[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

really? it seemed that the recommendations were fairly straightforward.

I don't want to take this thread too far off course, but I don't think they were. They were generalizations like this:

"The U.S. government must attack terrorists and their organizations by identifying and prioritizing actual or potential sanctuaries for terrorists, and have a realistic strategy to keep possible terrorists insecure and on the run, using all elements of national power. The U.S. should reach out, listen to, and work with other countries that can help in this regard."

Sounds like what we're already doing, but you wouldn't know unless you knew what they meant by "a realistic strategy to keep possible terrorists insecure", "using all elements of national power", "work with other countries", etc.

it makes for good soundbites. most of those making the minimum wage aren't voters, but the idea that the dem party is looking out for the most vulnerable is good populism.

At least you admit that it's populism.

If, as you say, most minimum wage workers are teenagers, that militates even further against raising the minimum wage, IMO.

the "rate of return" is much more than simple interest on the loan. the government gets a return from the increased earning capacity of the worker, as well as benefits of a more productive, stable worker. society is more stable as well with a bterr educated workforce.

frankly, the rates are pretty low as it is, but as we see the cost of capital increase this will certainly affect the interest rate on student loans.

So are you saying you're for slashing the interest rates?

how do we know how effective they can be when the research on them is limited (or in most cases not allowed) by the fiat of the current administration?

Fiat's not an accurate term, but we know it because there are other countries where such research is permitted, and so far it has been completely ineffective.

to be effective in removing the deficits there MUST be a reduction in spending. however, the reduction in federal spending will not by itself stop the deficits, so yes taxes MUST be increased...on the highest 2% of incomes according to the proposal above.

Yeah, but she's saying she won't reduce spending. Do you agree or disagree with her?

"socialist"??? just where is the socialism in the plan?

having the highest incomes tax breaks rescinded is not socialism. are you of the opinion there should not be a progressive tax structure?

She said, "We must share the benefits of our wealth beyond the privileged few." That's called redistribution of wealth.

Whining about rewarding wealth and not work is intended to create envy by the lower/middle classes toward the wealthy, and it implies that the wealthy don't deserve their wealth and therefore should be stripped of it, so that it can be given to those that "work".

Socialism, or perhaps you prefer the term communism.