Quite often it is. That's why we have NATO, the UN, and other international organizations, treaties, etc. You don't think we didn't tell Hitler or Mussolini how not to run things?It is not our place to tell other countries how to run things.
The UN is a corrupt authority which serves mainly as a forum for dictatorships. It should not influence any democracy's self determination.The UN governs UN members and the US shouldn't step outside of UN authority.
So what? These countries are usually third world backwaters where there is undereducation and a lack of human rights.Other countries don't like the way we run our country
That's pretty tough talk.and if another country tried to come here and take over, we would view that as wrong.Which world are you referring to? In fact much of the world wants to live in America, or at least it did when America represented the democracies and a secure place to invest.
We can't conduct our business with double standards. That gives us a bad reputation and the world will start seeing us as the ones who need to be taken out.
The president did not save jobs or the auto industry.The President can follow the guidelines set forth by TARP, which congress enacted and GW Bush signed into law. TARP grants the president the power to help companies that are troubled as to avoid the problems it would cause to the economy. Obama bailing out the auto industry, for example, saved jobs and prevented the economy from going into a deeper recession.
Quite right but a sophisticated and informed electorate would make sure that they had a candidate with some experience and background to be in charge before they give him trillions of dollars to spend on any whim of his choosing. Has it occured to anyone that giving Barrack Obama all this money to do with as he wants might set a negative precedent for other Presidents in the future, perhaps of a political party less disciplined and financially astute than the Democrats?There is nothing in the constitution that says the president must have business experience in order to use his power in business matters.
I think its Crony Capitalism and, though hugely expensive for the taxpayers, seems like fun for the participants.OBama has already cut millitary spending and medicare spending. It's crazy to think Obama wants to just spend money because it's fun or whatever.
The government can create a lot of jobs just by digging holes and then filling them up again, while borrowing money to do so. You feel that's good for the economy?The issues is on what we should spend money on. We should spend more money on job creation, because that would being in more revenue.
Not quite as simple as you make it out to be. If that were the case we'd all be rich and BHO wouldn't have racked up over $1,000,000,000,000 in debt each year.That is wise spending, but if congress will not pass the jobs bill then the economy will remain sluggish. The people will have more money once they get jobs. This is basic economics 101. I don't see why it's so hard for people like you to understand. Spend money to make money is simple.
Some of it is invested, huh? Any idea where? Maybe in GM? Solyndra? Oil wells?As for SS, yes, SS funds are held in a trust fund to pay out benefits. Some of that money is invested.
I don't see that the government should be subsidizing corporations at all, but they should lower the taxes to make them more internationally competitive.You talk a big talk about cutting spending, but you don't see that we should cut subsudies to corporations that ship jobs overseas?
Messages were twisted somewhere along the line, perhaps by me, but I think corporations should be allowed to follow their business plan according to the laws of the land and supply and demand.Really? Why should we reward companies with our tax money if they are not helping our economy. That makes no sense. If we cut out the tax breaks and subsudies to corporations that do not reinvest in our economy, they will either move or create jobs here in the US.
Apart from playing favorites with public money Barrack Obama sent a very crude message to Boeing and the business world regarding their planned move to South Carolina, and purely for political reasons. The fact that there wasn't a national outcry over this nastiness suggests the real reason why companies are leaving the US and investing elsewhere.