[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Alex

Maybe to you. But it relies on a whole bunch of assumptions to get there that most wouldn't agree with. We can go through them if necessary, but I think we both know where it ends up. For one thing, talking about the problems of extreme income inequality caused in part by bad tax policy is not the same as arguing for income equality. Opportunity doesn't equal result. But pointing to income equality as the goal and knocking it down as a straw-man argument can be entertaining, I guess.

I don't think you have to rely on any assumptions to understand Obama's position. He has already indicated that he thinks certain people get paid too much. He's on record multiple times saying exactly that. He has proposed moderating that through regulation and taxes.

The corporate tax argument is empty. We both know this. The costs of healthcare to both individuals and the corporations who pay for such a large portion of it are rising at unsustainable rates. Putting aside all of bluster and fear of "Obamacare", the small steps taken over the years to reform medicare, attempt to rein in costs, gain efficiencies through technology, process, etc.; haven't done anything significant to affect these continually rising costs. Projections such as these show healthcare costing 100% of the GDP within some of our lifetimes. It's not sustainable. It's not a matter of raising costs on businesses, or moving the costs around from businesses to individuals or back again. It's figuring out how it works for everybody going forward.

I don't disagree about the costs of healthcare. But the answer is not having the government come in for the rescue. They have already had a negative effect on healthcare costs, and will most likely have a negative effect on overall healthcare.

That's another huge stretch. Your prerogative to believe whatever you want, but it isn't based on anything tangible. From ramping up the drone programs, to supporting the latest electronic warfare capabilities, to greatly increasing programs and support for military families, to strengthening military bases in key areas of the world, it's terribly hard to paint Obama as a peace-loving leader who doesn't understand the military realities. Heck, there's any number of sites like this one that list all of the things he's done to spend too much or act too rashly on military endeavors.

I agree that Obama has made good use of the US Military since he has become president. This is in contrast of his positions prior to setting foot in the white house.

It doesn't have to be NATO vs. CSDP. It's a matter of neither one of them working in Europe right now, and finding a way to fix that. According to Gates in his last speech in Europe a few months ago, on the topic of the future of NATO (link to transcript), the point is clear that America might not be interested in picking up such a huge part of the tab for European defense. He says it better than I can paraphrase:



That's not putting Europe or any of its individual countries over America, it's instead the inverse; America shouldn't be paying the bill for countries who are more than capable of shouldering a larger portion of their own burden.

Yes. It also doesn't really have anything to do with CSDP. I agree with Gates that the burden of European security needs to be transferred more to the Europeans. There was already a plan in place under NATO to achieve that goal. The CSDP is designed to replace NATO, and at the same time, limit US influence in Europe. Even former Sec. of State Madeleine Albright (and I'm certainly not a fan of hers) sees this as a bad deal for the US, warning that it would discriminate against non-EU members of NATO.

But aside from the CSDP, I believe, as many do, that the United States is viewed as a much weaker nation than it was prior to Obama taking office. His tour of apologies, his bowing down to other nation's leaders, these and other things have helped weaken the image of the US, and has hurt US interests.