<p>zoosermom - “but I do think that a military man can be said to have a real understanding for the necessity of military force” - Absolutely! The men and women who’ve served on the front lines would have a much better knowledge of what the pointy end of the spear really looks like, and I think most would also have the understanding of when it’s necessary. I wish more of the people who get to decide where, when, and how to send our military to war had actually been in the military themselves. I also wish more of them had family connections to the military to personalize it. Not to put up blockades to using military force, but to understand what it really means to do so…</p>
<p>BTW - I think I sprained my neck ping-ponging between estate taxes and the military 
Would this be a time for a thread split or…?</p>
<p>Whatsamatta Duke? Can’t talk and chew gum at once? It’s ONLY two topics.</p>
<p>Yeah, but I have a feeling I am going to crossthread my keyboard and talk about Senator Clinton attacking the Federal Reserve or how much the Vice President has to pay in taxes if the President were to pass away and the veep “inherits” the Oval Office…</p>
<p>“Yeah, but I have a feeling I am going to crossthread my keyboard and talk about Senator Clinton attacking the Federal Reserve or how much the Vice President has to pay in taxes if the President were to pass away and the veep “inherits” the Oval Office…”</p>
<p>So you’re the one scooping Drudge? I always wondered.</p>
<p>Icarus–i ain’t any kind of ism, just against death. Seems pretty plain and simple to me.</p>
<p>" Add in the fact that the tax isn’t imposed on the person who amassed the estate, but on the heirs"</p>
<p>The federal estate tax is imposed on the assets left behind by the deceased, the “estate”, and it is not imposed on the heirs. The heirs don’t pay the tax, the estate does, and it’s the executor’s job to get that done even if it means selling assets to do it. Some states impose an inheritance tax and that is paid by the heirs; each pays the tax on the amount each inherits, so some heirs may pay more than others.</p>
<p>Anyway, my H says they have to put back the estate tax cause W’s got us in too much debt not to. So I’ve been overruled at the kitchen table. </p>
<p>As for what Obama would do in a war, read his essay from the summer in Foreign Affairs magazine, a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations. He said he wouldn’t hesitate to use unilateral force if necessary to defend the country. He also wants to add about 67,000 troops to the Army and 27,000 to the Marines and greatly increase equipment, training and benefits to the armed forces. </p>
<p>Samantha Power told the BBC he won’t pull out of Iraq cause once they know the conditions on the ground they probably will decide they can’t actually do it (pull out that is).</p>
<p>Obama supported the Afghanistan war and still does. I believe he supported the first Iraq war as well. He opposed Iraq-2, and that is the only war he has opposed. I think he would be quite happy to go to war if needed. In general, Presidents love to go to war, because they look, well, Presidential. I suspect that McCain will be far more reluctant to go to war than most people expect, and that is what I would expect of a military man. Colin Powell, the military man, was most reluctant to start the second Iraq war. </p>
<p>BTW, I liked McCain’s comments today about our obligation to finish the job in Iraq. The more I hear from him the more I like him. If I could only get over his anti-abortion position, I could vote for him.</p>
<p>duke–I find two and a half glasses of wine helps make keeping the thread straight easy as peaches.</p>
<p>Zoosermom,
It’s difficult to believe that you were actually looking at Obama as someone you might vote for when you are so obviously aligned with the current policies of the republican party. </p>
<p>I think economic strength is an important source of power in the world, not just a “good thing for the whole world”. You are dancing around that issue because it is not a strength for McCain or the Repubican party. Obama would make that a priority and not waste time fighting needless wars or drag on the current one.</p>
<p>Many of your arguments are the same old ,same old that Republicans have used for decades regarding force and war. Questioning Obama’s willingness to use force is a tired argument that Republican operatives have been using for years. When they couldn’t use it against Kerry, they made up lies about his military service. I think the reality is that you wouldn’t vote for a Democrat no matter what.</p>
<p>Collin Powell was reluctant in private and a coward in public. My guess is that his reluctance to go to war had more to do with his intellectual ability to see the lies and manipulation of the administration and very little to do with his experience as a military man.</p>
<p>You Republicans are all over this military experience - it’s a sight to behold in light of what you did to Kerry and McCain in 2004.</p>
<p>"Zoosermom,
It’s difficult to believe that you were actually looking at Obama as someone you might vote for when you are so obviously aligned with the current policies of the republican party. "
I wasn’t implying any such thing. I was making the point that as a voter, citizen, taxpayer, I am entitled to have questions for each candidate. I have said repeatedly, (although not on this thread, so I assume that my buddies here on CC have seen those words and obviously you haven’t) that I’m not going to vote for Senator Obama but I think he has some excellent qualities and I wouldn’t be consumed with hate or offense if he were elected. I think democrats have the right to know where republicans stand and vice versa by virtue of citizenship. I’m sorry if you feel that I misled you. I should have been more clear, but sometimes it gets comfortable to post with familiar posters who know your history.</p>
<p>"Questioning Obama’s willingness to use force is a tired argument that Republican operatives have been using for years. "</p>
<p>Just so you know, sometimes questions actually ARE questions.</p>
<p>Zoosermom, I just have to point out the inherent contradictions in various positions you have taken. You’re in favor of occupying Iraq forever, “if necessary” but you’re very upset about paying taxes. Who is going to pay for those soldiers? And my bet is that, like me, you’ve paid taxes on every penny you and your husband have ever earned, and, like me, you probably neither inherited millions nor are likely to leave millions to your heirs, yet you defend the abolition of the estate tax. If Paris Hilton and Leona Helmsley’s dog don’t have a piece taken out of the income they receive upon their parents/owner’s death - won’t you and me and people like us just have to pay more? For the perpetual occupation of Iraq, and all the other things? To me this is just simple, common sense: taxes have to equal expenditures. Complaining that expenditures are too high may be a legitimate argument, but that doesn’t change the bottom line: whatever the government spends has to come from somewhere. You’re willing to have the government pay for the perpetual occupation of Iraq. I might disagree - that’s why we have a political process to decide that question. But no matter what, those soldiers have to be paid.</p>
<p>It’s coming out of your paycheck or Leona’s dog’s inheritance. Why are you voting for the dog?</p>
<p>zoosermom,
I don’t know your posting history because I don’t have time to participate regularly anymore and I generally avoid the political threads. It’s amazing how not knowing someone’s posting history gives one a different perspective. </p>
<p>It appears to me as a casual observer that some Republicans feign an air of openess to Obama in order to attack him. The game goes like this - I’m a Republican and am no longer in power, the world sees that Bush is a failure so I need to take another tact - appear reasonable instead of acting like an attack Dog (swift boat veterans and Cheney) Act as though I like Obama but articulately and politely continue to praise him on one hand while creating doubt on the other or in the case below, doubt first and end with faint praise. Cynical I know, but I saw what happened last time. The big guns haven’t even come out yet because Hillary can’t let go. </p>
<p>Zoosermom quote:
“Oh I think that’s absolutely true Garland. I just can’t envision any circumstance under which senator Obama would use force. But, honestly, that’s his fault because he’s never addressed such a circumstance and I have watched every debate, read his website carefully and have a very positive disposition toward him.”</p>
<p>Lizschup - with Zoosermom what you see is what you get, contradictions and all. She really kisn’t “feigning” anything. Took me a while to figure that out myself.</p>
<p>“Zoosermom, I just have to point out the inherent contradictions in various positions you have taken. You’re in favor of occupying Iraq forever, “if necessary” but you’re very upset about paying taxes.”</p>
<p>It’s only contradictory if you cherrypick, which you just did. I am very much upset by paying taxes, but the whole history of my position is that first and foremost wasteful spending must be reined in, and then many things that are now under the control of the federal government should be returned to local control. I’ve said those things repeatedly, whereas I’ve only said “forever if necessary” one time. My position is only contradictory in the cutting and pasting. I hate taxes. I hate war. I understand that both are necessary, but should be called upon sparingly. Nope. No contradiction there.</p>
<p>Oh and Kluge? Let’s join hands and sing because I could have written “taxes have to equal expenditures.” Let’s start with cutting the expenditures then consider raising taxes. And don’t start with me about Bush because I have a very long history of posts on CC on that subject.</p>
<p>Republican operatives? I thought we (me?) were a bunch of middle aged women with college kids. Opinionated yes, operatives, no.</p>
<p>“You Republicans are all over this military experience - it’s a sight to behold in light of what you did to Kerry and McCain in 2004.”</p>
<p>Personally, I would have voted for McCain in a NY second, but wasn’t given that oppty. I was still bouncing back and forth between Kerry and Bush on election day and decided in the voting booth. As for Hillary Clinton, I absolutely would vote for her if she’s the nominee, no doubt about it. My fear about McCain is that he is, sadly, too old. Unless Lieberman is VP and constantly standing by to whisper in his ear, his senior moments would give me pause.</p>
<p>ps - I don’t think Powell is a coward at all. The military men and women I know (relatives) don’t want war at all. But they do ascribe to the Powell doctrine that if you must fight then fight to win. ie, go in with overwhelming force and an exit strategy - neither of which happened with the 2003 Iraq invasion.</p>
<p>lizschup: You wrote “you Republicans” at least partly in reference to my statement about Colin Powell. I have been called many things but not a Republican!</p>
<p>I am an independent who registered this year as a Democrat only so that I would be allowed to vote in the NJ primary for Obama. An Obama sign is planted on my front lawn. I have donated to his campaign. However, I like McCain too. I tend to agree with McCain’s domestic policies and Obama’s foreign policies, except for Iraq, where I favor McCain’s approach! </p>
<p>If Obama is the nominee I will probably vote for him, though I will consider McCain with an open mind. If Clinton is the nominee I will probably vote for McCain though I will consider her with an open mind too. All three are pretty good candidates as far as I’m concerned.</p>
<p>If I vote for McCain, a big factor will be that I want the Republican party to move to the left of where it is. McCain could do on a national level what Schwarzzeneger did in California- marginalize the right wing. McCain could be a President who gets more Democratic support in Congress than he does Republican support. That would be a great thing for the country and a wonderful thing for the Republican party! Of course, many on the right are afraid of exactly this outcome.</p>
<p>“This is the mindset I just don’t get. That someone should be offended/outraged because someone else wants to protect his money from being taken away. I want to keep a lot more of my money and I understand every person who feels the same way. Every tax should be levied carefully and with remorse. Taxation should also be the measure of last resort and only toward utter necessities.”</p>
<p>It is a different mindset. I find the progressive income tax to be fair. From the beginning we’ve had the principle that people pay taxes according to their ability to pay. I am not offended or outraged at paying my fair share. I am outraged that these super-rich should pay not one penny of tax on their inherited income. As was pointed out, this can be on greatly appreciated wealth upon which no tax was ever paid, but that doesn’t matter, hence my dentist analogy; the “double taxation” notion is bogus.</p>
<p>If taxation should be the last resort, what should come first? Libertarian volunteer payments in lieu of taxes?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>McCain did not say he was willing to continue the war in Iraq for 100 years. What he expressed is a willingness to maintain a presence in Iraq for 100 years if necessary. World War II has been over since 1945, yet we still maintain a presence in Germany, England, and Italy despite that fact. We’re still in South Korea, too, but the last American soldier to die there, probably did so from Alcohol poisoning after a night at the Enlisted Men’s Club. </p>
<p>It is good to listen closely, and if possible, objectively. Often, to assume is to be misinformed.</p>