A geopolitical economic discussion developed from a response to a joke by Larry the Cable Guy

This is a discussion regarding economic and geopolitical philosophies of the Presidential candidates and Larry the Cable Guy. A friend sent a joke from Larry the Cable Guy which is indeed pretty funny. I must have a bit of pent up Political opinion since a silly joke resulted in the following dialog....

 

EMAIL JOKE FROM A FRIEND:

Subject: : QUOTE OF THE DAY FROM LARRY THE Cable guy

"Even after the New Orleans Saints' Super Bowl victory, I have noticed a large number of people, implying with bad jokes and anecdotes, that Loozianna Cajuns ain't smart. I would like to state for the record that I disagree with that assessment. Anybody who would build a city nine feet below sea level, in a hurricane zone, and fill it with Democrats who can't swim is a damn genius".

 

MY RESPONSE:

I must concede to the humor, and I did get a good laugh. However Drew Brees and Co. excluded, the remaining majority of Louisiana is represented by dumb shit, redneck, Larry the cable guy want-a-be, republicans who clearly reside in the 47% of irresponsible, moochers, which Mitt Romney admittedly disdains and does not care about. Even though he and Mr. Ryan will eliminate the very essence of their existence, these idiotic, confused, brain washed, redneck, tea bag sucking, good ol boys will vote for him anyway. Now that my friends proves " that Loozianna Cajuns ain't smart" !!!!!

Sorry Larry, even though you are funny, you are just a dump shit redneck too, and anyone who would adhere to your political opinion is even more stupid.

 

HIS RESPONSE:

you libs don't like that 47% statement. Bottom line is it true, and that is why change is needed so they are not on the govt dole and get on their own two, or one foot! I am part of the 47%, I pay taxes and I work my ass off but generally they send me back as much and or a little more than I pay in, Except 2011, I'm still working on that.I was expecting a $2500 check and got an $1800 bill! ooooooooo:( All in good fun, right?!

Larry would be a better president than that guy who insults the office today.

 

MY RESPONSE:

Now, I am not a fiscal liberal, I am actually a practicing fiscal conservative, and unlike many tea party types, I actually walk the walk instead of just talking the talk. Fact is that Romney and Ryan are not fiscal conservatives, but really, way out there, ideological nut bags with an unrealistic desire to further reduce taxes and not much of a game plan after that. Republicans have recently moved to an ideological place that is so far to the right of main stream as to be ludicrous. Their math is simply flawed. Barrack Obama could have run as a moderate republican 20 years ago and won.

 I am in the 10% that pay 70% of all federal income tax. I add to the national gross domestic product (GDP). I save and invest and have never defaulted on a loan. Now if you get a tax refund equal to or greater than what is deducted from your pay check than you actually do not pay federal income tax and are part of Romney's 47% and as such are a fucking moocher that does not take responsibility for yourself or your family. At least according to Romney! Do you feel entitled to food, a job, a house, health care, higher education? Are you a fucking moocher? Do you not take responsibility for yourself or your family? .......I really don’t think so..... most people in this situation work their ass off to take care of their family and make ends meet, yet Romney includes them in the 47% who don't pay tax and are irresponsible victims.

So it would seem a contradiction that a majority of Romney’s 47 are actually republicans who actually support him. It is actually kind of humorous. I mean, are you actually going to vote for the guy who admittedly doesn't give a shit about you because you are in the 47% moocher class?

As for a total national economic meltdown; it could come to that when you promise to reduce taxes by 20% across the board- an obviously popular idea since nobody really likes to pay taxes- you have to make up the difference somewhere….. Please note that a tax reduction would benefit me more than most since I had an effective rate same as Romney's last year, but I did take all the deductions so mine came in less than 14%....... So how do you offset that income? Well, Mitt says he will close loopholes and deductions but has given absolutely no indication of what loopholes or deductions.....therein lies the problem. Also they would cut current traditional spending on the very things that bolster national economic health. The givens (accepted by both Lib and Con economists) in this group are education, infrastructure, research and development and the social safety net that allows Capitalism to function by allowing the common working class dude to ride the inherent swings of the free market system without freaking out and disrupting the system.

This, my dear friends, is a recipe for disaster. As the cuts in the very necessities of American greatness will stifle long term growth, the tax cuts, and resulting short term reduction in fed income will surly impair our ability to pay down the National deficit. Our current debtors are over 50% foreign (can you spell China) and those dudes are going to start demanding more interest return on their loans to us (because sooner or later they will question our ability to pay). When that day comes, you will see economic meltdown that will make 2008-09 look like a boom time. Mitt's math and policies (at least what we can glean from the rather guarded candidate) might bolster investment (due to retaining or reducing capital gain and dividend tax rates) and reinforce the current market rally, but in the long run, probably simply won’t work. That is unless you do happen to be extremely rich. Unfortunately most of the 47% deadbeats that he has written off are actually the guys who support him. Is this because they are brainwashed and are not intelligent or sophisticated enough to understand basic macro economics?

 

So, I actually think my comment regarding "These idiotic, confused, brain washed, redneck, tea bag sucking, good ol boys" was accurate.

 

HIS RESPONSE:

Ya the budget is an issue, a total collapse of the US budget probably would be bad, not sure how it would directly affect me, considering my current budget is a collapse anyway! Re-elect=collapse.

My real concern about this election is National Security. I do not feel safe with this guy in charge, he is too soft.

There are a host of other issues I could write a book on what he sucks at, but, national security is why we really can't afford to re-elect him. We will see more terror bloodshed on our shores if he gets 4 more. Imagine a Tank pulling around the south side of your house to blow up shit in the lake or air from your bluff, wouldn't that be cool!! Not far off unfortunately.

Iranian subs making waves on the ski course, Awful!, worse yet, having them tear out the cables of the course!

OK the ski part probably would not be my priority at that point but the rest of what I say is way more possible than the general population knows with a weak inexperienced person in control, and that is due to the liberal bias media. The mass of the population does not know the truth, would not have thought to include you in that but I also understand there are a few directly personal and can affect you directly issues.

Love you too

MY RESPONSE:

Now, to address foreign policy:

Of course I too am concerned with national security. I do believe though that national security does not come from a wall behind which we live or a line of tanks, fences, and army dudes to keep everybody that might do us harm out. Nor does it come from traipsing around the globe beating up on countries we don’t quite agree with and enforcing our will, whatever that may be at the time.

You state “with a weak inexperienced person in control" we are in danger. I would ask what experience Mitt Romney has regarding International diplomacy and foreign policy. A review of his bio reveals zip, nadda, no experience what so ever...Hummm. In fact, he is a bozo who shoots (his mouth off anyway) first and asks questions and seeks the facts later. He was quoted as saying Russia was our biggest current threat....WTF??? What about Islamic extreme terrorism? What about Asia...AKA China? What about a nuclear armed North Korea, or Iran?

I will admit to feeling the “let’s go get those bastards” kind of support for George W. Bush in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. In hind sight I have to admit that my enthusiastic support for unilateral military intervention by the U.S military was overzealous. While sending troops into Afghanistan and the initial progress by special forces and the local Northern Alliance were positive, the  unilateral invasion of Iraq is probably going to go down in history as a big mistake and a U.S. military blunder.

The contrast between the killing of Bin Laden and the intervention in Libya illustrates the Obama Doctrine. In the former case, Obama personally managed a unilateral use of force, which involved a raid on Pakistani territory. In the latter case, where national interests were not as clear, he waited until the Arab League and the UN had adopted resolutions that provided the legitimacy needed to ensure the right soft-power narrative, and then shared the leadership of the hard-power operation with NATO allies.

This kind of pragmatic engagement is personally appealing to me. You may call me a pussy, but I think I would prefer more spread of American influence through the use of "Soft power", economic incentives (or disincentives ) and attraction. I tend to lean toward a lighter military footprint, combined with a willingness to use force unilaterally when American security interests are directly involved; reliance on coalitions to deal with global problems that do not directly threaten US security; and “a rebalancing away from the Middle East quagmires toward the continent of greatest promise in the future – Asia.” This is the basic tenet of Obama's foreign doctrine, and personally I regard it as more effective and more economically sustainable that the George W, cowboy, hard-power, big fat bully, approach that Mitt Romney seems to aspire to. At least he has taken that kind of “Hard guy” position regarding the recent Muslim uprisings and the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens. So when the White House sends a message condemning the stupid video (which is allegedly the impetus for this attack) and condemning the attack and killing of four Americans, this in Romney’s mind is pussy, kowtowing to Muslim extremists. Are you kidding me...Just WTF are you going to do Mitt? Get Arnold, Sylvester, Bruce, and Clint to head over there with you to kick some ass? Get real pal!!

Now, as far as any State sponsored military engagement, I am not so worried. We could cut all defense spending in half (I am in no way suggesting we do that, nor is the current administration) and still spend more on military then every other country in the world combined. Our Navy alone has a battle fleet tonnage that is greater than that of the next 13 largest navies combined. The U.S. Navy also has the world's largest carrier fleet, with 11 in service, two under construction and one in reserve. So that's 14 and the rest of the world has 4.

In his 2000 presidential bid, George W. Bush famously promised “compassionate conservatism” and a humble foreign policy, but governed very differently, as when he decided to invade Iraq. Likewise, Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Johnson campaigned on promises of peace, but each took America to war shortly after being elected.

Personally, I think you need to reassess your perspective. If you truly harbor a feeling of fear and mistrust in our current President, I would go as far as to call you paranoid; however I really don’t think you are. I do think you have listened to a certain point of view for quite some time and have come to accept some things (which I find absurd) as fact without really doing the research and forming personal opinions based upon your intellect, moral compass and true assessment of facts.  

Once again, we are really not far apart and I harbor no malice or ill will toward ether candidate. If we end up with a Romney presidency, there will certainly be some advantages- I don’t think Foreign Policy will be one- but advantages none the less. If Obama is reelected, I think he will bring advantages as well.

Quite frankly, my personal financial position in the short term would most likely benefit from a Romney win. I am not however convinced that the United States of America and Mankind in general would benefit in the long run......but I may be wrong.... and I might change my mind.....

Love you too brother.