Think about this.. Large corperation get tax break and the ability to import taxless. Small business are being run into the ground because it costs too much tax wise and energy wise (oil) because of high electric bills and travel expenses.
It seems to me that we are slowly crashing into a world where choosing the military is the best decision.
2006-12-20 11:22:53 · 15 answers · asked by NONAME 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Cut student loans for college students and welfare, there are people with nothing to do but enlist. He's trying to avoid another Veitnam crisis, but what he doesn't realize is that these people are not going to fight his battle for him.
I know what he's up to. Anyplace a battle lays near armageddon, I say steer clear of it.
Also look at the countries signing pacts, wwIII was his plan all along. It's posted on globalsecurity.net, war in Iraq, then iran, and nt korea.
2006-12-20 12:58:52 · answer #1 · answered by eg_ansel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How does that have anything to do with the military? Now, if you were complaining about defence contracting corporations, then that would make more sense. The plight of the small businesses is quite irrelevant to your fears of a "military state."
You must realise, however, that three forces are dominant in America, and President Bush is not one of them. Those three forces are the media, Congress, and the military (perhaps in order of influence). Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers, for many are controlled by liberals.
If anything, you should read your news from a variety of sources (e.g. The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, The Guardian) that will offer you a far more objective view than the New York Times, which tries to show balance but more favours the liberal view of thing.
There was an old Roman saying, "Si vis pacem, para bellum." (If you want peace, prepare for war). We are living in a very dangerous age, where things are not as certain as they were decades ago. It is no longer black and white, but rather different shades of grey. President Bush's blunder in Iraq certainly did not help matters, but can you honestly say that you were against the war from the outset? I can say I was (perhaps because I have nothing against Saddam Hussein, who has done no offense unto me, and I don't particularly care about the Iraqis' freedom or lack of it).
The Bush administration has made a debacle of things, yes. The war in Iraq was a great miscalculation. However, everyone makes mistakes. What matters is that one can learn from them and recover quickly enough to not make them again.
Whether the U.S. becomes a "military state" or not, it has little to do with President Bush. There is already the military-industrial complex against which President Eisenhower admonished. War is good for business, and if someone with influence is profiting, then the war will continue as long as it is not a situation of clear defeat.
2006-12-20 19:35:20 · answer #2 · answered by archangel2923 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If that were the case, you would have a good point. The fact is that small business is doing very well right now. The government even offers incentive to prospective small business owners.
By the way the big evil corporations pay huge amounts of taxes. Take the (dutifully hated) oil industry for example. A while back when gas prices were just reaching the $2.50 mark for the first time, I heard a breakdown of how much of the profit of that gallon went where. On average, $0.02 went to the gas station, $0.10 went to the oil company, and $0.50 - $0.60 went the government in the form of taxes. And we complain about the oil industry!
2006-12-20 19:45:15 · answer #3 · answered by Ha! Invisible! 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ummm.... takeing the view of this against the last technical war state of the Aryan race (aka the nazi's) the US is no where near a state of military action that thier in. even looking back to the spartans thier is no way the US is in a military state or we could call president bush a warloard. The police is still very cival and the war is over thier its not over here so I dont think we could call the US in a war state the military unfortunatly must be the #1 priority because the Midle east and North Korea are run by warloards, and as the storngest nation in the world its our duty to protect the world. So as far as I am concerned we need to be in a bit of a war state, but I would not go as far to say president bush is a warloard.
P.S. its president bush not bush, be respectfull even if you dont like him
2006-12-20 19:37:30 · answer #4 · answered by rkjr1999 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It worked with Reagen,but he wasn't a fool.And didn't give us this big of a debt either.Next plug will only be in for four years and voted out because of the huge tax increase they'll try to put inplace.
2006-12-20 19:27:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let us rise up and be thankful, for if we didn't learn a lot today, at least we learned a little, and if we didn't learn a little, at least we didn't get sick, and if we got sick, at least we didn't die; so, let us all be thankful.
The future you mention is a dark one. There is a reason that we aren't already a military state. They turn out to be dictatorships.
2006-12-20 19:28:15 · answer #6 · answered by Elerth Morrow ™ 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Military state? You're looney. The oil problem has been around for decades. So blaming Bush is just rediculous. Liberal nature nazi's have made it so America cannot drill for oil. Not Bush.
2006-12-20 19:29:48 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
It seems that way..I think Dubya's ideal scenario would be a Theocratic Military State..
2006-12-20 19:24:45 · answer #8 · answered by tchem75 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Larger corporations have ALWAYS had tax breaks. You're just now noticing?
2006-12-20 19:41:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
He wants to be dictator for the new upcoming North American Union. And if people don't wake up, he just might.
2006-12-20 19:26:50 · answer #10 · answered by flip4449 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋