Columnist Charles Krauthammer argues that John McCain is more prepared to deal with the economic crisis than his poll numbers would suggest: “Generally speaking, he sees government as a Rooseveltian counterweight (Teddy with a touch of Franklin) to the various malefactors of wealth and power. He wants government to tackle large looming liabilities such as Social Security and Medicare. He wants to free up health insurance by beginning to sever its debilitating connection to employment – a ruinous accident of history (arising from World War II wage and price controls) that increases the terror of job loss, inhibits labor mobility and saddles American industry with costs that are driving it (see: Detroit) into insolvency. And he supports lower corporate and marginal tax rates to encourage entrepreneurship and job creation. An eclectic, moderate, generally centrist agenda in a guy almost congenitally given to bipartisanship.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- george on Open thread 11/23
- sursum on Let immigrants run
- littlejohn on Health care reform would save state money
- littlejohn on Health care reform would save state money
- ANTI on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- gster on Open thread 11/23
- LonnythePlumber on Health care reform would save state money
- aldenrw on Let immigrants run
67 Comments
I think the disconnecting Health Care insurance from the employer is an excellent idea. One could then form unions of the insured to get group rates and the insurance would be portable.
I also like McCain’s idea on cutting government spending and doing away with programs that are non-essential. There is too much redundancy in the government.
Social Security and Medicare, ugh…I have no clue what to do with these programs. They have become unmanageable monstrosities.
Krauthammer endorses the John S (for Senile) McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) who was running for president in 2000. That John McCain wouldn’t vote for the McCoot who’s running in 2008.
So who are ya gonna believe?
What’s really sad about the McCodger campaign is how facile he’s been at rejecting his longtime “principled” positions; the foundation of what earned him “maverick” status.
No one who’s kept track of McC*nt’s record over the years has any idea how he might govern.
A hundred years in Iraq, or not (since the Iraqis don’t want us there). “Drill here, drill now,” or not. Let the Bush “emergency” tax cut for the top 1% of the richest Americans expire as he voted in the Senate in 2002… or not.
Bringing “Joe the Plumber” to Washington… for what?
Deciding the Moose-Dresser is the second-best qualified person on the planet to lead the Free World. Or not.
Does John McCain really believe anything?
No surprise it takes a columnist to endorse McCain’s economic plans since no actual professional economists will endorse it. Even respected financial publications like the Economist and the Financial Times endorse Obama as they recognize the disaster McCain will bring by continuing Bush’s policies.
And most respected economist say Obama is delusional or a liar when talking about his economic plans.
Truth be know….he’s a liar and will do little of what he now says because even he knows it is unworkable. He is already trying to temper expectations of what he will do.
The DimLibs are likely in for a brief drunken euphoria but then the crash.
“Generally speaking, he sees government as a Rooseveltian counterweight (Teddy with a touch of Franklin) to the various malefactors of wealth and power.”
McCain spent so much of his time talking about Obama that he wasn’t able to promote his own message.
That’s the trouble with a negative campaign…McCain’s message (no matter how great) was lost.
A campaign based on negativity and gimmicks witrh little substance/message may not be enough to win.
If McCain had run as a “Rooseveltian” from the beginning – and chosen a centrist running mate – the election would look a LOT different today.
As for Boxlck’s claim “And most respected economist say Obama is delusional or a liar when talking about his economic plans” that doesn’t seem to be Nobel prize winner Krugman’s take. Nor successful investor Warren Buffet.
“McCain spent so much of his time talking about Obama that he wasn’t able to promote his own message.” — mxyzptlk
——
IF he had a message we sure never heard it! And his supporters here at WEBlog were asked overandover but also unable to tell anyone.
His was a campaign of negatives. Americans are ready for positives.
Bigotbox,
“And most respected economist say Obama is delusional or a liar when talking about his economic plans.
Truth be know….he’s a liar and will do little of what he now says because even he knows it is unworkable.”
Big words from the Blog Bigot. Prove Barack Obama is lying or shut your mouth.
What impressed me about McCains economic plan is that he wouldn’t take away the Bush tax cuts that put money back in the hands of working families. See how much your taxes will go up when these expire.
He also would lower the capital gains taxes and top corporate tax rates. This would help many retirees and strengthen the market with more money being reinvested. Retirement plans such as KAPERS have suffered and would be helped by this infusion.
By lowering the corp tax rates he would make the business environment more welcoming to segments of the mfg world that have gone off shore. He hasn’t revealed a plan to tax 401k plans as Obama has.
I could go on but the gist of his entire plan is in agreement with top economists who say that raising taxes in a bad economy could move us toward a depression.
Proof Obama is lying (from the most fundamental tenet of his campaign): “My plan gives a tax break to 95% of working Americans.”
How can that be when 40% pay no tax at all?
And don’t give me the “they pay payroll tax and state income tax and sales tax and property tax and…”
Those obligations are the product of (government-forced) retirement trust funds or state governments or local governments. PLUS, the EIC already refunds a significant portion of those funds to lower income workers.
What he is REALLY offering: expanded welfare.
Face it, he is overpromising – errrrr, lying.
lindainks55
Posted November 3, 2008 at 8:34 am | Permalink
“McCain spent so much of his time talking about Obama that he wasn’t able to promote his own message.” — mxyzptlk
——
IF he had a message we sure never heard it! And his supporters here at WEBlog were asked overandover but also unable to tell anyone.
—————————-
Ksgolfnut I guess Linda didn’t really mean that she wanted to see McCains plan. Just another one of those toothless statements the left loves to drop.
No surprise it takes a columnist to endorse McCain’s economic plans since no actual professional economists will endorse it.
I know of another columnist who doesn’t like McCain’s economic plan at all. Ya know, that–what’s his name–Kroogland or something?
Oh, right! Paul Krugman. The guy who won this year’s Nobel prize in economics.
Whoa! Didn’t see that coming!
Dick Cheney’s Hometown Paper Endorses Obama Today
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003886344
What’s better for economic development..giving one person $2,000 or another $100,000?
If McCain had a message in his campaign it was the fact that he was willing to sell his soul to the Radical Right of the GOP to get to the White House. Why else would he pick Sarah Palin? She is a darling of the Radical Right but who else in the country even knew her? And then when we did find out the truth about her, nobody but the Radical Right still loves her.
No matter what McCain’s message is, he still has to deal with the fact that George W. Bush is unpopular and yet McCain stated that he has voted 90% of the time with Bush and is proud of that record.
If McCain had a message – it was certainly lost on all the nasty and negative campaigning he has done just in the past month. But, I do realize the Radical Right love to get down in the gutter and fight like gutter rats but that doesn’t sit too well with rational thinking people. Fear and smear attacks are not going to work this time around.
From Rage’s link we hear the same words as we’ve heard from most newspapers, politicians, world leaders, economists, scientists, people of thought and reason.
—–
It is a foregone conclusion that Wyoming’s three electoral votes will go to Sen. John McCain. It would be easy for the Star-Tribune to simply agree with the majority of voters in this red state and endorse the Republican candidate for president.
But this isn’t an ordinary election, and Sen. Barack Obama has the potential to be an extraordinary leader at a time we desperately need one. The next occupant of the White House will inherit a national economy that’s collapsing and two wars our nation has been fighting for years, depleting valuable resources we need to fix a multitude of domestic problems. Far too many of our nation’s citizens live paycheck to paycheck, worried about whether they’ll have a job next week or if a medical crisis will bankrupt them.
What America needs most in these troubled times is a president who will move the country in a positive direction. The candidate who is most likely to chart a new course that will lead us to better days is Obama. Moreover, he is the best candidate for Wyoming …
Two of the best ways to judge presidential candidates is by looking at how they conduct their campaigns and who they select as vice president. On both fronts, Obama wins impressively.
We may not always agree with Sen. Joe Biden’s decisions, but Obama tapped him to bring valuable foreign policy experience to the ticket. There is no question that the longtime senator is capable of serving as president if needed.
McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, however, shows extremely poor judgment. She has shown repeatedly that she is simply not ready to fill McCain’s shoes.
Mr Kia – I would be okay to give the tax cuts to the wealthy if they are going to create jobs with that money. Since Bush’s tax cuts to the top 5%, where are all these jobs the Republicans keep talking about? Let’s start requiring accountability of these top 5% and see exactly where that money goes. Would you be okay with that?
And more low-paying jobs is not what this country needs. We need good-paying jobs that families can live on.
Well said Linda. But I think there are too many people who are still in the me-me-me way of thinking and not what is good for the entire country. Remember when George W. Bush said he was the uniter not a divider?
I think the American people are hungry for a leader who can inspire everyone to be the best they can be, regardless of their economic and social background.
I also like the fact that Obama and Biden feel that corporations also have a duty to country and to conduct their business in such a manner as to benefit America and not just their bottom line profits. In my opinion, the corporatization of America has brought alot of the problems we see today.
“…the corporatization of America has brought alot of the problems we see today.”
—
Boy, did you get that one right on the nose! The very biggest problems we face! BIG pharma, BIG military-industrial, BIG banking… The bush base and the McCain base too. They’ve taken and given nothing back.
What exactly have they taken? This seems to be the socialist talking points of late. They feel like they are owed something from another’s success. The business has grown and prospered. Why do you feel like you deserve a piece of that? Why not grow and prosper yourself?
McCane voted for the economy we have now. You can’t solve a problem with the same set of ideas that created it.
Jed
Posted November 3, 2008 at 11:12 am | Permalink
McCane voted for the economy we have now.
———
Really? How did you come to that conclusion?
Sol, it’s OK for big oil, big pharma, big banking, military-industrial to take money from the government? Corporate welfare as has been bush’s policy is the America you approve of? It was alright for our tax money to make Halliburton and Blackwater richer. Guess you thought it was OK that after Halliburton took their monies from our government they set up shop in Dubai?
Come on. You’re a really smart guy. You can’t approve corporate welfare, excesses and abuses. So the person who abuses food stamps is more guilty? Or maybe welfare isn’t what you approve of at any level.
Well of course!
Obama is proposing over 400 billion dollars in new annual entitlements and programs – money we do not have.
When you are broke, you don’t go spending more money.
Unfortunately, liberals would have to jump off a cliff and die if they couldn’t spend more of someone ELSE’s money.
McCain has also announced that his economic policies are to continue the bush economic policies. He doesn’t seem to understand the first rule of holes.
Ah shoot! I’ve got pleasant things to do today and pleasant things to ponder and look forward to. Talking about bush and McCain isn’t pleasant, and adds nothing to our brighter future.
” Corporate welfare as has been bush’s policy is the America you approve of? ”
Corporate welfare has been AMERICAN policy for decades. It’s not a Bush policy – although I won’t argue he and republicans have some love affair in that regards.
But dems approved the budgets, and Clinton had the same policies.
Of course, Linda, if you will really think this through – if you raise taxes on the corporations it is a sure bet they will raise the cost of their goods and services.
Joe Public pays for corporate welfare. It is a hidden tax on you and me.
When did big oil “take money from the government”?
When was Big Oil allowed to come into the White House and write the energy policies? In the Bush/Cheney first term. Have those sealed records ever been unclassified?
And where would corporations be without the middle class to pay for their crap? Where would the corporations be without the taxpayer money they help themselves to every year?
If we are truly a capitalistic and free trade country, then let’s do away with all the government entitlement programs – including corporate welfare. After all, corporate welfare is a form of socialism, isn’t it?
Somehow I don’t see Big Business willing to go along with that plan. Why else do they spend millions of dollars in lobbying politicians?
American Way – if corporations raise their cost of goods and services, then the Americans have the choice to either buy it or not.
When was Big Oil allowed to come into the White House and write the energy policies?
Mom, go back to school. Big oil has been a lobby since, well BIG OIL began being pumped in Penns…
I am not saying Bush didn’t pay attention. I am saying you are not paying attention. Take the blinders off.
then the Americans have the choice to either buy it or not.
Not so easy. You going to stop buying oil products? You going to stop using coal/electric utilities?
Stop buying US made cars (big subsidies)?
Go google oil products. You will be surprised how long the list is.
“corporate welfare is a form of socialism”
Only if government is handing out taxpayer dollars to corporations. That is a new development in American history. This democrat controlled congress just made that historical change.
I think you are confusing “tax breaks” for welfare. The government taking in LESS tax from businesses and corporations, is NOT lost money. It is money that stays where it originated: in the hands of the hardworking people, owners, and investors who earned it.
America is bass ackward these days.
Thank you, Buzz, for laying out the sad reality.
McCain team wants us to vote out of fear
At a time when America is facing some of the deepest problems in its history — the long war on terrorism, economic malfunctions, energy deficits and global warming — it needs new ideas and courage more than ever.
Yet in a cruel irony, the fringe segment of the Republican Party that Sen. John McCain invited to control his presidential campaign wants us to vote out of fear.
The past two weeks of the campaign have seen American politics in its most intellectually dishonest mutation, causing independents and even some longtime moderate Republicans to wince, blink and try to distance themselves.
No matter who is elected, the nation’s political process will have been forever cheapened by the 2008 campaign. And if treating the American people like simpleminded pawns should result in a McCain victory, the implications for future campaigns are profound and distressing.
Spin is a normal part of all segments of the political process, from elections through governing. Gaining support for your policy choices requires marshaling facts in the light most favorable to you and least favorable to your opponents. Seeking to take advantage of serious missteps or even misstatements by your opponent is simple opportunism.
A line exists, however, separating tough campaigning from irresponsible, and the people running McCain have been well beyond it.
They most recently dragged out that old bugaboo “socialist” to cause us to fear Barack Obama, basing that label on his casual use to a stranger of the common phrase “spread the wealth.” That was no more a declaration about income redistribution than his use of another common phrase, “lipstick on a pig,” was a reference to Sarah Palin. Yet they expect us to define and fear him on that basis.
Before that, we needed to fear him because of his “palling around with terrorists” because he once knew one, and because his longtime United Church of Christ pastor holds off-the-wall racist opinions, and because Obama is actually a Muslim, you know (albeit one who, oddly enough, relies on a Christian pastor), and, of course, there’s that African-American shadowy thing hanging around.
We also, they want us to know, need to fear many of our fellow Americans. Not enough of them live in the “real America.” They are, we’re told, “anti-American” based on the far right’s social litmus tests, and may thus be freely cursed and despised.
All that would be laughable if it didn’t come wrapped in the cynical expectation that some number of Americans would buy into one or more of the canards. It would be merely sobering to think that the crafters of the attacks actually believed them. But the fact that they fully know better is truly terrifying, as well as an insult to all voters.
McCain, particularly in the closing days of this campaign, has vigorously tried to separate himself from the failed policies of George W. Bush. But he’s had little to say about the administration’s corrosive, divisive and dishonest political tactics. That’s understandable, since they are the product of the same people McCain invited to control his campaign.
It would be naive to think that as president he could rid himself of them. <
Davis Merritt is a former editor of The Eagle.
http://www.kansas.com/749/story/575517.html
“mom
Posted November 3, 2008 at 10:51 am | Permalink
…..And more low-paying jobs is not what this country needs. We need good-paying jobs that families can live on.
********************************
Then quit buying foreign made products and buy, as much as possible, even if you have to pay more, American made products.
then let’s do away with all the government entitlement programs -
Agreed.
Next?
Krautph@@ker is an angry, radical, phlegmatic Roger Ailes-Karl Rove shill. McWorse himself concedes he knows little and understands even less about finance and economics. So what would we get from a McWorse administration? Look at the cabal around McSame: all Bush I,Bush II and Rove flunkies and groupies. If you liked the economics and budget deficits of the last eight years, you’ll like root canals and George W. Bush. If you like Bush’s Misbegotten War, watch McWorse keep the flames, and deficits, burning for another 4 years, if he doesn’t succumb to senility or Ahlzheimers before then. In that case, you get the airhead governer of Alaska to take over. Very scary. Very expensive.
American_Way
Posted November 3, 2008 at 11:45 am | Permalink
“corporate welfare is a form of socialism”
Only if government is handing out taxpayer dollars to corporations. That is a new development in American history. This democrat controlled congress just made that historical change.
–
And what part of subsidies do you not get? And this has not been just recently done by this Democrat controlled Congress – this has been going on for years and years.
How about the farm subsidies to millionaires on Wall Street that don’t ever get their hands dirty? Isn’t that tax dollars going to corporations? What about sugar subsidies? What about HUD subsidies to sleazy landlords?
You had better get your blinders off to the myth that a well paid corporatization of America is actually good for America.
Corporations are only as good as the people that work for them. And the true picture of a corporation’s character is how much they pay their CEO. If it is multi-millions when the CEO lays off hundreds of people, then that corporation is only interested in their bottom line profits – not what is good for America.
Haven’t you ever wondered if the corporation has millions to pay the CEO, then why didn’t they have the millions to keep Americans working? Duh…..
I see a lot of Krugmann being mentioned in here today.
I’ll have you know that elites created this Nobel Prize of his in order to get people excited about his socialist policies.
It may be hard for left and right to swallow, but the only recipients to win this particular Nobel Prize who actually deserved it were Milton Friedman and Fredrick Hayek.
Those of you who actually have seen Krugmann’s theory would know how awful it is, but most already assume that since he got a Nobel Prize, he must know what he is talking about. I’ll also venture a guess that most on here wouldn’t understand a word of his theory in the first place.
His trade theory is socialism on a worldwide scale.
Oh well, this country is all about credentials instead of actual knowledge. Why should this argument be any different?
mom-
Have you started buying American made whenever possible yet?
We may not always agree with Sen. Joe Biden’s decisions, but Obama tapped him to bring valuable foreign policy experience to the ticket.
__________________________________________________
You mean the exact same Foreign Policy of John McCain’s?
Intervention
Face it, there is no difference between McCain and Obama.
Same Monetary Policy
Same Foreign Policy
You control those two policies, you control this country.
So AE,
Who will you vote for?
Obama and McCain will put this country on the same track. Same destination. The only differnence is that one is on a jet plane and the other on a steam ship.
I’m voting for Chuck Baldwin.
Bob Barr is my second choice though.
I told my grandma who didn’t like McCain or Obama that she’d be better of voting third party. I then told her that if she didn’t want to do that, then the most responsible thing she could do was not to vote at all.
Once Americans see how many Americans either voted third party or didn’t vote at all, they will realize that Republicans and Democrats are actually the minority in this great country.
We just need someone to harness that power and get this country going in the right direction again.
Hope it happens. I looked at Baldwin. He puts too much of his religion into his politics. I’ll hold my nose and vote Barr. I prefer the Libertarian party to the Constitutional anyway.
I took Baldwin’s stance on religion seriously, but he is so right on with all other issues that I let his ideas on religion slide.
Bob Barr is still a solid choice though.
The fact is, you couldn’t go wrong with either one. They both agreed to the four principles laid out by Ron Paul at his news conference last month.
Yup, and I am betting that if Barr would have laid off the endorsement, he would have gotten it. Well, maybe, they are pretty close.
Barr’s history troubles me. But I think he is on track now. Yeah, either way.
I am just tired of the religious right getting their fingers in government. I think there will be a party rift when Obama wins. I just hope we geat a true conservative section back into the GOP.
AE – still sticking with your prediction of low voter turnout?
They are predicting 70% of registered voters to turn out in MI. FL has had days long hour waits at the polls.
bth
Posted November 3, 2008 at 1:14 pm | Permalink
AE – still sticking with your prediction of low voter turnout?
_________________________________________________
Not necessarily.
I do think that there will be more non-voters and third party voters than Republican and Democrat voters combined.
I’ll say 40% of eligible voters vote Republican or Democrat and that the 60% of eligible voters will either not vote or vote third party.
The 60% will be so spread out though that it will not show up on any major news outlets. So the real majority will still look small in comparison.
That is my predicition.
Sol – I think it might even exceed 70%. And, of those, maybe 3% voting third-party – tops.
My vote in the primary didn’t count. I voted Ron Paul as did my family. Our votes didn’t show up. So as per 3% third party? I am sure that is what the media will tell you. As per actual voting? I am betting otherwise.
Third party threatens the status quo. We are suppressed because we don’t follow the trend.
I heard on the news that in some advance voting areas they have already had more voters than in the last election cycle
#
bth
Posted November 3, 2008 at 1:39 pm | Permalink
I heard on the news that in some advance voting areas they have already had more voters than in the last election cycle
————————
I heard that there are more advanced voters because more places are offering advanced voting. :D
America needs to be re-educated on the merits of freedom.
Too many of us want to give up pieces of freedom, and keep other parts.
Has anyone in here ever read the book, “The Mainspring of Human Progress”?
This is a great book that talks about how humans had starved to death and didn’t have essentials at their disposal until the idea of freedom was tried in America.
Now we have things in abundance. The reason for this is freedom. This is something you should never give up and for good reason too.
Frredom is a young idea. Socialism is not. It was tried for centuries and every civilization that relied on socialism failed.
Obama’s change is nothing more than tired ideas that will bring America to a long term ruin.
The problem is McCain is no better. He believes in socialism only to a smaller degree.
Either way, the American people lose.
People need to come down from the clouds and get a grip on reality.
Some food for thought:
“Choice and Risk either reside with the individual or he/she will be relieved of both.”
~Fredrick Hayek
Truer words have never been spoken.
#
Austrian_Economist
Posted November 3, 2008 at 1:45 pm | Permalink
America needs to be re-educated on the merits of freedom.
Too many of us want to give up pieces of freedom, and keep other parts.
Has anyone in here ever read the book, “The Mainspring of Human Progress”?
This is a great book that talks about how humans had starved to death and didn’t have essentials at their disposal until the idea of freedom was tried in America.
Now we have things in abundance. The reason for this is freedom. This is something you should never give up and for good reason too.
Frredom is a young idea. Socialism is not. It was tried for centuries and every civilization that relied on socialism failed.
Obama’s change is nothing more than tired ideas that will bring America to a long term ruin.
The problem is McCain is no better. He believes in socialism only to a smaller degree.
Either way, the American people lose.
People need to come down from the clouds and get a grip on reality.
——————-
We apologize for the inconvenience, but your post has been edited to reflect current socialistic values. It reads now:
Has anyone in here ever read the book, “The Mainspring of Human Progress”? This is a great book that talks about how humans had starved to death and didn’t have essentials at their disposal
Ben,
Still sticking with your belief that the attack on the Marines in Lebanon was not a terrorist attack, rather a legitimate military attack?
Nice Regular.
I had a nice chuckle there.
Nathaniel
Posted November 3, 2008 at 1:48 pm | Permalink
Ben,
Still sticking with your belief that the attack on the Marines in Lebanon was not a terrorist attack, rather a legitimate military attack?
__________________________________________________
What were the marines doing over there?
That is the question you should be asking.
Even Reagan said it was a mistake because he didn’t understand the irrationality of Middle-Eastern Politics.
More of out interventionist foreign policy causing blowback.
I heard a young Obama supporter telling me how great he was because she wouldn’t have to worry about putting gas in her car or how to pay her bills anymore.
Wow….just, wow
Wow….just, wow Heard that on Glenn Beck the other day.
Problem is, people don’t get it. Peole don’t understand that somebody is going to pay that mortgage.
Sheeple. Baaahhh. THE OOONNEEEE baaaaahhhh.
“I heard that there are more advanced voters because more places are offering advanced voting. :D”
Very true. The interesting thing – at least if I heard correctly – is that the total is already greater than the last election cycle including election day.
#
bth
Posted November 3, 2008 at 2:00 pm | Permalink
“I heard that there are more advanced voters because more places are offering advanced voting. :D”
Very true. The interesting thing – at least if I heard correctly – is that the total is already greater than the last election cycle including election day.
——————–
Ah yes, the old postulate, the sum of parts is greater than the total.
Which brings me back to recalculating my bank deposits this month…
Austrian_Economist,
Do you think that the attack on the Marines by a suicide bomber, driving a truck loaded with explosives, who was a member of a terrorist organization was a legitimate military attack or a terrorist action?
Nathaniel
Posted November 3, 2008 at 2:07 pm | Permalink
Austrian_Economist,
Do you think that the attack on the Marines by a suicide bomber, driving a truck loaded with explosives, who was a member of a terrorist organization was a legitimate military attack or a terrorist action?
_________________________________________________
Irrelevant and an outright disregard to the question I asked.
What were the marines doing over there in the first place?
You seem to have forgotten that there are two sides to every coin.
You either intervene and be the police of the world
or
You don’t intervene and let countries govern how they see fit and implode from within.
Why does everyone just assume that intervention is the way to go with every foreign country?
Has anyone ever thought about taking care of your own country instead of telling others what to do?
This is a huge moral issue in todays world.
Austrian Economist…I actually agree with you on this one. As long as we have a presence in other countries, then we are going to vulnerable to attacks, it just goes with the territory….we need to decide if occupation is worth the price of Americans dying.
Austrian_Economist,
Ok then, your questions were Irrelevant and an outright disregard to the question I asked Ben.
My only point is to find out Ben’s stance on the issue.
You decided to but in questioning me. Now I have to wonder about what you think on the issue as well.
And you refuse to answer as well.
I wouldn’t want you to think that I don’t answer questions, so I will answer yours. Hopefully you will do the same for mine.
“What were the marines doing over there in the first place?”
The Marines were part of a multi-national peace keeping force comprised of Italian and French troops to oversee the evacuation of the PLO.
“Why does everyone just assume that intervention is the way to go with every foreign country?”
I dont think that everyone does think that.
“Has anyone ever thought about taking care of your own country instead of telling others what to do?”
Yes.