Romney and his so called resolve

[celestemekent]

Former Ambassador Williamson (a Romney foreign policy adviser) came out and suggested that if Romney had been president the rioting in the Muslim countries would have never happened. Romney has used the term 'resolve' to describe his sort of foreign policy without of course bothering to make any more precise wording for what he would do.

The problem with Williamson's statement is that under the last 4 republican presidencies there have been foreign embassies under siege so I guess none of them had 'resolve' either. Romney has no explanation of just how he might prevent such social activities in other countries, would he simply apply a free fire zone in front of each of our embassies? American presidents have little influence about what happens in foreign lands and the idea that Obama is weak is in spite of his use of drones killing most of Al Queda leadership, and the Taliban leadership too is that weakness? The people who Romney relies most heavily on for advice on foreign policy are the very same advisers that Bush had, the ones who were completely sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and we all know how that turned out.

 

[moment_of_faith]

The Kenya Warrior Obama . I bet he flies the drones himself .. Remember Obama got a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO ----

 

[celestemekent]

It should be noted that Bush's advisers suggested an invasion and take over of Iraq long before 9/11.The neo cons are some of the most aggressive foreign policy advisers to ever inhabit the Pentagons corridors of power and sadly none of them had ever actually been IN the military. Romney has filled the ranks of his foreign policy advisers with these Neo cons.

 

[moment_of_faith]

So your saying both sides love to kill muslims ??

 

[wwjd_kilden]

All politicians think they can do stuff better than the ones in power. Here we have the political parties blaming each other for all kinds of things.
Down there it almost looks as if followers or the various parties do the same (or maybe I just know people that are very into politics?).

 

[moment_of_faith]

We are 16 Trillion in debt. People will kill you over a few dollars so what do you think they will do over 16 Trillon? The Machine is running and if someone really tries to get in the way .. BANG

 

[celestemekent]

If you cant figure it out I'll educate you Moment of faith, get everyone working first, then have all those with jobs pay their taxes fairly and the debt will take care of itself. When you focus entirely on the debt first and shrink the economy by trying to pay it down without full employment it actually stops people from spending money and you get fewer and fewer people working making the debt worse. It is a simple fact that our national debt is not solvable without full employment.

So the only solution is to first get everyone working then begin paying down the debt and not before.

 

[moment_of_faith]

Maybe Obama can take your advise. I'm not in charge. i understand why you think so, but I'm not

 

[celestemekent]

Its is not just my advice, it is the advice of PhD economists from several different schools, some Nobel prize winners.

Trickle down economics has never worked , will never work, and is entirely illogical. But it has become economic dogma amongst republicans because they have so many super wealthy contributors to their party.

 

[moment_of_faith]

and now we know spend your way out doesn't wither

 

[Red33]

If you cant figure it out I'll educate you Moment of faith, get everyone working first, then have all those with jobs pay their taxes fairly and the debt will take care of itself. When you focus entirely on the debt first and shrink the economy by trying to pay it down without full employment it actually stops people from spending money and you get fewer and fewer people working making the debt worse. It is a simple fact that our national debt is not solvable without full employment.

So the only solution is to first get everyone working then begin paying down the debt and not before.

I agree with you and would like to add this. When we over-tax the operation and profit of any private sector business/company in our free enterprise system of capitalism, we increase on the consumer the cost of products offered and we over-burden inhibiting the business/company from potentially growing and expanding, which would certainly translate into more employment and to the security of those already employed. All of that is counter productive and when our government adds any form of legislature to that burden it should be discouraged by congress who represent the people who have the businesses/companies and buy the products offered.

 

[JimJimmers]

If you cant figure it out I'll educate you Moment of faith, get everyone working first, then have all those with jobs pay their taxes fairly and the debt will take care of itself. When you focus entirely on the debt first and shrink the economy by trying to pay it down without full employment it actually stops people from spending money and you get fewer and fewer people working making the debt worse. It is a simple fact that our national debt is not solvable without full employment.

So the only solution is to first get everyone working then begin paying down the debt and not before.

No debt reduction until unemployment is 0%? Sounds like not such a good plan. As far as getting everyone a job and "the debt will take care of itself", the debt is currently almost 80% of GDP. It's not just a matter of getting people back to work, we also need constitutional government.

 

[psychomom]

full employment--Yes!
reducing gov't spending--vital.

If our fearless leaders would spend less money keeping themselves in power (pork additions to spending bills that have nothing whatsoever to do with the proposed legialation), we would be much better off here in the US.

FWIW

 

[celestemekent]

Full employment has never been considered 0% unemployed, typically that figure has been around 5%. Still the more people paying taxes the faster the debt will be reduced. It was done during Clinton and he had higher taxes for the upper income brackets. Fact is that during the 1950's the highest marginal rates were over 90% and it did not stifle the economy. The 50's were a high flying decade economically. In the 50's our middle class was the biggest it has ever been, unions were powerful, and economic equality was the norm. Right now the marginal rate is 35%, the middle class is under attack, unions are powerless, and equality is nowhere to be seen, and we are all miserable. Mind you there were plenty of other problems during the 50's but the economy was not one of them.

 

[JimJimmers]

You said get everyone back to work, I'm glad you were speaking figuratively.

Unfortunately, you're incorrect about the Clinton years. The debt was not reduced, we merely had a reduction in the increase of debt. I'll say it one more time: To reduce debt, WE HAVE TO CUT SPENDING, just like Psychomom said.

 

[oracle2world]

As Niccolò Machiavelli put it, it is nice to be loved, but you at least have to be feared as a leader. (Iron fist in velvet glove approach.)

Reagan was feared, and I think that made his foreign relations a lot easier.

Again, do not expect other countries will respond favorably to kumbaya. Give it a try once, and if they do not return the friendship, the battle lines are drawn and more reaching out at this point just invites contempt.

Dictatorships are like cast iron. Appearing strong and unyielding up to the point they break - and cast iron is very brittle and small rods can easily be broken by hand. America is more like a steel alloy that flexes a bit and requires enormous stress to fail.

Bottom line? America is a great friend and terrible enemy. Only one country has ever used nuclear weapons in anger to settle a war.

 

[psychomom]

unions are powerless

Now that's a good one!
Unions...powerless??

Only insofar as the political machine they support is powerless, I think.

(Maybe you're not thinking of labor unions, in which case I beg your pardon.)

 

[MYRedeemedinJC]

All I know is I don't want another 4 year Obama term... Mitt Romney is a little more qualified for the job, Obama just doesn't seem like the guy knows what he is doing..