So why is it, that all the smug faced Conservatives,
have been wrong about almost EVERY issue on the war on terror,
yet refuse to step off their, "We know we are right" soap box?
I remember when Democrats warned of going into a protracted campaign and occupation of Iraq, while forces were still in Afghanistan, and needed in Korea,
Conservatives gave us a patronizing smile, and assured us "We can walk and chew gum at the same time".
Because that wonderful president of ours gave Saddam an ultimateum. If we'd have backed down from it, then we would have looked like pussies.
Are these the same Democrats that said the push to Baghdad was a failure when two days in the front line troops had to wait a few days for their supply lines to catch up - and then 5 days later the country fell?
Please, how about you wait until the war is over to write the history book about it. It's exactly you bleeding-heart liberals that will try to force us to leave Iraq and Afghanistan before our work is done. Charlie-Mike mother fucker
Why do you answer my questions with a counter attack.
I am ALL FOR seeing the job through at this point,
there is no option.
I just am disgusted by the collection of Snake oil salesmen Like Pearle who did such a wonderful job selling America a war.
Now that we are there, we have no choice,
my question is why the president pushed so hard to get us there in the first place?
how's the WMD search going anyway?
I don't know about the WMD search, ask the Syrians.
If you watched Bush's speech Sunday night, it was a pretty good reflection of why he pushed so hard in the first place. If you allow someone to get away with murder, violating international law, harboring and funding terrorism, then you show that you are weak.
The best thing we can do to ensure our own safety is to get people to like this life more than the next. That is the thing with terrorist, they believe the next life will be better for them if they do this. Take that away, make this life good for them, they lose their drive to kill themselves.
I for one would rather have the fighting take place in another country than have it here in my backyard again. And that's why I thank the troops that put their lives on the line to keep me safe like that.
love it or leave it, pinko
ahhhh,
so somehow despite having the vast forces of our military drawn around Iraq, they somehow managed to spirit all the WMD away to the next country on our hit list under our noses.
Powell sat and said WE KNEW what he had and where he had it.
Well........ show me.
AND as for your talk about fighting there instead of in our backyard AGAIN,
there is not a scrap of evidence that Iraq was involved in 911,
the WMD they employed was box cutters,
NOT gas, or the like.
Bush has remained buddy buddy with the Saudi's and EVERY indication is that THEY are the ones with the most blood on their hands.
Iraq is just smoke and mirrors,
an excuse to do something he wanted to do, and use 9-11 to garner support.
kill everyone. let Allah sort it out.
and as Gonzo mentioned yesterday,
when questions arose as to how we would pay for this,
or even the sanity of a tax cut coupled with a period of intense defense spending,
the right scoffed and assured us there would be oil revenues to float the bill.
(but it's not about oil, remember that)
I love how you now try to convince me that a tax cut is a bad thing
And all this government spending is helping the economy. If you'll notice, Lockeed Martin, Boeing, Ratheyon, they're not laying people off anymore. A large portion of the increase in the GDP was due to government spending. Paying American workers so they have money to buy things and keep the economy rolling is not such a bad thing. Ask Regan
Running up a HUGE deficit is a Bad thing,
sorry but it is.
Giving a tax cut that benefits the most wealthy,
IS a bad thing.
Unless spending is cut in line with a tax cut, which is NOT the case,
I am against it.....
Whitman gave me a nice state refund check,
of course my property taxes went up just as much or more,
when the state didn't pay for things they once did....
smoke and mirrors.
And We should all be glad that the defense industry is making a lot of money? at a time when unemployment for the rest of the nation is soaring?
Quote:Giving a tax cut that benefits the most wealthy,
IS a bad thing.
Ugh, this is the one I hate the most.
Rich people make more money, so when they get the same percentage cut, they get more money back. Also, corporations are the largest money spenders in the economy. If they don't spend money, everything goes to shit (see also, The Great Depression). Give them money, they will spend it to help the economy and re-invest in capital - good news for us.
Unemployment is not soaring. Yes, it is high, and it may get higher, but it's shitty everywhere, chief. Unemplyment is much higher in Europe and Japan right now. It's a global economy, and it is getting better. Not smoke and mirrors, this is why recoveries take time
Edited By Doc on 1063131010
My point is Captain,
that there was specific cuts like on dividends, and inheritance taxes that ONLY effect the wealthy, or rather, only SIGNIFICANTLY effect the wealthy.
I am against giving away ANY tax revenues UNTIL you tell me how you are going to cut the spending.
I am not a huge fan of running on a deficit.
Reagan did it, and Japan was holding a SIGNIFICANT portion of our debt.
and weilding some power in our country.
But that was ok by Reagan, in fact he turned it into a multimillion dollar handshaking tour when he left office.
I just HATE the republican mantra of "Cut Taxes" unless it goes hand in hand with spending.
Theres nothing wrong with a tax cut.
unless, of course, you're in a state like Maryland, where the following year's budget numbers couldn't add up, and the new Republican Governor refused to raise taxes back to the levels it was at before the cut, and my tuition goes up $6,000.
EXACTLY!!!
the money ultimately comes out of our pockets one way or the other.
Ken'sPen Wrote:Giving a tax cut that benefits the most wealthy,
IS a bad thing.
To say this is idioic.
The top 2% of income earners pay over 50% of the taxes. Every tax cut benefits the rich the most as well it should. If you don't fucking pay taxes, how can a tax cut help you?
If you cut taxes and "the rich" save them $500 out of their $100,000/year tax liability and "the poor" save $300 out of their $1,000 tax liability who is it benefitting the most? It is insane to say the majority of the tax cut goes to the rich.
I'm sick of this "Fair share" bullshit. The tax code is wildly unfair. If Person A makes 50x what person B makes, he doesn't pay 50x more in taxes. He pays about 1000x. How is that fair? If you really want fair, people shouldn't pay the tax rate (meaning you make 50x more, you pay 50x more), we should pay the same AMOUNT. That's the definition of "fair". Everyone treated equal. You and I are individuals, both born dumb and naked at birth with the same tools at our disposal. If you make more than me, why should you be penalized by having to give some of it up to pay for those who take the options available to them?
Edited By Galt on 1063132161
to talk about tax rates etc. is a topic for another day.
I don't know how they got set as they did,
I was talking about specific cuts, on dividends and inheritance.
and again my point is that cutting taxes without a good plan on reduced spending is not a good idea.
BUT,
the tax cut was not presented by the administration as "A plan to make it more fair for rich people" as it truly is,
but rather as
"an economic stimulus plan" which is bullshit.
1. Check what the definition of "rich" is in this tax code before you start on them.
2. Any tax cut is an economic stimuls package because it gives individuals more money in their pocket. That increases spending. I give you $100. What are you going to do? Spend it? Great. economic stimulus. Put it in the bank? Great. increases the money supply by $1,000, allows for business, home, or personal loans: economic stimulus. Dig a hole and put it in the ground for savings? OK. Then and only then is there no economic stimulus.
Doesn't matter what tax braket you are in.
Conservatives aren't the ones who are looking to increase spending. Sure, during war time and even in peacetime, conservatives tend to love throwing money at defense spending. But aside from that it is always liberals who are looking to fund countless different social programs where the government does everything.
That was the problem during the 80s. Reagan cut taxes significantly, which (contrary to your thought) increased tax revenue. However, spending was never decreased. Bush tried to "cut" spending (actually meaning slowing the growth of....but whatever) when he passed the big tax cut and the democrats in Congress wouldn't allow it.
Don't you remember how evil he was for wanting to cut medicare and throw all the elderly on the street?
I say we go for the true form of capitalism and take the look out for yourself attitude. Fuck this borderline capitalist/socialist form of government that we have.
Agreed Galt,
Say "I'll cut taxes" and you will ride into town a hero"
say where the spending cuts will come and you will be stoned.
doesn't sway my opinion that tax cuts at a time of a Multi Billion Dollar war effort is a bad idea.
Nor am I really a Liberal who will support all the spending at their trough.