Iraq and MONEY!

[ByteMe]

The reason public system came into place was the severe lack of charity from the private sector. Its not feasbile for the thousdans of issues to be dealt with by private charity. Telemarketers asking for donations call me 3-4 tiems a day sometimes... id rather gov take care of the immesne and complex issues.

Unless you mean public funding of private non profit charities. And even then Id only agree if enough scutiny was in place to avoid the kind of CCF and other religious charities scandals of the past decade...

Hmm, interesting take on things. I can't see how (now) that a lack of charity would be the problem. (just one example) It used to be and I believe still that ANYONE that goes to a catholic church for basic needs help will NEVER be turned away. I believe this is also true for a number of other churches.

So I also don't understand when people say the homeless shelters are full. Then the people should go to the nearest church.

If the taxes were lowered the amout that is given away. I believe the people would put that much more into private donations.

 

[pax]

Oh I perfectly agree with real donations benig made with 100% tax refunds... But... lots of charities arent really charitable... and there being thousands of them its hard to keep track of them unless you maintain a insanely huge bureaucracy.

I doubt the public would have ever asked for gov social programs if religious institutions or other had been suffficiently charitable.

 

[ByteMe]

I doubt the public would have ever asked for gov social programs if religious institutions or other had been suffficiently charitable.

Well I dunno. I expect that the liberals would NOT want the churches helping the needy. I think their argument would go along the lines "What if a person is not religious and needs help. It would be an aweful thing to make them go to church."

I believe if the taxes were lowered; there would be less poor people, and what poor people there were would be taken care of by the rest.

Something that would be interesting... what do other industrial countries do that do not have a welfare system? Are there any?

 

[pax]

I find plenty of people here who tell me how it was in the 50s before medicare... it was hell. Find anyone who went thru the great depression and you'll hear same... sheer hell. My dad knew what it meant to go hungry and not eat for 2-3 days at a time.. or eat potatoes and little else for weeks.

Churches werent sufficient then and wouldnt be there now to replace social programs...

 

[ByteMe]

I find plenty of people here who tell me how it was in the 50s before medicare... it was hell. Find anyone who went thru the great depression and you'll hear same... sheer hell. My dad knew what it meant to go hungry and not eat for 2-3 days at a time.. or eat potatoes and little else for weeks.

Churches werent sufficient then and wouldnt be there now to replace social programs...

If the economy took a major crap as in the great depression, then yes I would expect the government to step in and help. Until something that drastic I think the private sector could do a better good with the money.

 

[cthellis42]

Well I dunno. I expect that the liberals would NOT want the churches helping the needy. I think their argument would go along the lines "What if a person is not religious and needs help. It would be an aweful thing to make them go to church."

I don't think so in the slightest. The only time it gets somewhat objectionable is if the service provided is linked irrevocably to proselytizing--and that's not likely to happen too much or too harshly. Many churches/synogogues/etc are great places to run soup kitchens--I help out at one pretty much every month. (A big communal chruch is the host site and runs a daily soup kitchen, but much of the time food donations and assistance comes from religious and social groups in the extended community who come in on a rotational basis.) I'm not sure if any state assistance comes in as well, but with or without it, were there someone preaching from the stage as they ate, you can BET there would be feathers ruffled. (Especially since so many denominations are covered on the full rotation.) As it stands, it just feeds 150-200 people on the norm on a daily basis--a decidedly good thing.

I believe if the taxes were lowered; there would be less poor people, and what poor people there were would be taken care of by the rest.

Because why? They would have more money? Which would immediately go out and likely moreso to cover the kinds of things social programs cover. Meanwhile, private charity has NEVER been enough for what is needed to even maintain simple sustinance, and the first time the economy would hit a downward sway and start affecting others' charitable impulses... Oops, so sorry, no backstop for you. Cannibalism, anyone?

 

[Grall]

I believe if the taxes were lowered; there would be less poor people, and what poor people there were would be taken care of by the rest.

I believe you're greatly confused as to the reason people are poor in the first place. You see, it's not because of taxes - which in the case of the US are amongst the lowest in the world for an industrial nation, it's because (usually private) employers pay wages that are simply too low for a person to sustain a decent living on it (and again you Americans excel in that regard).

Thus, lowering taxes would give SOME back to the poor yes, but not very much, and the money they get back would not cover what the gov't used to provide them with "for free" anyway.

Something that would be interesting... what do other industrial countries do that do not have a welfare system? Are there any?

You can probably find a bunch in southeast asia.

*G*

 

[RussSchultz]

I believe you're greatly confused as to the reason people are poor in the first place. You see, it's not because of taxes - which in the case of the US are amongst the lowest in the world for an industrial nation, it's because (usually private) employers pay wages that are simply too low for a person to sustain a decent living on it (and again you Americans excel in that regard).

Thus, lowering taxes would give SOME back to the poor yes, but not very much, and the money they get back would not cover what the gov't used to provide them with "for free" anyway.

Lowering taxes would allow more economic activity to happen, which would employ more people, and/or raise wages due to wage competition for workers.

And you can't simply raise wages to make people not poor. It would would lead to price inflation, which would make people just as "poor" as they are today.

 

[Grall]

Lowering taxes would allow more economic activity to happen

You mean that by eliminating virtually all taxes, a minimum wage worker would suddenly be able to afford housing and furniture, food, clothing, schooling, health and dental care, christmas and birthday presents, and a vacation to the sun once a year (amongst other things), for his or her own self and possibly one and several other children?

A highly dubious line of reasoning.

which would employ more people, and/or raise wages due to wage competition for workers.

UNfortunately, with the current trend in the US, you'd employ people IN LOW-INCOME COUNTRIES rather than in the homeland itself, which basically means you'd have already poor people subsidizing even poorer people abroad. Besides, how on earth could wage competition for workers ever going to eliminate poverty? That's the biggest pipe-dream I saw in a long good while. Capitalism itself makes sure it doesn't happen, because corporations are GREEDY and look to their own short-term interests rather than the need of society as a whole by firing people when wages get too high and move stuff abroad instead. That's why tax-finaced social institutions were invented to begin with, to counter the greed in the private sector.

And you can't simply raise wages to make people not poor. It would would lead to price inflation, which would make people just as "poor" as they are today.

There's no difference here compared to wage-competition for workers, inflation is always a threat, so the end results would be the same. Except you would have more success reaching reasonable wages for everyone with the lawbook rather than just trusting pitiless corporations to show mercy on their employers.

Capitalists rarely do anything that costs them money unless their hands are forced.


*G*

 

[RussSchultz]

I don't think it would be productive to continue discussing this with you.

We apparently don't have any common ground between us when it comes to economic theory.

 

[Natoma]

I don't think it would be productive to continue discussing this with you.

We apparently don't have any common ground between us when it comes to economic theory.

Why is that? I would think when someone is engaging in a thoughtful and level headed disagreement, it would behoove everyone to engage. Grall didn't say anything out of turn and frankly stated his disagreement with your points of view.

That is the point of debates right? To present your points of view even when you disagree?

 

[RussSchultz]

Why is that? I would think when someone is engaging in a thoughtful and level headed disagreement, it would behoove everyone to engage. Grall didn't say anything out of turn and frankly stated his disagreement with your points of view.

Because its a lot more polite to say it that way then the other that came to mind. I'd rather not spend my day 'fisking' somebody's lack of economic understanding when its obvous he's already made his mind up about the rightness of socialism, the wrongness of capitalism.

It would be about as productive as me trying to have a discussion with you over WMD.

 

[Natoma]

I suppose it would be, since all I use are the direct words of the people in this administration you support, of which you simply ignore time and time again.

500 tons of chem-bio agent?

 

[RussSchultz]

I suppose it would be, since all I use are the direct words of the people in this administration you support, of which you simply ignore time and time again.

500 tons of chem-bio agent?

And you ignore the fact that nearly everybody, on all camps, except the anti-war nutjobs, were sure Saddam had weapons, and the debate was what to do about it, not that they existed at all.

That they didn't exist (or don't seem to) was a complete suprise to everybody, except historical revisionists, who somehow knew all along, and are now self righteously smug about it.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser,
Feb, 18, 1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens.
Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of Mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of
mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright,
Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his
weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President
Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction." Senator Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." Sen. Robert
Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct.
9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10,
2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002,

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a
brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

 

[ByteMe]

Some good quotes there all in one place.

 

[Natoma]

And you ignore the fact that nearly everybody, on all camps, except the anti-war nutjobs, were sure Saddam had weapons, and the debate was what to do about it, not that they existed at all.

That they didn't exist (or don't seem to) was a complete suprise to everybody, except historical revisionists, who somehow knew all along, and are now self righteously smug about it.

Ah but what was the key difference? Nearly everybody, on all camps, including myself, except the war-at-any-cost nutjobs in the Administration and the Project for the New American Century believed that we should have given the UN Weapons Inspection Process one last chance to avert a war.

That we went in circumventing the completion of the UN process, and without UN approval, was a complete surprise to everybody outside the Administration and their PNAC backers, who somehow knew all along that everyone else was wrong and decided that process and diplomacy were completely irrelevant. At least until everything is over and they come crawling back with their hands out looking for some cash to fund the mess they've created.

What did I say all along? Give the UN process a chance in order to avoid a war, and this administration did everything in its power to circumvent and undermine that process. If weapons were found, we go in, take out Saddam, and occupy the country as we're doing now. No historical revisionism whatsoever. Everyone agreed that Saddam had weapons. What we disagreed on was what to do with them. The Administration was so absolutely sure that it felt it didn't need to wait for the process to complete. And now that it is done, and there aren't any in Iraq to be found, people are asking, "What was the big rush for hmmm? Why couldn't you have waited just a few months, gotten our allies onboard, and had a much easier situation to handle on your hands?"

But of course, this is historical revisionism on the part of the administration and their supporters that all people bashing them now are just trying to say "Oh we knew all along that weapons didn't exist." That is the true revisionism Russ, and frankly you're quite good at attempting it.

 

[ByteMe]

I guess 12 years was not long enough for some people.

 

[Natoma]

What part of "one last chance" didn't you understand though ByteMe? I said on quite a few occassions that if Saddam didn't cooperate with the process, or if the weapons inspectors found weapons, that we should have gone in and taken out his regime. I said that, and so did a lot of other people in Washington and around the world.

We were told that he had weapons and that they were an imminent threat. What I want to know is, since we couldn't wait for the UN Weapons Inspectors to do their job and had to go in immediately, where are they? The administration was so sure that it couldn't wait, why aren't the weapons there?

What happens the next time we go to the world and say "That country has weapons of mass destruction. We know it. We can't afford to wait. We have to go in now." You don't think our credibility on these matters is just a tad shaken by this episode?

Everyone talks about Saddam and Iraq being a terrorist threat and being tied to 9/11 even though there was no evidence to support that claim. Yet even before 9/11, the PNAC was advocating Saddam's ouster for the economic interests of the United States and nothing more. Those same members of the PNAC are now key officials in this administration, such as Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. All of a sudden Iraq is tied to terrorism.

I'm not advocating that taking out Saddam was a bad thing in and of itself. I disagree strongly with the methods used to get us to that point.

 

[Clashman]

You mean that by eliminating virtually all taxes, a minimum wage worker would suddenly be able to afford housing and furniture, food, clothing, schooling, health and dental care, christmas and birthday presents, and a vacation to the sun once a year (amongst other things), for his or her own self and possibly one and several other children?

Of course not, silly. For that to happen we'd need to eliminate minimum wage, too, not to mention child labor laws. That way, employers could afford to hire a whole family, and everyone in that family would be able/forced to contribute to providing household income. See how much better capitalism works when you take "socialist" government programs and regulations out of the equation?

 

[Grall]

I'd rather not spend my day 'fisking' somebody's lack of economic understanding when its obvous he's already made his mind up about the rightness of socialism, the wrongness of capitalism.

Dude, the wrongness of capitalism is easily proven, because for a capitalist system to remain stable it relies on constant growth. Population ages, so more people must consume more to support the elderly, and a host of other issues. Well, how stupid, on a scale of 1-10, would you say that idea is, when you're dealing with a closed system with finite resources - ie; planet Earth?

Pretty DAMN stupid, that's what.

Of course, we could always put mandatory euthanasia at age 55 or so for the poor into place, that'd allow us to continue this impossible growth spiral for a while longer. However, sooner or later, unbridled capitalist GREED will have ruined our oceans' fishing, cut down our rainforests, destroyed sensitive farmland, poisoned our air and groundwater etc etc, and then what? Do we like, move to Mars and start all over again?

No, I guess the rich, wealthy people moves to Mars and leaves the rest of us on the garbage dump they helped create.

Naturally, maybe these greedy capitalist pigs that controls our world will suddenly have a change of heart and move towards a sustainable economy instead of what we got now at some point in the future, but how much damage will they have caused by then? We're eradicating entire species of plants and animals on a daily basis, Russ!

At the same time we have multinational companies (like Mosanto etc) using their sheer economic weight to pressure entire countries into allowing widespread use of gene-manipulated crops and even livestock, with effects nobody can foresee! We lose genetic diversity in favor of a mono-culture on an uneard-of scale that is sustained by NOTHING but a constant application of POISON to kill pests! And don't get me started on the liberal application of various chemicals that are known cancerogens, hormone-like in behaviour etc etc that we have around us all the time, every day! Companies start selling and using them without having any idea whatsoever what effects they have on us, or on other animals and plants!

I don't see how anyone can stoutly defend such single-minded GREED and profiteering on the expense of basically the entire planet's population, like you seem to do.

That we're moving towards the biggest arse-fcuking of all time - on ourselves - must be clear for even you to see. If not, open your friggin eyes man. See what capitalism is doing to this planet. It's RAPING it, man!

You assume in a knee-jerk response I'm socialist, well, I'm really not. I'm anti-capitalist. Not the same thing!


*G*