prague comments

My thinking is more along with Sarge's. But it's not just lowering taxes that Obama has to do. The U.S. tax system is too complex and has too many loopholes, which is not business friendly and encourages tax dodging and even fraud. What Obama should do is to support a flat tax. That would spur economic growth and innovation. That is how you create jobs, through economic growth and innovation. However, Obama would never support this because Democrats think a flat tax is regressive since everybody pays the same rate no matter how much they earn. It's a misperception. The important thing is to create economic growth, innovation and jobs.

James La-Giglia Hong Kong

Anybody overseas who wants an absentee ballot for the November 4th election can visit the following Web sites, www.fvap.gov and www.fvap.com, just in case you didn't know.

I read all the comments. But what I really would like to know is on November 4th, how many of you think McCain/Palin will beat Obama/Biden and by how much?

Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos on ABC World News Tonight were discussing the latest Obama flap when I watched it in Hong Kong this morning, July 26.

It appears that when Obama was in Germany, he wanted to visit wounded soldiers at the U.S. military hospital in Landsthul.

The Pentagon, apparently told him okay, but alone without cameras. They did not want the soldiers used as campaign props. I suppose that's fair enough.

Apparently, when Obama found out about the arrangements, he cancelled the visit.

That was a stupid decision, whoever made it. I am not sure if it was Obama or a campaign staff member.

I think it could really hurt him even more than the Reverend Wright controversey.

James La-Giglia Hong Kong

In all fairness to Betzee, it has been widely reported and written that after NATO invoked Article 6, the White House and Pentagon did wave off European help, fearing their participation would just slow American forces down. That thinking was a big mistake. Nine Americans just died in Afghanistan in one day after a Taliban attack on a base.

I also believe there is some truth to what Buddha4brains wrote that the Europeans just don't have any confidence in President George W. Bush as a commander-in-chief.

But these are all excuses by the Europeans. I believe the main problem is that certain countries in continental Europe such as Germany, Belgium, Spain, and Italy have no desire to shed any blood and to sacrifice for others, even in a clearly good versus evil struggle like Afghanistan. They are comfortable with their lives 63 years after World War II and want to be left alone. That's my feeling having lived in Europe for years. America is largely on its own I'm afraid.

James Graziano La-Giglia Hong Kong

To add to adaydream's comment, naturally there is a lot of thought to the fact that Iraq has taken away a lot of American troops from Afghanistan. Many critics of the Iraq war point to this fact among others.

But what bothers me as an American is that there is not enough discussion about another reason why there are not enough troops in Afghanistan. That reason is that many of our NATO allies are just not doing their part for one reason or another.

Remember, unlike Iraq, the war in Afghanistan is a NATO operation. "An attack on one is an attack on all." NATO's European leadership has acknowledged that. But many European politicians outside of Britain, afraid of public opinion, refuse to act.

For example, the Americans, British, Canadians, and Dutch, fighting in the south of Afghanistan, have been begging for more than a year for the Germans, Italians, Spanish and others to both send more troops to the country and come down from the north to help them fight the Taliban.

But their political leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel refuse. Body bags coming home won't be politically popular. At the same time, I keep reading that a lot of Germans feel they owe America nothing when it comes to Afghanistan.

I am sorry, but I believe that is just wrong, legally from the point of view of the NATO Treaty and morally, in the memory of the U.S. service people who participated in the Berlin Airlift and protected Germany and Western Europe during the Cold War.

Sincerely, James Graziano La-Giglia

Message to Sarge and Skipthesong:

I am not an Obama supporter, but I think the reason he wants to have a windfall profits tax is to invest the money in developing alternative energy.

Anyway, I still agree with you that it's a bad idea.

First, the oil companies will just pass on the cost of the tax to the consumer.

Second, it's a dangerous idea for the U.S. federal government to get involved in subsidizing industry. There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of solar, wind, and other alternative energy companies. How do you decide which companies to subsidize, all of them or pick a few? The latter smacks of Japan's industrial policy of the late eighties which led to a long recession. Government anywhere doesn't have a good track record of picking winners or losers. If any kind of alternative energy is the future, the free market will allow it to happen.

James Graziano La-Giglia Hong Kong

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said he wanted no drilling off his state’s lengthy portion of the west coast, and urged the country to move away from its dependence on oil, in other words develop alternative energy.

Okay, that's fair enough. But this technology may be about twenty years away from mass use. In the mean time, we need to find and tap more sources of oil, and if those sources are American the better.

James Graziano La-Giglia Hong Kong

Hello Betzee:

I am not sure why you also singled me out.

You either didn't fully read what I wrote or misunderstood what I wrote.

I do not believe the government should punish people for being able to earn more money and being successful simply because taxing them higher stifles initiative, risk-taking, economic growth, and job creation.

Anyway, one thing I did not write is that I do believe in a flat tax system, like in Estonia and similar to Hong Kong.

Tax everybody in the U.S. 15 percent no matter how much they earn and eliminate loopholes.

That would help to get the U.S. economy going.

But I do not think it could ever get passed.

Sincerely,

James Graziano La-Giglia Hong Kong

Actually, I lived in Germany for over three years and now Hong Kong for about 14 years. I find there will always be some degree of exclusion for an expatriate, especially if you don't speak the language and are not familiar with the culture.

I found in Germany and Hong Kong that if you make progress in those two areas, life turned out to be a lot better.

That's what scares me about possibly having to live in Japan. I have been trying to learn Japanese. But I find it a lot more difficult than Chinese or German.

Most of you people, I imagine live in Japan. I have a question for you. I live in Hong Kong and have been to Japan six times now. Everytime I go, I can't get over how polite Japanese are.

However, a lot of people I know in Hong Kong, especially Chinese, tell me don't be taken in. It is all very superficial, and it is because I am a visitor and mainly white, and they think I have money.

One white guy from Canada also told me they are very racist.

Any comments?

Hi Vabits:

I still do not believe that you are disproving my arguments.

First you are right and Condoleezza Rice was wrong. You cannot compare the insurgency in Iraq with insurgencies in Japan, Germany, and Korea after wars there. In Japan and Korea, I think they were basically non-existent. Germany had a relatively low level insurgency waged by some hardcore Nazis called the "Werewolves" or something, but it was nothing like the scale of Iraq or Vietnam.

But again the point is still there is nothing wrong with keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for decades, if both Baghdad and Washington agree on the necessity and if Iraq is eventually as peaceful as Germany, South Korea, and Japan are today. Casualties and violence in Iraq are much lower than a year ago. Progress is being made. No matter what your opinion about whether the war was right or wrong to start. Now is not the time to throw in the towel and had the country over to al Qaida.

On your second point about Iraqi oil production today compared with before the war, don't take it up with me. Take it up with Iraq's oil minister. That person stated a few days ago that oil production is now at pre-war levels. And during the 1990s when oil was selling for 10 dollars a barrel as opposed to 136 now, Iraq's production was severely limited by a U.N. mandate as you write.

On your third point, a low dollar can increase the price of oil. You are right. Oil is denominated in dollars so when the dollar is declining, speculators frequently invest in oil, if the price is perceived to be rising, to protect their wealth. But I think what's brought down the dollar mostly are low interest rates and a weak U.S. economy. I do not think the high levels of spending on the war have caused low interst rates and a weak economy. But maybe some economists would disagree, given that that money could have been spent on infrastructure.

James Graziano La-Giglia Hong Kong

Hi Yabits:

What you wrote is an example of the misperception that many Americans have about taxes on capital gains and dividends.

Now a days, it's not just rich people who are involved in the stock market and other investments. 100,000,000 Americans own stocks, and when Maria Bartiromo of the Wall Street Journal Report pointed that out to Obama during an interview, he appeared flustered and kind of back tracked on raising the rate to as high as 28 percent from George W. Bush's and John McCain's 15 percent.

Even people who do not own stocks are affected indirectly because A) a lot of pension funds invest in stocks, including stocks in oil companies. B) Low taxes on investment encourage entrepreneurship and economic growth and therefore job growth. Where I live, Hong Kong, the capital gains tax is zero. That's one reason why this town is such an economic powerhouse.

As for Obama and free trade. He wants to renegotiate Nafta, if not scrap it, scaring the hell out of not only the Mexicans but also the Canadians. The North American Free Trade Agreement has been a job machine for all three countries overall. Also Obama has opposed free trade agreements with South Korea and Colombia. Both are also win win agreements. The Colombian pact would create a lot of union jobs for workers making John Deere tractors.

It's all political. The Democrats are trying to curry favor with a constituency that has been hurt by free trade, and free trade does create some losers. But overall, the greater society wins, and not just the rich.

James Graziano La-Giglia Hong Kong

Hi Farmboy:

I still think voting for somebody primarily because of their race, ethnicity, or religion is very superficial and not exercising one's civic duty properly.

I never thought for a minute about voting for Rudy Guiliani. I supported John McCain from the start. Also in the 1980s, I lived in New York and would have never considered voting for Mario Cuomo.

Granted the black experience in America has been much more difficult than the Italian experience. But a vote should still be based on where a candidate stands on the issues, his proposed policies, character and so forth. On that latter criteria, I think somebody who considers religion as a factor for voting for somebody should be given some leeway as religion, if genuinely practiced, could be a judge of character.

James Graziano La-Giglia Hong Kong

The point that I wanted to make in my comment above, which I really did not state clearly, is that I believe Obama supporters - whether they are black, white, Hispanic, or Asian - are mainly driven by emotion and superficial motives rather than his policies and position on the issues.

I really believe most have very little if any knowledge of the latter, and as an American that really makes me feel distraught.

James Graziano La-Giglia Hong Kong

This article is an example of the problem I see with Barack Obama supporters, whether they are black, white, Hispanic, Asian, or whatever. A lot of them are supporting him regardless of what he stands for, and many do not have a clue about what he stands for.

I heard one woman give a soundbite a couple of weeks ago. She said, "I want my Bobby Kennedy. I want my JFK."

Yeah, I want my Jesus Christ. I mean get real and also get a clue. Just because the guy is good looking, has a good looking family, is charismatic, is a great speaker, and has a degree from Harvard doesn't mean he will be a great president.

Given his positions on taxes and free trade - he wants to raise taxes on capital gains and dividends up to 28 percent and he is very anti-free trade - I really think he would be a disaster. He doesn't understand the world as much as he indicates he does, economically, culturally, militarily and politically. On that latter point, I have another comment on the Japan Today article about his criticism of McCain's response to how long U.S. troops will have to remain in Iraq if anybody cares to read it.

James Graziano La-Giglia Hong Kong

A few days ago John McCain told an interviewer he could not predict when the troops in Iraq could come home.

"That's not important," he said.

"What's important is the casualties in Iraq."

He pointed out that U.S. troops have remained in Korea, Japan, and Germany long after conflicts there have ended.

Makes perfect sense to me as a guy who served in Germany for over three years in the U.S. Army.

It's also important to note that U.S. and Iraqi casualties are way down, and al Qaida in Iraq is on the run.

However, Barack Obama's campaign staff, in their infinite wisdom, said McCain's remarks show he is confused and lacks an understanding of the situation.

That's really interesting.

Since his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama has traveled to Iraq just once - in January 2006, more than a year before General David Petraeus took command and the surge began.

John McCain has been to Iraq eight times since 2003.

Barack Obama says such trips are not important and are staged-managed.

I suppose that's why fellow Democratic Senators Joe Biden and Jack Reed have made eight and ten trips to Iraq respectively.

Another Obama inconsistency is his tying the war in Iraq to high oil prices, something which like his one trip to Iraq the mainstream media has failed to call him on.

Iraqi oil production is now either at pre-war levels or even above.

Also it's very doubtful the U.S. military presence in Iraq has affected global supply and demand.

So what's the war got to do with the high price of gas Senator Obama?

Finally, I have a prediction for whatever it's worth. If McCain wins in November, and I predicted he would back in mid-2007, investors will be so relieved that global stock markets will soar and oil prices will stablize and later decline.

Sincerely,

James La-Giglia Hong Kong