Skip to main content

McCain, a firm grasp on the reality of war....

I have listened to the argument that the primary reason people want to vote for John McCain is his firm grasp of what is going on in the Iraq war and his military experience.

Well, let's see. CNN clearly has a different interpretation of the facts.

Now Senator McCain for posting this please do not send your toady Lindsey Graham to steal anymore of my money or go ape-shit crazy on me. Because you have never clearly explained how you will lower taxes and provide full employment, while your advisers plans all include raising taxes and increasing spending, I cannot see how what you say, equals what you can do. But who has that ever stopped before?

What I am unable to reconcile is proposed spending increases in three key areas 1.) health care, 2.) education, 3.) military spending; with the reality that these certainly will benefit a few corporations and raise taxes by up to $2 TRILLION dollars for health care, and at least $917 Billion in projected military expenditures of all of this education get the shortest shrift while increasing the size of the federal bureaucracy at DOE. All these spending increases require 1.) raising taxes, 2.) increased military involvement and production and 3.) less resources for state education departments.

I ask any Republican or Democrat out there explain to me how this is a "Republican" position?

How is this series of policies going to make our country and its businesses more competitive?

Or is it conditioned on an assumed state of protratced aggressive warfare, which will cause all these problems to stop temporarily as other great military Keynesians have tried in the past?

And if that is the case what is this going to do to our country as this article from Le Monde Diplomatique clearly illustrates the gravity of the problems?

Clearly if you can defend these policies you know something I do not know.

To me they seem indefensible.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...