Other Resources The Political Joe » Dems bleeding Millennials Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
Show Per page
 
 
of 2
 
 
2018-05-01 3:43 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
15532
50005000500050025
Subject: RE: Dems bleeding Millennials
Mama say Trump is da Debbil


2018-05-01 3:44 PM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Dems bleeding Millennials

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by velocomp

Originally posted by Oysterboy Nealy all demographics have benefitted from what has been a greater than 8 year bull market in the USA

A bull market will not benefit kids leaving school.  The fact is that under Obama, the job market was never great (except in certain fields).  The Trump economy and Tax plan is fostering growth in the corporate market where they are open for hiring and expanding.  You can blame Obama's corporate problems on Obamacare costs, Stifling regulations and just the uncertainty of the economy.  

You can say a lot of bad things about Trump but you can't say he is not Pro Business.

Yep, he is pro-business. Now can we pay some attention to the $1T deficit?

I'm with you on that, but the only real way to address that is to cut health care and social security (or raise the taxes) and you and I both know that will never happen no matter what party is in power.

2018-05-01 4:09 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Dems bleeding Millennials
Maybe we can try cutting down on some military spending too, ya think?



(worldwide-military-spending-2015-780x439.jpg)



Attachments
----------------
worldwide-military-spending-2015-780x439.jpg (107KB - 1 downloads)
2018-05-01 4:11 PM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Pro
15532
50005000500050025
Subject: RE: Dems bleeding Millennials
Originally posted by OysterboyMaybe we can try cutting down on some military spending too, ya think?
No
2018-05-01 4:12 PM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Dems bleeding Millennials
I think that SS can be addressed, by some means testing and dropping in ceiling altogether. Health care is tough, who knew?
2018-05-01 4:14 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Dems bleeding Millennials
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by OysterboyMaybe we can try cutting down on some military spending too, ya think?
No

Well then, no real room for debate there.


2018-05-01 5:13 PM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Dems bleeding Millennials

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by Left Brain
Originally posted by OysterboyMaybe we can try cutting down on some military spending too, ya think?
No
Well then, no real room for debate there.

lol, somebody has to keep the order around the world and we are that somebody.  There is certainly room to increase efficiency and reduce waste in military spending, but I'm with LB that there's no room to wuss out when it comes to our military.  There's likely enough room in waste to expand it some with the same amount of spending.
I vote for the USS Tuwood carrier battlegroup.

2018-05-01 5:33 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
7438
5000200010010010010025
Placitas, New Mexico
Subject: RE: Dems bleeding Millennials

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by Left Brain
Originally posted by OysterboyMaybe we can try cutting down on some military spending too, ya think?
No
Well then, no real room for debate there.

lol, somebody has to keep the order around the world and we are that somebody.  There is certainly room to increase efficiency and reduce waste in military spending, but I'm with LB that there's no room to wuss out when it comes to our military.  There's likely enough room in waste to expand it some with the same amount of spending.
I vote for the USS Tuwood carrier battlegroup.

If the rest of the world doubled military spending, Oysterboy's graph would have US military spending in line with US GDP (currently 22% of world GDP).  

2018-05-01 7:39 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Dems bleeding Millennials
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by Left Brain
Originally posted by OysterboyMaybe we can try cutting down on some military spending too, ya think?
No
Well then, no real room for debate there.

lol, somebody has to keep the order around the world and we are that somebody.  There is certainly room to increase efficiency and reduce waste in military spending, but I'm with LB that there's no room to wuss out when it comes to our military.  There's likely enough room in waste to expand it some with the same amount of spending.
I vote for the USS Tuwood carrier battlegroup.



I thought you guys were "America First" acolytes?
2018-05-01 8:25 PM
in reply to: Oysterboy

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Dems bleeding Millennials

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by Left Brain
Originally posted by OysterboyMaybe we can try cutting down on some military spending too, ya think?
No
Well then, no real room for debate there.

lol, somebody has to keep the order around the world and we are that somebody.  There is certainly room to increase efficiency and reduce waste in military spending, but I'm with LB that there's no room to wuss out when it comes to our military.  There's likely enough room in waste to expand it some with the same amount of spending.
I vote for the USS Tuwood carrier battlegroup.

I thought you guys were "America First" acolytes?

"America First" can be somewhat subjective, but it's not a description of straight up protectionism and isolationism.  If we brought everybody home and shut down anything outside our borders international commerce would go to crap and wars would ensue all over the place.  I am not for invading and occupying other countries like we did in Iraq, and Afghanistan but I don't mind cracking the whip when people get out of line.  With NK as an example, we know what was taking place publicly but I can almost guarantee you there was 10 times as much going on behind the scenes and it wasn't rainbows and sunshine.  I have this vision of Kim Jong Un getting a picture of him and his family at their super secret hideout with crosshairs on it stating that you will disarm or die within 7 days.  The guy didn't have a change of heart all of a sudden, he was "persuaded" by a heavy hand.  I'm certain of it.

If we reduce our military to a level that's on par with other countries around the world we will be at major war within a decade and it won't be pretty.  Evil is everywhere no matter how much "progressives" want to pretend it's not.  Even in America if we removed the police and heavy handed laws our society would devolve very quickly.

2018-05-02 7:16 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Dems bleeding Millennials
Tony, I absolutely agree with you, Pax Americana has resulted in no major wars since WWII. But the cost is high and I think if we are going to seriously tackle a $1T deficit we need to take nothing off the table. When Trump was candidate Trump he thought the same thing. Below is an excerpt from a July 2016 interview with DJT, it's the usual word-salad but I think his thinking is clear

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-foreign-...

TRUMP: If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting other countries, and in many cases the countries I’m talking about are extremely rich. Then if we cannot make a deal, which I believe we will be able to, and which I would prefer being able to, but if we cannot make a deal, I would like you to say, I would prefer being able to, some people, the one thing they took out of your last story, you know, some people, the fools and the haters, they said, “Oh, Trump doesn’t want to protect you.” I would prefer that we be able to continue, but if we are not going to be reasonably reimbursed for the tremendous cost of protecting these massive nations with tremendous wealth — you have the tape going on?

SANGER: We do.

HABERMAN: We both do.

TRUMP: With massive wealth. Massive wealth. We’re talking about countries that are doing very well. Then yes, I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, “Congratulations, you will be defending yourself.”


2018-05-02 7:56 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Champion
9899
500020002000500100100100252525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Dems bleeding Millennials
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by Oysterboy
Originally posted by Left Brain
Originally posted by OysterboyMaybe we can try cutting down on some military spending too, ya think?
No
Well then, no real room for debate there.

lol, somebody has to keep the order around the world and we are that somebody.  There is certainly room to increase efficiency and reduce waste in military spending, but I'm with LB that there's no room to wuss out when it comes to our military.  There's likely enough room in waste to expand it some with the same amount of spending.
I vote for the USS Tuwood carrier battlegroup.

I thought you guys were "America First" acolytes?

"America First" can be somewhat subjective, but it's not a description of straight up protectionism and isolationism.  If we brought everybody home and shut down anything outside our borders international commerce would go to crap and wars would ensue all over the place.  I am not for invading and occupying other countries like we did in Iraq, and Afghanistan but I don't mind cracking the whip when people get out of line.  With NK as an example, we know what was taking place publicly but I can almost guarantee you there was 10 times as much going on behind the scenes and it wasn't rainbows and sunshine.  I have this vision of Kim Jong Un getting a picture of him and his family at their super secret hideout with crosshairs on it stating that you will disarm or die within 7 days.  The guy didn't have a change of heart all of a sudden, he was "persuaded" by a heavy hand.  I'm certain of it.

If we reduce our military to a level that's on par with other countries around the world we will be at major war within a decade and it won't be pretty.  Evil is everywhere no matter how much "progressives" want to pretend it's not.  Even in America if we removed the police and heavy handed laws our society would devolve very quickly.




I am more optimistic about NK. My guess is they had a melt down at the nuke plant and said, 'f-it, this is not working'. Or maybe they have come to realized they cannot compete with US missile defense. They can spend years developing a nuclear capable ICBM but if we shoot the thing down, all is lost. And I mean all, not just the missile that we shoot down. The US has interceptor ICBMs capable of shooting down a missile out of NK. We also have countless interceptor missiles on Aegis destroyers capable of shooting the missile down in the boost phase.

A little history. What caused the collapse of the Soviet Union? Capitalism! In the 1980s the USSR was spending like 20% of their GDP on military spending....the US was spending like 4%. (these numbers are very approximate) Then Ronald Regan said we are stepping up the game! He said we are going to the next level....SDI or Strategic Defense Initiative in what was to become known as 'Star Wars'. He started a program of missile defense whereby we would shoot down an ICBM after it had gone exo-atmospheric. Up until this time the only defense was MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction. If they launched we'd empty our magazine of ICBMs on them. Both sides would lose ala the move "War Games". But now Reagan proposed a defense against incoming ICMBs - we would develop defensive weapons to shoot down incoming missiles. He proposed ground based and space based lasers and he proposed a system of missiles specifically to shoot down incoming missiles. In essence, Regan said, "All in!" and pushed our chips out on the table. The Soviets, already on the verge of financial collapse, folded.

The US continues its missile defense program and are continually improving it. Trump's defense budget includes $11 billion dollars in 2018 for missile defense. The NK total GDP is about 12 billion! In short, capitalism and our economy win again. The old cliché 'money is power' is true.

This is all just my theory as to why he seems to have caved. Frankly, I think he might actually have achieved his ultimate goal and that was to be seen by the international world as a player. He has the leader of the free world coming to negotiate with him! He actually is now a player. His nuclear program is what brought the US to the table. So he can claim victory in that sense.

Another theory is he is young and likely sees the world differently this his papa and grandpappy did. He likely surfs the internet and realizes his country could be so much more and he could be a hero to his people for bringing them out of the dark and into the real world. He doesn't have to carry the mantel of isolationism that Kim Jung Il and Kim Il Sung carried all those years.

I may be wrong, I often am, but I think we are about to see real and significant change in NK.

Who gets the credit? Trump and Kim Jong-Un spent much of late 2017 and early 2018 trading threats of annihilation. Then Trump announced his 2018 defense budget of $12 billion in missile defense that included adding 20 more ICBM interceptors to add to the 40 we already have. IOWs telling NK, you are just piszing in the wind, you cannot compete with us militarily, we will destroy you. And Trump was just the man to do it. Ironically, I think the liberals in the media helped by perpetuating the story that Trump was a nut about to nuke NK. So maybe Kim was thinking, 'this is no Obama or Bush or Clinton, this man is a nut!'. :-)








New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Dems bleeding Millennials Rss Feed  
Show Per page
 
 
of 2