Originally Posted By: The Dread Pirate Westley
I'm going to vote for the first man that has a solid plan for cutting spending, paying off our loans and buying back bonds from foreign investers, and leveling trade practices with countries that abuse human rights and exploit workers laboring for poverty wages that are undercutting U.S. domestic business.

The largest threat to the united states is our increasing dependence on foreign powers that actually hate us. See; China, Middle East

Barrack says he wants to end the occupation of Iraq and raise taxes. That'll put us half the way to paying for this debacle after 6 years. But it's better than McCain's "let's keep cutting taxes and continuing the occupation while we "pay" for it by selling ourselves to china"

China hates us, and that's not changing anytime soon. I don't honestly know what the fuck these Neocons are thinking, they act like the united states is defended against stupidity by a writ from God or something.


If you think Obama is raising taxes in order to pay down our national debt, dream on.
Obama has already made clear that he plans to spend the additional tax revenue on social programs. But even liberal critics have noted that even with his proposed tax increases, Obama's numbers don't add up. Which means more taxes, more deficit spending, or both.

I agree with your other points though, about Britain, Japan and (most unsettling) China holding an increasing portion of our debt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

I'm a reformed neo-con myself. Pat Buchanan's book, Where the Right Went Wrong (2004) has converted me. Neo-cons have a false notion that it's the U.S. mission to save the world and promote democracy worldwide (and many Democrats too, as demonstrated by wars in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia and elsewhere, as well as massive foreign aid by presidents and congresses of both parties, over 4 decades)But the neo-con influence is waning anyway.

I've reformed to see the wisdom of fighting war by other means, short of planes and bombs, to more gently leverage the world to see our way, or just stay out of it altogether. In examples where the U.S. has intervened in recent decades, like Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Chile, Argentina, Iran, Iraq, the Phillipines and elsewhere, things have a way of reaching a natural equilibrium in all these places, regardless of what we do.
If we let them fight their civil wars or regional wars, it will run its course, they'll get tired of war, and a new era of peace and hunger free markets and democracy will arise, even without U.S. intervention.

Vietnam, for example, was over-run by communists, had a bloodbath in 1975, and 30 years later, they are taking on free-market reforms and are very welcoming toward Americans.
If we stay and hold a region and exert our influence, they often end up resenting us, no matter how well it turns out (Chile, for example, has one of the best economies in South America, but they'll never forget U.S. involvement with Pinochet).
Likewise the Phillipines.
And Iraq.

The reverse is true, though, of U.S. involvement and occupation in Germany and Japan. Our military presence in Germany and Japan has arguably made our nations remain closer allies than if we withdrew and both went our separate ways.

There are times when U.S. military action is necessary, and there are times when it is not, and just complicates things.

My problem with the neo-cons is they think U.S. military power is the answer for everything, and want to do it alone rather than build an international consensus.