Iraq and MONEY!

[Sxotty]

Joe the lies I was referring to were the information the president gave on such things as proccuring uranium, when he knew it was not so. The deficiets are what I was saying would punish future generations (whether you beleive it is just opinion economics is about the least scientific "science" there is)

Look call me a liberlal, or whatever, but I supported the war. I think we should have gone in and kicked saddams sorry ass out. I never beleived the WMD stuff, but I figured hey as long as we remove a horrible dictator it is ok with me.

I thought and still do that we need some sort of world court, and the US should participate. Then get a judgement agianst people like saddam, and we can go execute them... there should be some repercussions for mosters like that.

 

[Natoma]

Joe the lies I was referring to were the information the president gave on such things as proccuring uranium, when he knew it was not so. The deficiets are what I was saying would punish future generations (whether you beleive it is just opinion economics is about the least scientific "science" there is)

Agreed.

Look call me a liberlal, or whatever, but I supported the war. I think we should have gone in and kicked saddams sorry ass out. I never beleived the WMD stuff, but I figured hey as long as we remove a horrible dictator it is ok with me.

I also agree that removing a horrible dictator is a good thing. I wish we could do it everywhere on the planet. But I want to know what happened and why with that intelligence, i.e. what you spoke about earlier, the WMD lies/misrepresentations/mishandlings.

I thought and still do that we need some sort of world court, and the US should participate. Then get a judgement agianst people like saddam, and we can go execute them... there should be some repercussions for mosters like that.

Aren't you talking about the Hague?

 

[Clashman]

Really.

How many months after the major offensive have passed? And loosing the amount of troops we have since then, is considered a "quagmire?" Um, excuse me, but exactly how soon did you expect us to be completely out of Iraq?

Well that depends. I don't think Rumsfeld, et all have plans of leaving Iraq at all during the next several decades. I believe they will attempt to maintain a continual military prescence in the country, both to act as a continual American prescence in the Middle East as well as to make sure that Iraqi "democracy" is as manageable and controllable and American-friendly as possible.

As far as quashing the insurgency, I think that if it happens at all, it will probably take at least 4-5 years of a sizeable, (say, in excess of 50,000) U.S. prescence to make it happen. In the process, we'll probably lose between 1,800 and 5,000 troops, and I'd be willing to bet that around 30,000 to 100,000 Iraqis will be killed, (that's including what already happened during "major combat operations"). I think these are pretty realistic scenarios, and don't take into account a really major escalation of attacks or a breakout of civil war, the effects of the new paramilitary force that's going to be comprised, (every time I hear that word the first thing I think about is death squads), the effects of disease, secondary deaths, etc.

The same precaustions taken when pregnant women strap explosives to themselves and blow up our troops. Precautions does not eliminate mistakes with civilians...and at the same time they usually escalate the risks for out own troops.

I would argue that shooting the civilians is what escalates the risks for our own troops, (who really shouldn't be doing policework anyways. They aren't trained for it, and their "overreactions" are going to get countless people killed).

 

[Sxotty]

I would argue that shooting the civilians is what escalates the risks for our own troops, (who really shouldn't be doing policework anyways. They aren't trained for it, and their "overreactions" are going to get countless people killed).

Yes it does escalate risk, but it also lowers risk to overeact in the short term, read about the marines supposed strategy, we will see if they stick to it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/12/international/middleeast/12MARI.html

In any case I agree, the vast majority of our armed forces are not trained for police work, they are trained to kill people and they are particularly good at it. I think whether they are over reactions depends where you are at. Most of the time, the reactions are not so much overeactions, as they are short sighted reactions. I mean that the reactions are usually justified, but in the long term are counterproductive.

 

[Sabastian]

I agree I was generalizing. Sorry.

Does it change the fact that the argument (that the US is privatizing business and engaging in economic reform in Iraq against the previous "constitution" of a despotic ruler) is topsey turvey in relation the stated goals of "progressives" when compared to the end result (providing economic opportunity and other freedoms not associated with command economies and brutal dictatorship)?

Well, if you'd ask me for a description of where I stand today on the policital scale I would say progressive liberal. Progressive because I strongly believe in progress, and liberal because I strongly believe in freedom. For some reason though in american terms the meaning of those words are completely different when you talk about politics, so liberal means you're a socialist, and progressive means left-winger. At my place liberal, as should be expected from the meaning of the word, is a right-wing concept and naturally the two most right-wing parties describe themselves as liberal and stand in opposition of the socialistic parties.

So as a progressive liberal, who wants progress in the region and wish them their freedom, I fully support the US presence in Iraq. I do however think Bush could have handled a lot of stuff around it in much better ways, but in no way do I think that Saddam should not have been taken down.

So in effect your liberals are "conservative" comparatively speaking with your left wing? In North America there is more ... of a disparity between the philosophies, err I think. Left wing is associated with being Liberal and right wing is associated with being conservative. I think the disparity is derived from the slippery slope argument I presented once before. After the government begins to grow in organic ways indicative of socialistic models it is difficult to reduce the amount of government. Imagine the government as an organism with tentacles the larger the thing grows the larger its tentacles get. I see the government as a parasite on the market economy. Move intervention means more government organic growth and sub-sequentially more taxation. Once the government becomes so encompassing as it is in Sweden for example it becomes very painful to cut back and reduce the size of the organization particularly in a democratic situation where people have become dependent on that mechanism to get through day to day life. Consequentially it forces the policies in a certain direction where by the government is forced to play an increased role more and more. While it is possible to reverse the logic no doubt it would be a painful job and unlikely the electorate would be happy unless of course they are well aware of the difficulties involved. Most people seem to think that governments have their own money but in reality it doesn't. That is why people see Medicare and other state run services as "free" rather then something that we all pay dearly for. I think maybe I went away from the point a bit but it helps to make a point. Because the left wing is so much more influential in the policy making in Europe you see liberals as conservative from a left of center mentality.

North America
(Collectivist)Left-------------------center----------------right(Individualism)
Liberal(Democrat)>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<Conservative(Republican)

Europe from a North American perspective
(Extreme left wing)Left---------Liberal----------center

North America from a European perspective
center--------Liberal--------Conservative(extreme right wing.)

Some may have difficulties with the above perspective but I think it helps me to understand why it is that Europeans associate Liberal with Conservative. I might be wrong but it does make sense and is my own theory. The Democratic Party policies in the US would look right wing to most in Europe. The ride left is a slippery slope.

 

[Clashman]

That would seem, IMO, to be a better solution. We'll see how long they'll stick to it, and how much actual control Marine commanders will be able to use in Iraq, versus how much will be dictated from Washington.

read about the marines supposed strategy, we will see if they stick to it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/12/international/middleeast/12MARI.html

 

[Natoma]

Heh. Is that why the conservative republican movement has increased spending 26% in the last 3 years? The highest 3 year rise in decades?

Yea the conservative movement in this country is for small government.

 

[Sabastian]

Heh. Is that why the conservative republican movement has increased spending 26% in the last 3 years? The highest 3 year rise in decades?

Yea the conservative movement in this country is for small government.

Libertarians are not happy about that and they are very influential in policies of republicans. You are not considering allot of other matters when you say what you say so tongue in cheek. What about the tax cut? Sooner or later they will have to increase taxes or cut spending which do you suppose the republicans would do first? Never mind allot of the expenses are for the rebuilding of Iraq and may be considered a one time expense to a degree. The military spending is higher to deal with the new threat of terrorism to the US it is needed. Otherwise none of that would have happened at all.

 

[Natoma]

Heh. Is that why the conservative republican movement has increased spending 26% in the last 3 years? The highest 3 year rise in decades?

Yea the conservative movement in this country is for small government.

Libertarians are not happy about that and they are very influential in policies of republicans. You are not considering allot of other matters when you say what you say so tongue in cheek. What about the tax cut? Sooner or later they will have to increase taxes or cut spending which do you suppose the republicans would do first? Never mind allot of the expenses are for the rebuilding of Iraq and may be considered a one time expense to a degree. The military spending is higher to deal with the new threat of terrorism to the US it is needed. Otherwise none of that would have happened at all.

The tax cuts are fueling deficits. What's going to happen is that they will be rescinded in the future, or seriously curtailed, as Clinton and Bush I had to do post-Reagan. And outsized spending, no matter what it's for, has to come from somewhere. Where? Eventual dissolution of the Bush Tax Cuts.

What would republicans dare run on. Keep tax cuts? Or cut Homeland Security? Deficit spending can't continue forever. In order to do that, foreign countries will have to continue to finance our debt, which given the current political climate is a tenuous proposition at best. The rise of the dollar will make it more difficult for foreignors to finance our debt as well. Eventually something will give, and it will be the tax cuts.

 

[Willmeister]

What would republicans dare run on. Keep tax cuts? Or cut Homeland Security?

They won't have to worry. If it came down to taking the hit for cutbacks and tax increases, they'll blame Clinton like they always do and the media will let that happen uncontested.

 

[Legion]

The tax cuts are fueling deficits.

actually spending more than the government is earning is doing that . How does the government earn a great deal of money? By stealing from errr taxing its people...

What's going to happen is that they will be rescinded in the future, or seriously curtailed, as Clinton and Bush I had to do post-Reagan. And outsized spending, no matter what it's for, has to come from somewhere. Where? Eventual dissolution of the Bush Tax Cuts.

The people of the US don't owe the government for its over spending and poor budgeting. Feeding the beast only makes it more hungry.

What would republicans dare run on. Keep tax cuts? Or cut Homeland Security?

Perhaps cutting useless spending on welfare and government subsidies.

 

[Sabastian]

Heh. Is that why the conservative republican movement has increased spending 26% in the last 3 years? The highest 3 year rise in decades?

Yea the conservative movement in this country is for small government.

Libertarians are not happy about that and they are very influential in policies of republicans. You are not considering allot of other matters when you say what you say so tongue in cheek. What about the tax cut? Sooner or later they will have to increase taxes or cut spending which do you suppose the republicans would do first? Never mind allot of the expenses are for the rebuilding of Iraq and may be considered a one time expense to a degree. The military spending is higher to deal with the new threat of terrorism to the US it is needed. Otherwise none of that would have happened at all.

The tax cuts are fueling deficits. What's going to happen is that they will be rescinded in the future, or seriously curtailed, as Clinton and Bush I had to do post-Reagan. And outsized spending, no matter what it's for, has to come from somewhere. Where? Eventual dissolution of the Bush Tax Cuts.

What would republicans dare run on. Keep tax cuts? Or cut Homeland Security?

Depends on how you look at it. One might consider that spending is fueling the deficits... tax cuts are helping to create jobs and increase the tax base. You point at both. I say tax cuts will nourish the mentality that spending cuts are needed. Cut spending cut taxes smaller government. The spending increase currently under way is result of terrorist threats. The eventual dissolution of spending on military and homeland security is more likely then to have Bush increase taxes. I say defense spending will be reduced substantially next year.

 

[Natoma]

The tax cuts are fueling deficits.

actually spending more than the government is earning is doing that .

Government earning power has significantly been reduced while spending has grown 26%. It's a double edged sword.

What's going to happen is that they will be rescinded in the future, or seriously curtailed, as Clinton and Bush I had to do post-Reagan. And outsized spending, no matter what it's for, has to come from somewhere. Where? Eventual dissolution of the Bush Tax Cuts.

The people of the US don't owe the government for its over spending and poor budgeting. Feeding the beast only makes it more hungry.

Huh? The government's money doesn't grow on trees. Either we cut the massive spending increases, i.e. Homeland Security, Medicare (dear god that $400 Billion is going to hurt), and the other new expenses created during this administration, or we return the tax code to the Clinton era.

Again, what do you think is going to happen first?

What would republicans dare run on. Keep tax cuts? Or cut Homeland Security?

Perhaps cutting useless spending on welfare and government subsidies.

Not all government subsidies are useless. Don't paint with a broad brush on this one. And you've obviously never been in a situation where you needed government assisted welfare. Pray that you never do. I know quite a few family members who have over the years who eventually were able to get themselves off of welfare and get college degrees. But if that net had not been there, they would have fallen into absolute poverty. My mom used welfare and food stamps for a time when I was a baby out of necessity, not some inherent laziness that you're hinting at.

 

[Natoma]

Depends on how you look at it. One might consider that spending is fueling the deficits... tax cuts are helping to create jobs and increase the tax base. You point at both. I say tax cuts will nourish the mentality that spending cuts are needed. Cut spending cut taxes smaller government. The spending increase currently under way is result of terrorist threats. The eventual dissolution of spending on military and homeland security is more likely then to have Bush increase taxes. I say defense spending will be reduced substantially next year.

I don't really understand the mantra that tax cuts magically create jobs. In the 3 years since this recession began and ended, and almost $2 Trillion in tax cuts have been passed, over 2 million jobs have been lost.

I wrote this after you responded so I'll post it down here if you want to respond to it. Deficit spending can't continue forever. In order to do that, foreign countries will have to continue to finance our debt, which given the current political climate is a tenuous proposition at best. The rise of the dollar will make it more difficult for foreignors to finance our debt as well. Eventually something will give, and it will be the tax cuts.

You won't see the dissolution of spending on homeland defense because it would be political suicide to do so. Raising taxes is far less a bitter pill than saying "This will save lives". 9/11 is very fresh in people's minds. Pre-9/11 I would agree with you, but not in the current climate.

Besides, the "king" of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, found it impossible to cut taxes and curtail spending, and it led to the, at the time, largest deficits in US history as an amount and a % of GDP. What eventually gave? The tax cuts.

 

[Natoma]

What would republicans dare run on. Keep tax cuts? Or cut Homeland Security?

They won't have to worry. If it came down to taking the hit for cutbacks and tax increases, they'll blame Clinton like they always do and the media will let that happen uncontested.

That's why people like Howard Dean who are fiscal conservatives, i.e. believe in balanced budgets, have called for a rescinding of the tax cuts. Not because they are anti-tax cut, but because they know we have a huge security problem when we rely on foreignors to completely finance our outsize spending. We have to bring our budget under control, and right now there are things we simply cannot cut (for political and real reasons), such as Homeland Security, which account for a huge % of the spending increase. And Homeland Security, for all it's cost, is still woefully underfunded, especially when it comes to border patrols and port security.

 

[Legion]

Government earning power has significantly been reduced while spending has grown 26%. It's a double edged sword.

Downsizing government spending and cutting out of useless government subsidies will help to elimate much of this.

Huh? The government's money doesn't grow on trees. Either we cut the massive spending increases, i.e. Homeland Security, Medicare (dear god that $400 Billion is going to hurt), and the other new expenses created during this administration, or we return the tax code to the Clinton era.

The nature of spending during this presidency is not static. I will more than like decrease over the years. The public shouldn't be exploited to pay for the governments history of over spending. I am surprised this puzzles you.

Again, what do you think is going to happen first?

An overall lowering of spending and cutting funds to various superfluous government subsidies.

How can you justify in your mind the government exploiting the people with Clinton's savage taxation plans? Can you imagine there were people out there paying as high as 75% of their income in taxes? That was ludicrous.

Not all government subsidies are useless. Don't paint with a broad brush on this one.

I'd imagine if we looked through a list of subsidies we could find some which are useless. Perhaps not all of them are but i'd imagine most.

And you've obviously never been in a situation where you needed government assisted welfare.

Thats true. I fashion myself as a responsible individual.

Pray that you never do.

I feel as long as i put for a consistant effort that won't happen. Honestly i see little need for government assitance. I see it as simply pandering to indolence.

I know quite a few family members who have over the years who eventually were able to get themselves off of welfare and get college degrees. But if that net had not been there, they would have fallen into absolute poverty. My mom used welfare and food stamps for a time when I was a baby out of necessity, not some inherent laziness that you're hinting at.

People make choices in life Natoma, they ought to be called to stand responsible.

 

[Sabastian]

Depends on how you look at it. One might consider that spending is fueling the deficits... tax cuts are helping to create jobs and increase the tax base. You point at both. I say tax cuts will nourish the mentality that spending cuts are needed. Cut spending cut taxes smaller government. The spending increase currently under way is result of terrorist threats. The eventual dissolution of spending on military and homeland security is more likely then to have Bush increase taxes. I say defense spending will be reduced substantially next year.

I don't really understand the mantra that tax cuts magically create jobs. In the 3 years since this recession began and ended, and almost $2 Trillion in tax cuts have been passed, over 2 million jobs have been lost.

I wrote this after you responded so I'll post it down here if you want to respond to it. Deficit spending can't continue forever. In order to do that, foreign countries will have to continue to finance our debt, which given the current political climate is a tenuous proposition at best. The rise of the dollar will make it more difficult for foreignors to finance our debt as well. Eventually something will give, and it will be the tax cuts.

You won't see the dissolution of spending on homeland defense because it would be political suicide to do so. Raising taxes is far less a bitter pill than saying "This will save lives". 9/11 is very fresh in people's minds. Pre-9/11 I would agree with you, but not in the current climate.

Besides, the "king" of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, found it impossible to cut taxes and curtail spending, and it led to the, at the time, largest deficits in US history as an amount and a % of GDP. What eventually gave? The tax cuts.

You assume that he won't cut spending. You also assume he will increase taxes. I think you are assuming the worst case scenario. However it is possible but it goes against the values of the Republican Party in particular their libertarians. I assume that he will follow party philosophies just like he was doing when he reduced taxation next is cutting spending to match revenues or at least start the process of cutting spending to reduce deficit spending. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens, right?.

 

[FUDie]

And you've obviously never been in a situation where you needed government assisted welfare.

Thats true. I fashion myself as a responsible individual.

Pray that you never do.

I feel as long as i put for a consistant effort that won't happen. Honestly i see little need for government assitance. I see it as simply pandering to indolence.

What a snob you are.

I know quite a few family members who have over the years who eventually were able to get themselves off of welfare and get college degrees. But if that net had not been there, they would have fallen into absolute poverty. My mom used welfare and food stamps for a time when I was a baby out of necessity, not some inherent laziness that you're hinting at.

People make choices in life Natoma, they ought to be called to stand responsible.

Not all choices are yours to control. Say the factory you work at closes down or you are injured and cannot support yourself, what would you do then? According to you, you should just die because it's your choice to be injured or out of work.

Get off your high horse and face reality sometime.

-FUDie

 

[Natoma]

Government earning power has significantly been reduced while spending has grown 26%. It's a double edged sword.

Downsizing government spending and cutting out of useless government subsidies will help to elimate much of this.

In theory. Again, what is useless spending and subsidies? Granted there are some things that are really not useful to us, such as the millions going to teach kids how to play golf, or the millions going to repair a congressman's pool in his home town that he messed up when he was a kid. But what about corn subsidies for ethanol fuel development that will hopefully help move us away from our dependence on foreign oil? Again, what we need is a public audit of congressional spending. Not a broad stroke.

Huh? The government's money doesn't grow on trees. Either we cut the massive spending increases, i.e. Homeland Security, Medicare (dear god that $400 Billion is going to hurt), and the other new expenses created during this administration, or we return the tax code to the Clinton era.

The nature of spending during this presidency is not static. I will more than like decrease over the years. The public shouldn't be exploited to pay for the governments history of over spending. I am surprised this puzzles you.

You don't know that spending will decrease as the years go by. As I said before, Homeland Security is still woefully underfunded, and the new medicare bill has a vast coverage hole that will eventually be plugged in the next 10 years simply because it's politically expedient to do so.

Again, what do you think is going to happen first?

An overall lowering of spending and cutting funds to various superfluous government subsidies.

You talk of subsidies but you haven't really given any. Do you know of any off the top of your head? I do, and I listed a few above, but you don't know all of them. As I said, what would really be helpful would be a public audit of congressional spending so we can really see where the american taxpayer's money is going.

How can you justify in your mind the government exploiting the people with Clinton's savage taxation plans? Can you imagine there were people out there paying as high as 75% of their income in taxes? That was ludicrous.

What the heck are you talking about? Clinton's savage taxation plans?

Clinton raised taxes on the upper income bracket and lowered them on the middle class. What exactly are you referring to??

Not all government subsidies are useless. Don't paint with a broad brush on this one.

I'd imagine if we looked through a list of subsidies we could find some which are useless. Perhaps not all of them are but i'd imagine most.

Well let's see if there's any way to get a line item reporting of congressional spending. You'd find many people in this country interested in that.

And you've obviously never been in a situation where you needed government assisted welfare.

Thats true. I fashion myself as a responsible individual.

And my mom and millions of other people who were on government assistance at one time aren't? Please Legion. Enough.

Pray that you never do.

I feel as long as i put for a consistant effort that won't happen. Honestly i see little need for government assitance. I see it as simply pandering to indolence.

Again, not everyone who "works hard" is able to support themselves. I feel really insulted by the idea that if you simply "work hard" you won't need government assistance. There are many people in this country making minimum wage working 12 hour days who are on government assistance. There are many people who are building businesses who are on government assistance until they can get themselves off the ground.

My friend James was laid off a couple of months ago and went into business for himself. It's starting slowly and he's slowly getting his clientele together for his workout business, but he still needs that government assistance check every month until he gets himself completely off the ground.

You've obviously never been dealt an unexpected card in life. When you experience life for yourself instead of pandering high falutin ideas about "those people", get back to me.

I know quite a few family members who have over the years who eventually were able to get themselves off of welfare and get college degrees. But if that net had not been there, they would have fallen into absolute poverty. My mom used welfare and food stamps for a time when I was a baby out of necessity, not some inherent laziness that you're hinting at.

People make choices in life Natoma, they ought to be called to stand responsible.

My mother made no choice to be poor when I was born. She worked her ass off and pulled herself out of that situation and is completely self sufficient today. To insinuate that she was in the situation she was in simply as some punishment for being irresponsible is extremely insulting and immature.

 

[Sabastian]

People make choices in life Natoma, they ought to be called to stand responsible.

Not all choices are yours to control. Say the factory you work at closes down or you are injured and cannot support yourself, what would you do then? According to you, you should just die because it's your choice to be injured or out of work.

Get off your high horse and face reality sometime.

-FUDie

I wouldn't pick on disabled persons too hard but a person that is well and able could surely find other employment. Myself it only takes me a matter of hours usually to find a job. (granted not the most glamorous sort of work or high paying but it is there.) On that note I have get my ass in gear I only got about 15min.