Sonic,
Followers can mean every one or just a couple, you are correct that I should have specified the amount more carefully. I thought that Phil's article made it clear that it is a minority spread out across the states.
Jimro
Got it boss. I'll watch it. I already said my peace here, if you notice, my posts are strictly business now.
Yeah, I think it was clear you didn't mean it that way, but I understand where the people who had a problem with it are coming from.
ah crap. I lost all my post info.
Aite, here it goes again. If you dont want to read the below, I vote Kerry 😉
I assume that there is alot of people looking at the 'Iraq-war issue' rather than on domestic spending etc. I'm more concerned on the budget defecit issue. First off, I think that both candidates have a bit too much 'fluff' around their debates. I wish Kerry can be specific on his plans to increase federal revenue for 'our' benefit, but maybe its me and the 90 second limit.
First, why not bush? At the time of the great 'tax cut' and money for "all", ec advisors said that increased budget spending and a Tax cut would be dangerous, and this is during the Clinton administration where there was a surplus. That immediately turned me off. Bush assumes that a tax cut would be great for all, and unfortunately, many who watch the local news (ahem, Fox=conservative) believe it too. It's all Reaganomics/Hoover EC's, really bad.
During the campaign, remember when the GOP supported Reagan after his death? Thats really...really bad for Bush and his policy (EX: Reagan and Iran-contra affair)
Bush was pretty hazy on the Debates and more for defending himself. I liked his 'temporary work' at one time, but then I thought outsourcing. Kerry wants to protect the border (which I think is less important than the outsourcing problem), but perhaps its a step up.
Here's where the sht hits the fan, Kerry says that he will not hike the taxes for anyone under 200,000$. I'd bet that many people who havent a clue what was going on probably thought that Kerry would raise taxes for all people. Now, remember this: Kerry will not hike the tax for anyone under 200,000$. Now, if he does go back on this promise, then I guess he could boost medicade and schools alot more.
We need the litmus test for congress ppl. Kerry wins this topic again, which leads to my next statement
Bush should have never gone to war without congress consent, moreso, congress should've took the power among themselves to plan with the U.N. I think Bush should've FOLLOWED U.N all the way, I'm sure they would plan something. We need friends here, and the Bush administration was pretty sloppy in planning. I'm not saying that I have a plan for the Iraq war, thats why we have 'leaders'. I'm not sure what would happen if Gore were to win the election. Nonetheless, Bush made a bad move, and I hope Kerry corrects it. I dont know the details that goes on abroad, but I'm sure I dont want other nations to hate us. I'm for a humble country, not a country with the ideals equivalent to Superman, so, Kerry takes this one.
btw: 3 people I know are voting for Bush for reasons they cant explain. I'm not saying that voting for Bush is bad, voting for Kerry could be bad if all i know. voting for someone you don't know is bad. Its horrible that there are many people like this. gaah, its horrible.
Yes - the Bush deficit alone should be giving off some kind of red flag that Bush policies are doing more harm than good.
The "normal" economic cycle is 18-24 months for a panic/depression/recession. Bush has yet to implement a policy, IMO, that will actually get us out of the slump we are in. Despite Bush's claims to the contrary, the jobs market is not growing like it should.
o, 18-24 months. Interesting 😉
I dont think Bush will correct his Fiscal Budget but rather make it worse. I've heard about him 'encouraging' those with SS money to invest it into the market. (Correct me if I'm wrong) Eventually, with business outsourcing and the tax cuts, to 'invest' could be plain maniacal. The wall street bubble will just burst and create (eh, cliche?) so much problems that I'm too lazy to explain O_O here.
Oh yeah, the Job market is 'sucking' right now. I know that the 10.4 million job loss in the Bush administration is exaggerated by the democrats, I just have no idea what Bush did to do that. Enlighten me?
It's waay to late for Bush to act on his revenue policy. He's got 3 weeks I think. Too bad for Bush tho 🙁
Hehe, someone asked me who I "wanted" to vote for. I took the miswording and said "Me? I WANT to vote for Bubba Clinton again."
I have some reading to do in this topic (as I've been away for over a day), but just to let you know, Chris, Bush did go to war with Congressional consent. Congress gave him the consent in October 2002, just before the November 2002 elections. Personally, I feel the "pressure" of not wanting to be "weak" and "lose" in the November 2002 elections affected that vote a bit as there wasn't as much debate on the pros/cons of the vote really. There was more debate on this message board about it, IMO, than in Congress. 😛
Edit:
Rico's warning toward Jimro stands for the same reason Castor was warned recently. This wasn't a tirade though so it doesn't count more than once. As noted already, watch how you phrase things as we're much more lenient toward "attacking" celebrities/politicians/etc. than toward "the people" who may support them.
LOL! That's amusing, and really horrible.
As for the Congressional consent, I've heard from many that Bush gave pressure unto the congress using the 9-11 incident. Another reason why I would vote for Kerry, the litmus test on the congress members.
As noted already, watch how you phrase things as we're much more lenient toward "attacking" celebrities/politicians/etc. than toward "the people" who may support them.
Honestly, though, that's silly. The incompetence of a democratic society's leader is entirely the fault of the people who voted for him or her.
That may be true, Cycle, but that's when a person starts getting personal and personal attacks are a "no-no."
Cycle:
To your opinion: I agree to a certain extent. In a TRUE democracy (less populous), it would be 'rational' for people to elect a leader with a history of great deeds. To have the leader turn 180 against the people for reasons being personal is not the people's fault. And of course, according to Rousseau I believe, the ppl would've had the ability to kick his/her @$$ of leadership for doing so anyways.
Other than that, you have to take into account the amount of cultural literacy these people are prevented from getting and the economic conditions they are in, especially in a democratic society. You cant really blame the people because they have probably been exposed to biased and perhaps false info that influences their choice of leaders, the Media for example. This isnt a Jeffersonian Society. (Again, the media 'therefore corporations' controls most of the people, is it still the peoples fault?) To say that it's the peoples fault is kind of baised ne?
You cant really blame the people because they have probably been exposed to biased and perhaps false info that influences their choice of leaders, the Media for example. This isnt a Jeffersonian Society. (Again, the media 'therefore corporations' controls most of the people, is it still the peoples fault?) To say that it's the peoples fault is kind of baised ne?
It's not my problem if someone can't think critically and draw their own conclusions.
"Honestly, though, that's silly. The incompetence of a democratic society's leader is entirely the fault of the people who voted for him or her."
Wait, this doesn't make sense. Of course it isnt your problem, but again, you assume that people in nature have the ability to think logically which is not the case (as I've already stated why). Ironically, your just generalizing an entire people in a democratic society, the same way in which people generalize candidates (without taking facts about them). Wouldn't that make your arguement invalid? : "It's not my problem if someone can't think critically..."
Chris,
I agree that fiscal policy is a major issue. However Reaganomics worked the last time, and Bush is hoping they work this time. The 9/11 attack killed the airline industry, which caused job loss, which led to a downturn in consumerism, which led to recession.
Sometimes you have to spend money to make money, and that's what we are hoping will happen. Alan Greenspan recently told congress that the current spending cannot continue without affecting investor confidence and possibly causing a devaluation of the dollar. Congress controls the budget, and they listen to Alan Greenspan. He's pretty much the smartest man in the world on the subject of the American Economy.
John Kerry's over 200k tax hike goes against the trickle down economics that Rush Limbaugh endorses, with a very logical argument BTW. You've got to remember that people in that tax bracket and up are already paying MORE money into the coffers than the 95% of us below it. Letting people keep more of their own money to invest/spend stimulates the economy.
Jimro
Jimro,
Yes, Reaganomics worked. For only about one year, two years maybe before massive deficits piled up.
I prefer Keyesian (spelling?) style economics where government speding is cut during a boom period and increased spending during a recession.
EDIT:
Jimro,
AH, the downturn in consumerism from the airline. I never thought of that, but there must be more than the airline industry to cause a recession, perhaps the Computer science job losses and many others due to outsourcing? As for Reaganomics, I'm not sure if it did help. I might be biased on that, I know however that there was a job increase, I guess it is good for that then. Although I doubt it would work now.
O, good ol' Greenspan. Tho I thought he said that spending is strained even during the Clinton administration where there was the surplus. I agree that we have to spend money, but we have to take more money so that we can spend more later, much like adding power to a dying circuit (if thats a correct example for the economy)
And of couse for those on the top 5% (or 2%?) would HAVE to pay more because they need/want to sustain a business (or some other means in which the other 95% cannot acquire). So, I'm definetely for the elite spending more money, they are too rich anyways (the rich poor gap just doubled since 1980? or around there), and of couse those with under 200,000 income, can buy more. Thats why I support Kerry's plan 😉
I just thought of small business. I think that they will function nicely under Kerry (correct me if im wrong)
Pyro:
I too like the Keynesian theory
If you don't remember the Reagan years,
Huge recession, massive unemployment, 18% inflation, huge deficit. The Carter administration handed that economy off to Reagan. Reaganomics worked then by getting us through those tough times and people often forget that a balanced budget was passed in 1987 under Reagan.
The economy was steadily increasing through the Bush Sr. administration until after the Gulf War, hit a recession again. Ross Perot thinks he can do better, get's 19% of the vote and Clinton takes office. Clinton cuts the military in half, bans assault weapons, but never delivers on universal healthcare, after all, if he did, what would Kerry run on?
Anyways, what you described as Keyenesian is Reaganomics. Spend when in a recession, pay it back when you have a surplus. If you spend in a recession, it will have to be deficit spending, there is no way around it.
Jimro
That last post is giving me a case a deja vu.
Meaning I think we already covered that ground regarding Clinton.
Jimro,
The 9/11 attack did not kill the airline industry. People didn't stop going on holiday. And the planes didn't stop flying. And all airlines work in countries OTHER than the USA, you know. The only real effect that 9/11 had on the airline industry was make it up security about 1,000,000%, not that I blame them.
Personally, I'd disagree with you there, Harley. I woulda thought 9/11, being hijacked planes and all would have had an effect on the airline industry in that people would've been less inclined to fly, but less so inclined to fly to the middle east or the states, you see.
Air Canada has had to file for bankruptcy protection since 9/11 due to decreased ridership. Surveys since 9/11 draw striking parallels between the decline in business for Air Canada and the increase in the number of people who feel it is unsafe to fly. Therefore, 9/11 nearly killed the Canadian airline industry. But as usual, the federal government bailed them out, and I think they've started using army rations on the planes now.
Quote:
Air Canada has had to file for bankruptcy protection twice since 9/11 due to decreased ridership. Surveys since 9/11 draw striking parallels between the decline in business for Air Canada and the increase in the number of people who feel it is unsafe to fly. Therefore, 9/11 nearly killed the Canadian airline industry.
Sorry, but that's not why Air Canada had to file for bankruptcy protection. It was a combination of having to merge with another airline that already was bankrupt (Canadian) and inheriting their debts, and something about the company not putting money into the pension fund when they were supposed to, so when the money was needed, they didn't have it. Not that 9/11 didn't decrease ridership in general, but that wasn't the main contributing factor to the need for bankruptcy protection.
I dont know if 9/11 KILLED the US airline industry, but it did cause lots of people to lose their jobs and several smaller airlines have gone bankrupt because they havent been able to get back out of debt.
*shrug* From what I saw, they looked pretty stable and then 9/11 happened. This was several years after the merger with Canadian.
If there were an award for Biggest Clanger of the Debates, George W. Bush would have won it last Wednesday. Forget "Need some wood?" Forget "I hear there's rumors on the Internets." Forget "Mexed missages." Forget "I know that!"
During an early response, John Kerry body-slammed George W. Bush with this statement: "Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, 'Where is Osama bin Laden?' He said, 'I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned.'"
George - smirk slightly rattled but still firmly affixed - simpered, "Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those... exaggerations." (Apparently George didn't get the memo that the "exaggerations" line is, like, so four years ago.)
Want to know exactly what George W. Bush said about Osama bin Laden? Here it is:
"Ah, y'know, again, I don't know where he is. I, uh, heh heh, ah, I... I... I repeat what I said, I truly am not that concerned about him."
- George W. Bush, March 13, 2002.
That was just six months after September 11th. I hate to say it, but George's attitude sounds a bit September 10th to me.
Think the president should be able to remember things he said all the way back in 2002? I've got news for you - Bush had trouble remembering what he'd said at the second debate five days prior to the third.
On the subject of flu vaccines the president was perilously cavalier. The question was: "We are talking about protecting ourselves from the unexpected, but the flu season is suddenly upon us. Flu kills thousands of people every year. Suddenly we find ourselves with a severe shortage of flu vaccine. How did that happen?"
As usual, Bush made excuses and blamed someone else - this time, the Americans' erstwhile allies the English.
"Bob, we relied upon a company out of England to provide about half of the flu vaccines for the United States citizen, and it turned out that the vaccine they were producing was contaminated. And so we took the right action and didn't allow contaminated medicine into our country."
Good for them. Except the flu vaccine was actually under the control of an American company which outsourced its medical research to a private plant in England. And it was the British Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency who subsequently suspended the vaccine-maker's license and stopped further shipments.
Bush went on: "We're working with Canada to hopefully - that they'll produce a - help us realize the vaccine necessary to make sure our citizens have got flu vaccinations during this upcoming season."
Okay, hold the phone. During the second debate, Dubya told us some scary stories about Canadian drugs: "And what my worry is is that, you know, it looks like it's from Canada, and it might be from a third world."
The third world? Yep, sure sounds like us poor Canadians, with our inferior healthcare and poor standard of living.
*cough-dickweed-cough*
It's alright though, because if you can't get contaminated flu vaccines from England or third world flu vaccines from Canada, Your Great Leader has some good advice for you:
"Don't get a flu shot."
Now while the airline industry in the U.S. had problems before 9/11, they were made 100 times worse after 9/11. People in the U.S. did not fly on planes unless it was necessary. As a result, the airline industry in the U.S. did have a bit of a crash that caused the government (re: tax payers) to bail them out. Airline companies are still filing for bankruptcy here and asking employees to take pay-cuts because even though people are flying a little bit more than they did immediately after 9/11, the percentage is not near the levels it used to be prior to 9/11. People are driving more. 😉
Quote:
"No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith."
George W. Bush said that on September 10th 2001.
It's the Salem Witch-hunts all over again. Innocent people are dying because of ridiculous accusations and idiotic beliefs.
Any large group of people who don't agree with you are against you.
Britain's supported Bush in this war. And now Bush wants us to take our troops into a place he's supposed to be in charge of. What's the matter? Is the USA's army not as huge and loyal as everybody has it drummed into their heads?
SSSSSSSH! Dammit hyena he's already been trying to get them to reinstate the draft. Mocking them isn't going to help.
I believe the ones sponsoring that bill to reinstate the draft were mainly Democrats. Plus, do you think Bush is going to reinstate the most controversial thing ever in American history?
I need to see proof of that one. It'd be the first time I've ever seen that many democrats openly support war.
From my recollection the draft bill was started by several Democrats who wantes to prove a point about the severity of war, it wasn't meant to be actually passed. I'm sort of tired of hearing about it because there is no chance in hell it would happen. Too many lawsuits.
The main person pushing the draft bill was Charles Rangel (D-NY) back in 2002 in an attempt to force public discourse on invading Iraq. Rangel was (and still is obviously) against invading Iraq and figured if "everyone had to go" that people might actually think more about the consequences instead of having such a "yeah, let's invade Iraq right now!"-attitude. That bill was totally ignored until recently so that they could make a point that they have no intentions of having a draft.
Thanks for clearing that one up Kat.
Yay for Salem witch trials! XD
Every person should read that book.
Pundits too often debate whether George W. Bush is the political heir to President McKinley or President Reagan. In reality, the President's political style most resembles the once ubiquitous Pets.com Sock Puppet.
Pets.com, with its prominent ad campaign featuring the cute Sock Puppet, was one of the most notable dot.com crash and burn stories. The company fetched $82.5 million in its IPO based solely on what it delivered - $5.8 million in net revenue - as investors ignored the bigger picture revealing $61.8 million in losses.
Nine months later, the affable Sock Puppet was unemployed and became the poster puppy for the irrational exuberance of the dot.com era when hype triumphed over substance.
The two main planks of the Bush campaign - the administration's tax cuts and the war in Iraq - rely on what I call "Sock Puppet Politics." Like Pets.com and the Sock Puppet before him, Bush is counting on voters to be persuaded by his affability and the two prizes delivered - tax cuts and Saddam Hussein's capture - and not focus on the bigger picture of the costs of these prizes.
Since financial markets require companies to disclose their balance sheets, investors ultimately recognized Pets.com as a poor investment and moved their money elsewhere. In contrast, the Sock Puppet can easily survive in politics since the political "market" rarely focuses on the costs of a prize.
That is why Bush will remind voters that last year his tax cuts on average put over $1,500 in people's pockets and created 1.4 million new jobs. You can be sure, however, that the Bush campaign won't highlight the fact that (i) the median tax cut in 2003 was only $470; (ii) the 1.4 million jobs came at a cost of $756 billion through 2004 or $540,000 per job; (iii) the tax cuts have led to a $20.2 billion annual increase in state taxes and 35% increase in tuition at state universities since 2001; or (iv) Americans' individual share of the increase in the national debt due to the tax cuts exceeds $9,000.
He certainly won't tell you that Canada recovered from the same recession with higher job growth and its surplus intact by using more modest tax cuts targeted at the middle-class. As the United States' economy plunges with earth-shattering defecits, Canada has a record surplus of $9.1 billion this year, and is also the only G7 country to have carried a surplus for seven straight years.
President Bush also relies on Sock Puppet Politics when he states time and time again that Americans are safer with Saddam Hussein in jail. Of course a world with Saddam in jail is better than a world with him in power, but this ignores the bigger picture. After an investment of $120 billion, 8580 soldiers killed or wounded, and 13278 civilians dead in the war, the question is not whether they captured Saddam but whether they are more secure.
"We surely are not," according to Diplomats & Military Commanders for Change, a group of 27 former diplomats and military officers (all but three of whom served under Republican presidents), and instead are "less safe, and more vulnerable to new terrorist attacks" as a result of the war.
This is evident when you consider the fact that al Qaeda has been able to regroup and is now in 60 countries, Afghanistan is deteriorating as the Taliban has regained control over parts of the country, North Korea has produced nuclear weapons and has the capability of striking the United States, and Iran is rapidly advancing towards joining the nuclear club.
This would be an entirely different race if the Bush administration, like all public companies, had to clearly disclose to the American "shareholders" that your $470 tax break actually costs you nearly $10,000 in additional state taxes and debt payments; or if the political world had the equivalent of Merrill Lynch to inform everyone that had the US not invaded Iraq, the money and resources used by the war could have been used to make Americans more secure than they are today.
That is why the key to this election for the Bush campaign is not NASCAR dads or security moms, but whether voters embrace the myopic world of the Sock Puppet. Let us hope instead that reason again prevails over irrational exuberance or Americans will have to worry about explaining to their grandchildren why the face of a sock puppet is on Mount Rushmore.
Very good comparison between the Pets.com Sock Puppet (which still stalks my nightmares) and the whole dot com crash to the current administration. It's also scary how Bush and his cohorts are missing the obvious like the aformentioned regrouping of al Qaeda as well as Iran and North Korea.
Methinks "Sock Puppet Politics" should be added to the political lexicon.
That is why Bush will remind voters that last year his tax cuts on average put over $1,500 in people's pockets and created 1.4 million new jobs. You can be sure, however, that the Bush campaign won't highlight the fact that (i) the median tax cut in 2003 was only $470; (ii) the 1.4 million jobs came at a cost of $756 billion through 2004 or $540,000 per job; (iii) the tax cuts have led to a $20.2 billion annual increase in state taxes and 35% increase in tuition at state universities since 2001; or (iv) Americans' individual share of the increase in the national debt due to the tax cuts exceeds $9,000.
Just some honest questions for you. Where did you get your numbers, I'd like to run them.
i) Is that number including child credits?
ii) 20.2 billion increase in State taxes, is that per state, or the group raise of all 50?
iii) Has the 35% increase in tuition affected enrolment?
iv) A number that is comparable to the individual share under Clinton in his first year in office.
He certainly won't tell you that Canada recovered from the same recession with higher job growth and its surplus intact by using more modest tax cuts targeted at the middle-class. As the United States' economy plunges with earth-shattering defecits, Canada has a record surplus of $9.1 billion this year, and is also the only G7 country to have carried a surplus for seven straight years.
What are Canada's numbers for the years mentioned?
Most economists point to general recovery and slow but steady growth after the dotcom bust and 9/11 slump.
9.1 billion is not even a wing of B2 Bombers. This is the great and mighty record surplus of Canada?
Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, has 27 members. Diplomats do not have a good record for being right about security (Beruit). Their opinion is duly noted.
Cycle, this doesn't sound like you. You usually provide URL's to show your sources. The argument is compelling but is comparing apples and oranges. You don't recquire your police force to show you a profit, because they are a public service, not a revenue generating business. Congress controls the purse strings, not the Bush administration. A point never brought up.
Jimro
Quote:
9.1 billion is not even a wing of B2 Bombers. This is the great and mighty record surplus of Canada?
Oh excuse us Jimro, not every nation on the face of the planet has an economy the size of the USA's. At least Canada is making a surplus and isn't $1.6 trillion more in debt.
Just some honest questions for you. Where did you get your numbers, I'd like to run them.
Honestly, I have no idea where they came from originally. I lifted them from an editorial in the Georgia Straight.
What are Canada's numbers for the years mentioned?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/budget/
2003/04 $9.1B
2002/03 $7B
2001/02 $8.9B
2000/01 $18.1B
1999/00 $12.7B
1998/99 $3.1B
1997/98 $3.8B
9.1 billion is not even a wing of B2 Bombers.
So? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Since when were we talking about military strength? I prefer to think of it in terms of the amount of teachers we could hire, hospital beds we could reopen, roads we could build, miles of track we could add to the cities' mass transit systems, meals we could make for the poor... you know, stuff that has any use to a modern society that embraces peace. I think most Canadians would be rather unhappy if the government blew its entire surplus on flying murd-- uh, killing machines. The only reason we still have a military is to help out with multilateral peacekeeping operations and domestic disaster response.
"Not even a wing of B2 bombers." Come on, man! Jesus! This just shows how fixated you are on war and death. I have an idea: instead of blowing billions of dollars on machines that needlessly destroy life, Western countries should instead use their seemingly-boundless wealth and influence to improve and enrich the life of the common man, at home and abroad.
Pyro, do we even have any bombers to begin with? I dunno. I know we have a bunch of F18s, but bombing doesn't seem to be the kind of thing the Canadian Forces do.
This is the great and mighty record surplus of Canada?
Great and mighty? I suppose when you compare it to a $422 billion deficit, it is.
Four hundred and twenty-two billion dollars. How many wings of B2 bombers would that buy?
How many teachers would it hire? How many hospital beds would it open? How many roads would it build? How many ridiculously-expensive elevated-rail transit systems would it expand? How many square meals would it buy for every hungry child on earth?
You don't recquire your police force to show you a profit, because they are a public service, not a revenue generating business.
No, but I expect my government to not overspend my tax money on trivial matters such as tax cuts that barely affect me, illigitemate wars, and B2 bombers. Surely you must identify with this expectation on a basic level.
i) Is that number including child credits?
Well Jimro, I'm afraid children don't actually contribute all that much to the economy, whatever you say.
ii) 20.2 billion increase in State taxes, is that per state, or the group raise of all 50?
Well, how should I know?
iii) Has the 35% increase in tuition affected enrolment?
I thought it was compulsory to go to school. If it isn't, it's certainly compulsory to learn to read and write.
America's economy is collapsing. What's more important, B2 bombers or food, plumbing, medicine and teaching?
If you'll take a peek at the size of America's military budget, I think you'll get the idea.
And your smug jerkwad of a president has just persuaded England to put a bunch of its units under American control. Well, perhaps his soldiers will learn something by the way that British soldiers don't leap into every crowd of people with guns blazing.
I'm ready to give up on the USA. Even if Bush isn't in power by the end of the elections, people will automatically whine about how the country is suddenly in debt.
Just like these problems take time to gather, they also take time to fix.
Leave America to the dogs! Vote for Bush! Watch the country wallow in a pile of his excrement!
I'm ready to give up on the USA. Even if Bush isn't in power by the end of the elections, people will automatically whine about how the country is suddenly in debt.
It's going to stay in debt until the economy begins to pick up (already is) and then we can start paying off some of this debt...besides you're going to be in debt when you followed an administration that is a large spender (Clinton) so I'm not so sure what the big deal is...although both parties are largely hypocrites in this area...Republicans call for smaller government but rarely back it up...which IS what we need...
Quote:
besides you're going to be in debt when you followed an administration that is a large spender (Clinton)
i beg your pardon, clinton didn't whine when he took over from bush senior who ruined the economy. in eight years, the clinton administration turned the economy around and made america wealthier than any nation had ever been in human history. after george w won the election and took over, the country still had trillions in reserve, but "mr small spender" president bush took a big chunk of it and gave to the wealthest 1% of americans and also relieved that group of most of its contribution to the country's revenue(by doing so, he made the country richer, right).
the richest americans that support bush are fools, because he has made them a lot poorer, there are less billionaires and more corporations are going bankcrupt,according to forbes, most of the people on its richest americans list became poorer, for instance, bill gate's worth dropped from the 90 billion dollar mark to the 45 billion dollar mark, but wait a minute, bush's tax cut gave him a consolation gift of an amount less than 20 million dollars, "lucky bill gate". people that made over a $100,000 were given about a $1000 and then they lost their jobs.
armed with the best economy in human history, president bush followed the path of his father and president hoover and he turned america's economy upside down,( from an ad i saw in union square, nyc) "former frat boy and drunk drives country into a ditch"
the american economy is its worst state ever.
the rebuilding of iraq will cost more than the value of the oil in its reserve meaning than more american soldiers' lives will have to be sacrificed and american tax payers ( with a lot less burden on the richest americans) will have to cough out more money (i mean billions of dollars) to help rebuild iraq for nothing in return.
Well, after what Bush has just done to Iraq, he deserves to have to pay to fix it a bit.
Earlier, I asked how many square meals $422 billion would buy for every hungry child on Earth. A bit of research and a visit to the local grocery store revealed that it could buy roughly 1022 cans of Campbell's Chunky Vegetable Soup for each and every one of the 842 million people worldwide who suffer from chronic hunger. Each can serves four people, and that's assuming they're used to eating a large serving.
Let's see how many cans of Chunky Vegetable the US could have bought for each of these starving people had they not gone to war in Iraq.
Hmm. $141 314 000 000 divided by $0.49 divided by 842 000 000 equals 342 cans of Campbell's Chunky Vegetable Soup. 342 cans! That's just about enough to last a family of four for a year!
But the Bush administration chose to bomb Iraq, and instead of feeding 842 million people for years, they killed thousands of people who had never lifted a finger to harm the US.
the american economy is its worst state ever.
Well I doubt that. I'm sure the Carter years were worse than this...and let's not even go into the Great Depression...
they killed thousands of people who had never lifted a finger to harm the US.
Not intentionally of course. But it could be worse...if we pull out and leave the country to the dogs. Which we cannot do. So we're stuck in this war until Iraq is stabalized...but you can also blame the radicals too for the rising total of deaths...
Not intentionally of course.
Yes intentionally. They started a war, fully aware of the result.
Yes intentionally. They started a war, fully aware of the result.
Ha! I doubt that! They were expecting the Iraqis to welcome them with open arms...fools. And they were only going into to oust Saddam and his followers and find the WMD's. Obviously fighting a war in a populated city will cause many casualties that could have been avoided...
I still prefer Bush's preemptive strike over Clinton's ignorance...who barely did a thing after the Cole bombing but just sort of sat there...
Ha! I doubt that! They were expecting the Iraqis to welcome them with open arms...fools.
You're missing my point. They knew that war causes innocent people to die. They were fully aware of this, and yet they did it anyway. That, if you ask me, is criminal. I'm not saying they set out with the intent to kill civilians, or that rangers go around shooting innocents. But they still set out with the intent to do something that causes civilian deaths. They knew the gravity of their choice.
Even if there were WMD's, I'm not too sure talking would solve anything. At least not with Saddam. And there was evidence that he was going to start rebuilding his supply of WMDs once the sactions were lifted so we would have had to deal with them either way...they just aren't there now...don't you love bad intelligence?
They knew the gravity of their choice.
Yeah and they'd have to be big fools not to know the consequences...but getting the UN to help was definetly not going to work so...
Quote:
I'm sure the Carter years were worse than this...
My parents say the Reagan years were their worst. This is second, followed by Carter.
Quote:
I still prefer Bush's preemptive strike over Clinton's ignorance...who barely did a thing after the Cole bombing but just sort of sat there...
Clinton did do stuff, unless you're forgetting that he bombed Iraq when they kicked the inspectors out. You must also be forgetting that anytime Clinton attempted to do things with the military people kept saying "He's trying to distract everyone by attacking countries." 😛 People can't have it both ways.
But if you are for preemptive action, then in a sense you also agree with FDR's camps for Japanese (or due to the U.S. ignorance of the differences between a Japanese person from a Chinese or Korean, etc.) during WWII. It's the exact same principle.
Quote:
And they were only going into to oust Saddam and his followers and find the WMD's.
If you believe that then you still aren't aware of what's going on. The Bush administration is attempting to democratize the Middle East by invading countries. Iraq was first, it is not going to be last.
