You're probably right about the fair tax. I've always enjoyed the idea of a sales tax over an income tax - although, to think it wouldn't be abused and made complex and misunderstood over time would be folly. Nowadays, I'm not so sure about the sales tax alternative. I know, however, that I do not like the income tax solution in place today.

 

The sales/fair tax sounds kind of risky. If the country goes into recession or depression, everything comes to a screeching halt. It would be very hard to create and stick to budgets, etc. People's income is not so closely tied to how much they spend.

A handful of states (Texas and Washington, maybe others?) don't have an income tax. They get by just fine without an income tax. Now if you want to talk about social engineering by the Federal government, the Fed has tried for years to get those rogue states to conform to their ideal, including playing the heavy with taxpayers. State income taxes are deductible expenses with regard to the federal income tax. Sales taxes were not deductible for a long time. (They are deductible once again for people who don't have a state income tax; very recent change.) One of the reasons for making them not deductible (1970s?) was that sales taxes are regressive. Whether that is true or not, THAT IS NONE OF THE FED'S BUSINESS.

State sales tax is deductible? From what? Federal income tax?

Looks like you have a choice of deducting state sales tax or state income tax. In the 7 states that don't levy income taxes, sounds like a good deal. Kind of sounds too good to be true.

 

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/20041012b1.asp

Isolationist? Not really. More like non-interventionist.

 

He wants to trade and talk with all nations... but impose our military will on none.

 

I think it's a sad day when we associate foreign policy primarily with war.

 

You need that stick in the modern world, though. There's no way that China is going to trade fair if all they're faced with is a Paulite policy of unilaterally dropping tariffs and subsidies and withdrawing all troops from Southeast Asia, for example.

 

Anyone who thinks that the best thing for Iraq would be to pull out troops immediately and let them figure it out for themselves is a bit scary to me too. That's just naive. I don't deny that US actions have certainly drawn the ire of Islamic extremists, but to think that if we just said "Ok, we'll leave Saudi Arabia" that would fix everything is also pretty naive. I'm not saying that's quite what Paul has said, but I think it gets the drift ideologically.

 

I just don't think that late 19th century models of governance can work in the modern world. He has a noble ideal, but it's not a realistic one for today. At least thats my .01 Euro.

You need that stick in the modern world, though. There's no way that China is going to trade fair if all they're faced with is a Paulite policy of unilaterally dropping tariffs and subsidies and withdrawing all troops from Southeast Asia, for example.

What do you mean by trade fair?

 

Anyone who thinks that the best thing for Iraq would be to pull out troops immediately and let them figure it out for themselves is a bit scary to me too. That's just naive. I don't deny that US actions have certainly drawn the ire of Islamic extremists, but to think that if we just said "Ok, we'll leave Saudi Arabia" that would fix everything is also pretty naive. I'm not saying that's quite what Paul has said, but I think it gets the drift ideologically.

You assume the goal is to want to 'fix' Muslim extremism. I don't want to actively stop terrorism unless it comes as a direct attack on US soil or property.

 

And why is naive to think Middle easterners can't fix their own problems... actually, what problems are they having right now that they can't fix by themselves?

 

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/middle-east/basra-attacks-down-90-since-british-troops-left-1221511.html

What do you mean by trade fair?[/Quote]

 

A. Stop devaluing their currency

B. Follow the same environmental and safety standards as the West (this one might fix itself)

C. Stopping the rampant counterfeiting and copyright infringement

D. No longer dealing exploitively with smaller economies to cleave them of their raw materials and serve as markets for their goods.

 

That's what I can think of off the top of my head.

 

You assume the goal is to want to 'fix' Muslim extremism. I don't want to actively stop terrorism unless it comes as a direct attack on US soil or property.

 

And why is naive to think Middle easterners can't fix their own problems... actually, what problems are they having right now that they can't fix by themselves?

 

You're obsfucating. We're talking about neither why the Iraq War was undertaken in the first place nor if the Middle East as a whole can solve its own problems. We're talking about the near-failed state of Iraq that we've created, the conditions in which would most certainly become much worse if we were to remove the stabilizing presence of our troops precipitously.

 

Whether or not thats a valid reason to maintain troops in another country is dependent on your ethical standpoint, I suppose.

 

Personally, I'm for a long-term low-troop solution, but that's just me. Any reasoned response is probably much better than the knee-jerk ideological "stay-the-course" or alternatively "withdraw."

A. Stop devaluing their currency

B. Follow the same environmental and safety standards as the West (this one might fix itself)

C. Stopping the rampant counterfeiting and copyright infringement

D. No longer dealing exploitively with smaller economies to cleave them of their raw materials and serve as markets for their goods.

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about economics to comment further. Anyone want to step in?

 

You're obsfucating. We're talking about neither why the Iraq War was undertaken in the first place nor if the Middle East as a whole can solve its own problems. We're talking about the near-failed state of Iraq that we've created, the conditions in which would most certainly become much worse if we were to remove the stabilizing presence of our troops precipitously.

which implies that if we stay in Iraq the situation will improve. The longer we stay, the more bitter Iraqis become about our presence; insugency is fuelled even more.

I have seen no proof that if we stay, things will be any worse than if we leave. Perhaps it's due to current mismanagement of the war, but I don't possibly see how our presence is going to help the situation. We can't kill a terrorist without creating 5 more... so how will our presence help stabilize the region?

 

Whether or not thats a valid reason to maintain troops in another country is dependent on your ethical standpoint, I suppose.

Well, my ethics code says that I don't want american troops to be killed in Iraq if we can't even demonstrate that our presence is almost wholely beneficial. All the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

Personally, I'm for a long-term low-troop solution, but that's just me. Any reasoned response is probably much better than the knee-jerk ideological "stay-the-course" or alternatively "withdraw."

Not just you... I'd prefer low toops than a surge. We should have handed the reigns to the Iraqi army a long time ago. I have the impression that insurgents care less about killing Americans than Iraqis.

Perhaps low level troops to protect American companies and help train Iraqi's? I would take this as an acceptable compromise for now; unless things significantly turn around.

which implies that if we stay in Iraq the situation will improve. The longer we stay, the more bitter Iraqis become about our presence; insugency is fuelled even more.

I have seen no proof that if we stay, things will be any worse than if we leave. Perhaps it's due to current mismanagement of the war, but I don't possibly see how our presence is going to help the situation. We can't kill a terrorist without creating 5 more... so how will our presence help stabilize the region? [/Quote]

 

Just one example: Right now, US troops are the only thing separating the neighborhoods of Baghdad. These neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed by the civil war (which is a big reason why violence is down so much), but if our troops leave they're be nothing to stop the city from desintigrating into violence again. The Iraqi Army? Underfunded and Shite dominated. The Iraqi Police? Overfunded and Shite dominated, most Sunnis just consider it to be part of the militias these days.

 

Now the long term solution isn't to keep troops segregating Baghdad for the next 100 years until everyone with an ax to grind dies; it's to get the Iraqi Army on its feet and achieve a political solution within the Iraqi government. But that can't happen while there's still a civil war raging on the streets, and that's exactly what would happen if US troops were to be gone tomorrow. The Iraqi government has a rapidly closing window of opportunity to lay the groundwork for a political solution before either US troops can't keep the lid on the pot any more or the political will in the US runs out.

 

Any solution they come up with, however, is probably going to need some US support, and that's going to mean being actively engaged with some troops in the country for the long-haul, as you say to protect direct US interests and to train, and also to do some of the more complex missions in the way of counter-terrorism that the Iraqis just aren't trained or equipped to do. Wow, that was a long response.

Now the long term solution isn't to keep troops segregating Baghdad for the next 100 years until everyone with an ax to grind dies; it's to get the Iraqi Army on its feet and achieve a political solution within the Iraqi government. But that can't happen while there's still a civil war raging on the streets, and that's exactly what would happen if US troops were to be gone tomorrow. The Iraqi government has a rapidly closing window of opportunity to lay the groundwork for a political solution before either US troops can't keep the lid on the pot any more or the political will in the US runs out.

 

I still question our ability to ever be able to stop a civil war. Obviously, our presence in Iraq has done nothing to calm down the insurgency. It's much more likely that we are fueling both sides of the fire, helped along from the propaganda wars, I'm sure. Do we really want our troops to be around when the pot lid comes off? It'll be a lot of casualties for a situation we can't control... why should we even care anymore?

 

Do we have any evidence that the Iraqi government is getting there act together, because I was under the impression that they weren't really an effective governing body. It seems that the only way we can really force the Iraqi gov't. to do anything is to threaten to leave.

 

Also, I distrust how much the military-industrial complex seems to be profiting of this war. I hate to tout a conspiracy theory, but it seems to me the longer we're there, the more profits Cheney and Haliburton can make...

I still question our ability to ever be able to stop a civil war. Obviously, our presence in Iraq has done nothing to calm down the insurgency. It's much more likely that we are fueling both sides of the fire, helped along from the propaganda wars, I'm sure. Do we really want our troops to be around when the pot lid comes off? It'll be a lot of casualties for a situation we can't control... why should we even care anymore?[/QUote]

 

Well of course not, but the whole thing will blow up if we leave, and a lot of Americans (not to mention Iraqis) are inevitably going to get caught in the middle.

 

Do we have any evidence that the Iraqi government is getting there act together, because I was under the impression that they weren't really an effective governing body. It seems that the only way we can really force the Iraqi gov't. to do anything is to threaten to leave.

 

Putting pressure on the government has definately got to be one of our objectives in Iraq, but we've got to help it to. Rebuilding the civil service and the bureaucracy are extremely important. We need Americans there to do that.

Rebuilding the civil service and the bureaucracy are extremely important. We need Americans there to do that.

 

Isn't that a bit derogatory toward the people of Iraq, and concurrently a bit arrogant and presumptuous about our own abilities? You'd be amazed what people can do when they have to do it. Let's remember that they're adults... humans capable of solving problems... and that assuming they cannot rebuild their civil services and put a governmental structure in place without our ...<cough>... help ...<cough>... is not a reasonable nor supportable position.

Isn't that a bit derogatory toward the people of Iraq, and concurrently a bit arrogant and presumptuous about our own abilities? You'd be amazed what people can do when they have to do it. Let's remember that they're adults... humans capable of solving problems... and that assuming they cannot rebuild their civil services and put a governmental structure in place without our ...<cough>... help ...<cough>... is not a reasonable nor supportable position.

 

Well, I mean for security, which the army isn't up to for organizational reasons. You make a good point that the Iraqis aren't children, but the facts are that they've got a civil service shattered by sectarian differences which having "neutral" American mediators probably couldn't hurt. We certainly don't need 130,000 troops to do that, though.

 

I'm finding myself in an odd position here arguing for "staying in Iraq." I just don't think we need to abandon this mess we've created irresponsibly and end up with Saigon 2.0, except with a civil war and ethnic cleansing this time.

I'm finding myself in an odd position here arguing for "staying in Iraq."

It is, by no means, a "black and white" situation. The different hues of gray are immense, and if you truly felt only one way or the other about what we should all collectively do in Iraq, I'd seriously have to question your ability to think independently. The fact that you do struggle with the issue shows that you actually understand it a bit.

 

 

One thing most will agree on is that this is proving more difficult than originally planned, and what we're doing presently isn't working. Unfortunately, the debate seems to focus more on the meaning of the word "working" instead of "how best to move forward."

I believe the current Prime Minister when he says that they are capable of standing on their own when it comes down to it. The facts remain that the Shias are the majority. They have an immense advantage already. They already had an immense advantage when they were simply in power. They've been shown what to do. Everybody knows that our presence there is inflammatory to many. The list just goes on and on. We will have a presence there to a degree, but we need to move on as soon as possible and set them on their own.

It is, by no means, a "black and white" situation. The different hues of gray are immense, and if you truly felt only one way or the other about what we should all collectively do in Iraq, I'd seriously have to question your ability to think independently. The fact that you do struggle with the issue shows that you actually understand it a bit.

 

ad hominem much? I don't think that his particular POV indicates lack of independent thought.

 

Rebuilding the civil service and the bureaucracy are extremely important. We need Americans there to do that.

 

But why though? I'm pretty sure that they can build that themselves, unless you are talking about the ability to organize the effort to do so...

I was trying to give him credit and suggest that his approach was very good.

Irrelevant, indeed. By your logic, Mitt Romney is the only electable Republican candidate, and that's a rather frightening proposition. He reminds me of a kid in high school who will say anything to try and get a seat at the cool kids table. He's inexperienced and doesn't have the intellectual fortitude to work through the major issues we face. But, according to the ladies, he sure is handsome, so we absolutely should elect him.

 

What? He has more "experience", especially at a so called executive level than the rest of the other repugnantcans and the demoncrats, including that Wicked Witch from New York, except perhaps Mayor Soprano Terror IF you can count being a mayor executive.

Run Toto, run.

 

How did Alan Keyes get on the poll? I like that guy. He and Paul should join forces.

 

Being from Arizona, I'm a little confused the support you all look to be throwing at Maverick. That guy is severely hated here. The only reason he gets re elected is because they can't find the bodies of anyone that dares to run against him.....think of a war hero Rudy and you get the pic......I don't think he'll carry his own home state.

What? He has more "experience", especially at a so called executive level than the rest of the other repugnantcans and the demoncrats, including that Wicked Witch from New York

I thought Huckabee had more executive level experience than Romney. What are you using for your measurement on this?

I thought Huckabee had more executive level experience than Romney. What are you using for your measurement on this?

 

Uhm.....ok, you got me.....no wait.....8 years in hick Tyson chicken years is only equal to about one year in Mass gov years.....so there.

Uhm.....ok, you got me.....no wait.....8 years in hick Tyson chicken years is only equal to about one year in Mass gov years.....so there.

 

Hey, as someone who has been to Arkansas once I am very offended by that.