|
[QUOTE=spence;868764]That McCain would have had a massive (i.e. 1T++) 2009 budget deficit is neither speculation or conjecture.
Look at the numbers.
IF THERE ARE FACTUAL NUMBERS, WHY THE DEBATE?
The military can easily take a 10% spending cut. The issue there is with the programs local Congress people have a desire to continue funding for. This is also a bi-partisan issue.
YA SURE, WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE MID EAST, THE NEED FOR NEW SOPHISTCATED WEAPONS TO FIGHT TERRORISM AND CHINA BUILDING UP IT'S MILITARY AND BUIDING CARRIERS WE SHOULD CUT BACK ON MILITARY SPENDING ?
Globalization is what started the move. Just as manufacturing shifted to the US in the late 1800's we're pushing it onto Asia at the turn of the century.
OUR PUSHING INTO ASIA MAY BE THE FIRST YOU'VE SEEN IN YOUR LIFTIME,
BUT COMPANIES STARTED MOVING FROM STATE TO STATE THEN OUT OF
THE COUNTRY 35 YEARS AGO BECAUSE OF GOVT. REGULATION AND TAXES.
Nope, it's already happening. I work with manufacturing companies every day in the US and the growth in Asia and BRIC countries is a huge part of their business which helps them them employ Americans.
WHERE CAN I FIND THESE FACTS AND FIGURES.
This is a classic Keynesian scenario. The problem is that private business will almost always take the path of least resistance which means short term shareholder value. People may mock Obama wanting to invest in environmental tech that's slow to produce, but odds are the future success of America will be based on these technologies.
YA MEAN LIKE HOW SILICONE VALLEY COMPANIES WERE LOOKING FOR SHORT TERM SHARE HOLDER VALUE WHEN THEY CREATED HIGH TECH?
|
Hybrid Mode
