should the reduction should be extended and challenges the Republicans to try and raise this tax to it's prior level."

Hello,

I did not quite follow this part.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2011 3:57 AM

DALEK!

The problem was the Dems did not want to let the tax cut expire on the middle and lower incomes, but did not have enough support to pass only a partial extention.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2011 4:00 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

We're not suppose to actually LISTEN to what they're saying, and think about it. Just sit back and enjoy the awesomeness that IS Barack Hussein Obama, the chosen one.

Hope and Change, dog.

Quote:
The problem was the Dems did not want to let the tax cut expire on the middle and lower incomes...

Hold up... you're admitting there ARE cuts for the middle and lower class in the Bush tax rates ? But John Kerry said that they're only MASSIVE tax cuts for the " rich ". How can it be that middle and lower class income earners were also helped ?

Shocking admission there, I must say.

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2011 5:21 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"Next, we got the payroll tax reduction, that lowers revenue and puts us further in debt. Now Pres. Obama says should the reduction should be extended and challenges the Republicans to try and raise this tax to it's prior level."

Hello,

I did not quite follow this part.

--Anthony

It's from this, which got me thinking about the whole tax increase/no tax increase thing this morning.

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - Targeting Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail, President Barack Obama is heading to New Hampshire, a political battleground, to begin a year-end push to extend payroll tax cuts.

During a speech Tuesday at a Manchester high school, the president was to argue that a failure to extend the tax breaks would hurt middle-class families already struggling amid a shaky economy, effectively daring congressional Republicans to block the extension and thus increase taxes.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=209&sid=2372452

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2011 5:37 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I am not sure why there is a need to campaign for extending tax cuts. Republicans already wish to cut taxes. They will doubtless approve any tax cuts that are proposed. Cutting spending is the issue where the greatest disagreement lies, I thought?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2011 5:45 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

I am not sure why there is a need to campaign for extending tax cuts.

Yet Pres. Obama seems to be doing so, in some instances. Perhaps you should ask him, or his supporters.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2011 5:47 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Hold up... you're admitting there ARE cuts for the middle and lower class in the Bush tax rates ? But John Kerry said that they're only MASSIVE tax cuts for the " rich ". How can it be that middle and lower class income earners were also helped ?

Shocking admission there, I must say.

The Bush tax cuts lowered taxes across the board. They did lower the taxes on the upper brackets much more then the middle or lower incomes. So no, they were not only massive tax cuts for the rich, but the majority of the overall cuts were for the rich.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2011 8:26 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

"The problem was the Dems did not want to let the tax cut expire on the middle and lower incomes, but did not have enough support to pass only a partial extention. " Yup, that's it in a nutshell. Blackmail: "If you get rid of the tax cuts for the rich, we'll make sure they go away for EVERYONE". Put that together with President Wishy-Washy, and you got extensions for everyone.

Quote:
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has shown that the tax cuts have conferred the "largest benefits, by far on the highest income households."

Wiki. The CBPP report can be found at http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1811, and says:

Quote:
¦ The one-fifth of households in the middle of the income spectrum will receive an average tax cut of $647.

¦ The top one percent of households will receive tax cuts averaging almost $35,000 — or 54 times as much as that received on average by those in the middle of the income spectrum.

¦ Households with incomes above $1 million will receive tax cuts averaging about $123,600. The tax cuts for millionaires will cause their after-tax income to jump by 6.4 percent, nearly three times the percentage increase received by the middle fifth.

In other words, "Hey, let's make the wealth gap even BIGGER!" Given the middle class is already in danger of extinction, increasing the wealth of the wealthiest by that much, and how much all this impacts the deficit, is ridiculous. But that's what they demanded: Get rid of 'em for everybody or nobody! Personally, at this point I'd rather they got rid of them for everybody...they're digging us into a deeper and deeper hole.

THIS is the legacy Bush left us:

Income Class; Average tax cut; % increase in after-tax income; % share of tax cut

Middle 20 percent; $647; 2.3%; 8.9%;

Top one percent; $34,992; 5.3%; 24.2%

Over $1 million; $123,592; 6.4%; 15.3%

So the top one percent got 24.2%; those over a million got 15.3%, and the middle 20% got a mere 8.9% of the cuts. Pretty clear who it was aimed it...

You can look at all the Bush tax cuts this way:

Three "middle class" provisions; all OTHER tax cut provisions:

Middle 20%; $547; $100

Top one percent; $1,320; $33,672

Also shows his priorites. (Sorry I can't copy the tables so it's easier to read, but you can find them on that website).

If Obama is now advocating credits and cuts, it's most likely he's STILL trying to baribe the GOP to come on board, as the idiot has been doing all along. Or help the middle class. Those are just my guesses. But anything's possible...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2011 8:28 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

We're not suppose to actually LISTEN to what they're saying, and think about it. Just sit back and enjoy the awesomeness that IS Barack Hussein Obama, the chosen one.

Hope and Change, dog.

Quote:
The problem was the Dems did not want to let the tax cut expire on the middle and lower incomes...

Hold up... you're admitting there ARE cuts for the middle and lower class in the Bush tax rates ? But John Kerry said that they're only MASSIVE tax cuts for the " rich ". How can it be that middle and lower class income earners were also helped ?

Shocking admission there, I must say.

Yes, it IS a shocking admission. By you. This is the first time you've ever admitted that lower and middle class Americans actually DO pay taxes. Before, you've insisted that more than half of Americans pay no taxes, and even that 95% of Americans pay no taxes.

So if they aren't paying taxes, how can you reduce their taxes?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2011 10:33 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The problem was the Dems did not want to let the tax cut expire on the middle and lower incomes, but did not have enough support to pass only a partial extention.

But the President said, in his statement of Nov. 21, that, "This kind of balanced approach to reducing our deficit -- an approach where everybody gives a little bit, and everyone does their fair share -- is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans -- Democrats, independents, and Republicans.", yet he apparently wants only the well off to "give a little bit" and do "their fare share", since he won't repeal all the Bush tax cuts, and doesn't want to restore payroll taxes to their normal levels.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/21/statement-presid
ent-supercommittee

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2011 10:46 AM

STORYMARK

Right Geezer, because taxes are the only way people sacrifice. Right.

Sure, many of those people can barely eat - but lets make sure that they loose some more should the rich have to give up anything themselves.

Compassionate conservatism, at it's most bullshitty.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2011 10:51 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mike, I call foul. He said "income" taxes...we went around and around on that one.

Geezer, given the wealthy have been GIVEN huge tax cuts while the middle and lower classes were given very tiny ones, if any, during the Bush Administration, AND given the wealth gap has increased hugely, why SHOULD anyone but the very wealthy "give a little bit"? They're so far ahead of us NOW it's ridiculous, and they've used that wealth in ways which have hurt all the rest of us. Not to mention the fact that the rest of us will LOSE from one or another, or more, of the various cuts the Dems agreed to, which the wealthy won't--that's OUR fair share. (Ooops, I see Story made that point while I was typing.)

You know full well that what is "supported by an overhelming majority of Americans" is tax cuts on the ultra-wealthy, and you know that's what he was saying, as does everyone else. Your logic is illogical, in my opinion. It's just a snark.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 22, 2011 10:54 AM

DALEK!

"In September, I sent them a detailed plan that would have gone above and beyond that goal. It's a plan that would reduce the deficit by an additional $3 trillion, by cutting spending, slowing the growth of Medicare and Medicaid, and asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.

In addition to my plan, there were a number of other bipartisan plans for them to consider from both Democrats and Republicans, all of which promoted a balanced approach. This kind of balanced approach to reducing our deficit -- an approach where everybody gives a little bit, and everyone does their fair share -- is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans -- Democrats, independents, and Republicans. It’s supported by experts and economists from all across the political spectrum. And to their credit, many Democrats in Congress were willing to put politics aside and commit to reasonable adjustments that would have reduced the cost of Medicare, as long as they were part of a balanced approach.

But despite the broad agreement that exists for such an approach, there's still too many Republicans in Congress who have refused to listen to the voices of reason and compromise that are coming from outside of Washington. They continue to insist on protecting $100 billion worth of tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans at any cost, even if it means reducing the deficit with deep cuts to things like education and medical research. Even if it means deep cuts in Medicare."

More of the quote, and it becomes clear that part of the reason for not wanting to let the tax cuts for the middle and lower incomes, as well as payroll tax, expire and yet let them for the rich would be to try anc cut spending while not hurting the economy.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2011 3:56 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer, given the wealthy have been GIVEN huge tax cuts while the middle and lower classes were given very tiny ones, if any, during the Bush Administration, AND given the wealth gap has increased hugely, why SHOULD anyone but the very wealthy "give a little bit"?

Once again, ask the President. He's the one who wants "...an approach where everybody gives a little bit, and everyone does their fair share".

I'm also finding it interesting that his increased tax on the wealthy would bring in about $100 billion a year, per his Nov. 21 statement, but extending the reduction on payroll taxes would cost around $120 billion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704156304576003441518282
986.html

Doesn't seem like a plan for reducing the deficit, but more about buying votes.

Me personally, I'd drop the Bush tax cuts and let the payroll taxes go back up to normal levels. This would cost me (and probably you) some extra income tax, but it'd get a bit more money coming in. Of course, if spending doesn't come down substantially, it won't matter.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2011 4:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Doesn't seem like a plan for reducing the deficit, but more about buying votes.

Bingo.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2011 4:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Of course, if spending doesn't come down substantially, it won't matter.

That is the real root of the matter, isn't it?

If your credit cards are maxed out, and you're living hand to mouth, fightng with your boss about a 10% increase in your salary solves nothing. It only makes your current miserable predicament a little less miserable. But it will never get you out of it.

Cutting spending and paying down interest-bearing debts is the only way to really change anything.

But no one votes for people who want to cut down spending. Leaders like Ron Paul just get laughed at or ignored.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2011 4:45 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I feel that cutting spending is absolutely necessary to solving the current economic woes of this country. I fear that the largest source of wasteful spending- spending that is of the most dubious benefit- is being protected by most of those who advocate spending cuts.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2011 5:32 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I fear that the largest source of wasteful spending- spending that is of the most dubious benefit- is being protected by most of those who advocate spending cuts.

--Anthony

"And pray tell, what spending would that be?" he says, leadingly.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2011 5:50 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Military spending, though you might also include the ongoing War on Drugs. Instead of 600 billion dollars of defense spending being used as a boobytrap for failing to solve the budget crisis, such spending cuts should logically be part of any budget proposed.

We would still exceed the military spending of any nation on Earth. (Except possibly the secret undersea Atlantean Kingdoms.)

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2011 6:58 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I'm with Anthony. The beloved third-rail for the right...the military-industrial complex...needs to be dealt with. Not that it ever will be. "Entitlements" are a contract we made with our government that we would give them our money, they would invest it and give it back later in life. What contract did we make with the military-industrial complex?

I have a problem with reducing SSI and Medicare, because I'm now in a position where I see how LITTLE they provide. How many single individuals could survive on $1,300 a month and the co-pays, etc., of Medicare? The word "entitlement" is bandied about and it's a GREAT buzz word because it makes people think of a bum who thinks he's "entitled" to the government taking care of him. But it actually means we're ENTITLED to the benefits we already paid TO the government because we held up our share of the contract. I agree we should be able to do a lot to make it cost less, but not by reducing what is virtually a subsistence-level reimbursement now. Maybe that's what it should have been called: Reimbursement, rather than entitlement.

I tried to find who first coined the term, but thus far have been unsuccessful. I feel the same as one commenter to an article on them:

Quote:
..since when did SS and Medicare become "entitlement programs anyway? who coined that phrase? I never heard it when my parents and grandparents when to collect earnings that they paid into for years.

I'd guess a Republicans came up with the term; if anyone finds out, let us know, please? I'd be very interested in finding out. It's certainly an absolutely wonderful example of pejorative buzz words!

And don't cuts "decrease" spending? If X amount of cuts (which ends up not spending as much) and X amount of revenue (putting taxes for the rich back to where they USED to be just a short time ago) would both create less spending and increse revenue, what's wrong with that? Once again, I'm in favor of compromise; that WOULD be "everybody giving a little". As we said before,

Quote:
an approach where everybody gives a little bit, and everyone does their fair share

WOULD be taxing the ultra-wealthy and cutting spending. Many of us would end up "giving" because of cuts to programs; that's our "fair share". Asking the ultra-wealthy and corporations to pay a bit more would be their share. It's a simple concept.

Any cuts to Medicare and SSI would result in my "giving" more to the federal government, in that I would end up PAYING more to replace those cuts (resulting, by the way, in my having less discretionary income to spend, which wouldn't help the GDP). Do you understand the concept Geezer?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2011 7:42 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Any cuts to Medicare and SSI would result in my "giving" more to the federal government, in that I would end up PAYING more to replace those cuts (resulting, by the way, in my having less discretionary income to spend, which wouldn't help the GDP). Do you understand the concept Geezer?

Yep. But I suspect that actually cutting Medicare or SSI has about as much chance as a gunpowder snowball in Hell. Finding economies in Medicare/Medicaid perhaps, but anyone actually attempting to reduce benefits, especially in the short term, is committing political suicide, and both parties know this.

The concept I don't understand is reducing the amount paid into SSI by 2% for everyone, and still expecting to have enough money in the fund to pay out supplemental retirement for any long-term future. Want to take a stab at explaining that?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2011 7:48 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Any cuts to Medicare and SSI would result in my "giving" more to the federal government, in that I would end up PAYING more to replace those cuts (resulting, by the way, in my having less discretionary income to spend, which wouldn't help the GDP). Do you understand the concept Geezer?

Yep. But I suspect that actually cutting Medicare or SSI has about as much chance as a gunpowder snowball in Hell. Finding economies in Medicare/Medicaid perhaps, but anyone actually attempting to reduce benefits, especially in the short term, is committing political suicide, and both parties know this.

The concept I don't understand is reducing the amount paid into SSI by 2% for everyone, and still expecting to have enough money in the fund to pay out supplemental retirement for any long-term future. Want to take a stab at explaining that?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Hello,

No. That's just mad. I can't figure it out.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2011 7:50 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
The concept I don't understand is reducing the amount paid into SSI by 2% for everyone, and still expecting to have enough money in the fund to pay out supplemental retirement for any long-term future. Want to take a stab at explaining that?

They can because currently SS runs a surplus each year. There should really be a large amount saved in the SS program, but since Clinton's time Congress has been rolling SS funds into general revenue. So instead of having funds saved up to get the program over the baby boomer hump, it looks to be in dire straights.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2011 8:29 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Pardon my slowness... if the program is in dire straits, then it would seem inappropriate to reduce program revenues. That the program would contain a surplus of funds under ideal conditions does not seem to relate to its current condition, which I am told is dire.

How are the two reconcilable? A plundered system in need of cash, and a reduction in cash to the system?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2011 8:36 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

Pardon my slowness... if the program is in dire straits, then it would seem inappropriate to reduce program revenues. That the program would contain a surplus of funds under ideal conditions does not seem to relate to its current condition, which I am told is dire.

How are the two reconcilable? A plundered system in need of cash, and a reduction in cash to the system?

The politicians can claim it make sense because SS pulls a surplus each year. They just won't tell you that the surplus is rolled into general revenue and therefore is not really going to help SS in the future.

It does not make one lick of sense when you look at it as a whole, but then again the politicians don't want you to look at in as a whole.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2011 9:00 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

The more I learn about these programs, the more I wish the government would cancel my Social Security benefits and just refund me the money I've invested into the system. What's the point of investing in my future if those investments will merely be plundered and used for other purposes? When a company plunders retirement accounts, all hell breaks loose. Is it acceptable for the government to do so?

I think not.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 23, 2011 7:29 PM

There you go, Anthony. Here is map of your spending cut.

Yet, those who advocate "smaller govt" are just itching and twitching to fill the white spots with pink. See that lone white spot in the Middle of Asia? That's where they're dying to go next.

Incidentally, the page where I got this image is worth reading.

http://www.ecclectica.ca/issues/2003/1/baker.asp

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 24, 2011 5:52 AM

Excellent article and interview with Ron Paul about bringing our troops back.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/24/bob_schieffer_ron_paul_and_journalisti
c_objectivity/singleton/

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 26, 2011 12:31 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

The concept I don't understand is reducing the amount paid into SSI by 2% for everyone, and still expecting to have enough money in the fund to pay out supplemental retirement for any long-term future. Want to take a stab at explaining that?

Well, according to conservatives, if you cut revenue, you actually increase revenue. That is the basis of trickle-down economics.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 26, 2011 12:54 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Yes indeedy. Obama graced our shores with a lightening visit recently and an entourage that nearly matched the population of Canberra. It seems that US military presence is to be substantially increased on our land, due to concerns about the military capacity of CHina in this region.

It's seems to me the US has kind of been like a man obsessing over some mosquitos that have been buzzing around his toes, all the while ignoring the alsatian straining at a very frayed leash.

Quote:
The United States and Australia have agreed to a permanent U.S. military force in Australia’s north as part of a strengthening in the Australia, New Zealand, and the United States alliance (ANZUS).

President Barack Obama announced a twofold presence in Australia with the deployment of thousands of U.S. Marines to Darwin in the Northern Territory, as well as more visits by U.S. aircraft, ships, and submarines.

The announcement was made during Obama’s first official trip to Australia—two previously planned trips were canceled due to the financial crisis and the Gulf oil spill—and coincided with the 60th Anniversary of the ANZUS alliance.

The agreement, which will initially involve the deployment of 250 U.S. Marines in the north of Australia next year and build up to a rotation of 2,500 troops by 2017, was welcomed by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 27, 2011 4:56 AM