This, That, and Other Things

Just a few thoughts/questions that recently came to mind …

Does anyone else think the U.S. should offer fire-fighting assistance to Australia in the wake of the terrible wildfires that are literally destroying parts of that country?

*******

I’m not at all versed in the financial end of politics; however, Keith and Scottie recently had a brief conversation related to government economics. I found the following comment by Keith a learning moment.

Obama did not reduce the debt and Clinton only impacted it in a small way for a short time. BUT, they did reduce the annual deficit, the annual accounting of revenue and expenses. In fact, Clinton handed a small surplus budget to Bush which was a huge statement of accomplishment. Bush then gave it a way with an ill-advised tax cut which his Secretary of the Treasury argued against doing and was fired. Obama’s reduction in the deficit was largely due to the sequestration due to the impasse on the debt ceiling. They put something in place in case no deal could be reached. No deal was reached and cuts were made.

While all of this was going on, the debt continued to climb. So, yes Clinton made huge strides to reduce the deficit. Obama made some strides, but could have done more. What should be noted about Clinton’s changes is more jobs were created under his watch than any other president by far. Yet, it is clear, both Bush and Trump have done very little to impact the deficit and debt. 

*******

Does anyone else agree that there will be some notable repercussions (possibly within our borders) from the recent killing of Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds military force and one of the most powerful figures in the Islamic Republic?

*******

Why is it OK for Christians to try and pass laws to prevent abortion (which is a woman’s liberty) but they get very angry when they feel their “religious liberties” are being threatened?

*******

P.S. Comments are also open to discuss issues that you may be wondering about. 🙂

*******************
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

How Secure Is Our National Security?

Following is a comment I made that was prompted by a post related to tRumpsky’s selection of John Bolton as his new National Security Adviser.

I can’t help but wonder … are the “deplorables” so enthralled with their elected leader that they truly think he can do no wrong? Do they actually believe bringing on the war-monger Bolton is a “good thing”? And that we’ll just go in and “whup” No. Korea’s ass if Kimmy-baby tries to give us any more BS? And while we’re at it, we’ll just show Russia and Iran who’s boss as well?

If they truly support this perspective, have any of them considered that American just might not come out unscathed? Or are they so enthralled with the idea of MAGA that they’ve lost sight of everything else?

These are not rhetorical questions. I seriously question the mindset of those who are so enamored with the current POTUS (and Faux News) that they sincerely believe America is going to be the “winner” if we take a militaristic view towards other countries.

P.S. Even though tRumpsky leans towards a more pacifist view regarding Russia, Bolton has long been a Russia Hawk. It will be interesting (for lack of a better word) to see how things play out once the two of them sit down and discuss the situation face-to-face.

Trump and Those Nasty Terrorists

I admit, I’m not all that familiar with the “military operations” conducted by the U.S. and/or other countries. But from what I’ve read and heard, I do have grave misgivings about our (I’m Like A Smart Person) Orange Leader and his declarations about how HE is going to rid the world of “Radical Islamic Terrorists.”

An example (to me) of his inexperienced and reckless actions was his recent decision to deploy hundreds of U.S. marines in Northern Syria. According to this article in The Guardian,  his decision is “high risk foolishness.” It points out that tRump is putting …

relatively inexperienced American soldiers into the middle of a highly toxic, multi-fronted battlefield that includes combat-tested Kurdish militias, Syrian army troops, anti-regime fighters and Russian, Iranian and Turkish forces.

It further points out that this …

simplistic idea, promulgated by Trump, that Isis and its warped jihadi ideology can be annihilated by force is foolish and naive.

The article concludes:

Trump’s Syrian intervention is “fraught with risk”, Robert Ford, former US ambassador to Damascus, told the Washington Post. “It is a huge policy change.” The potential for military escalation or “mission creep”, if and when US ground troops get into trouble, is obvious, vast and worrying. Northern Syria is a quagmire. Trump just jumped straight in.

Quite frankly, any decisions this man makes related to military actions worries me greatly. His stance related to No. Korea and its nuclear aspirations is another example. And his “friendliness” with Russia is disconcerting as well.

Unfortunately, it is what it is (at least for the time being). I guess all we can hope for is no foreign power ever questions his education, how strong he is, what a winner he is, how tough he is, his tremendous successes, how amazing he is, what a terrific job he’s doing, his leadership abilities, or his ability to build classy buildings … (taken from “Donald Trump’s 20 Most Frequently Used Words“). Otherwise, we’d better duck and cover and hope we live to see another day.