If the only aim of the United States in Iraq is to kill people and destroy things, the military will leave without accomplishing what it sets out to do. It won't solve the problem.
I think first off you should look at why the other Arab nations are against taking out Sadamn. In most cases it has little to do with some higher calling or moral mandate. None of them like Sadamn, he has threatened and attacked his neighbors. Each nation acts in there own interest those who say that they aren't are fooling themselves. Take Saudi Arabia. They don't like Sadamn, he attacked them in 91', but they don't want him taken out because 2 things happen if Sadamn is gone. 1) Of course their power from the oil pie is less, America would be able to rely less on S.A and therefore there power and economy in the region is dimminished. 2) The need for us suppliying them with defense is dimminished as well. The Saudi's find it fashionable to complain about our presence (even though we are as culturally sensative as anyone could ask) but have no problem letting us help defend them. They'd like to see the status quo. The same above is true of Kuwait as well. And in S.A's case as well they have an extremist problem which could boil over if they supported us and they realize we aren't exactly thrilled with them since they were and are a breeding ground for terrorists.
It's getting harder and harder to discern which nations aren't acting in their own interest. We are absolutely. The sad part is that nations like France and Russia are against it because they have BILLIONS in trade with Iraq. It's not out of some greater calling they are acting in there own interest as well. It's become all too fashionable to make the U.S a scapegoat for all of a nations problems and hatered is being bred in many places and much of it undeserved. Is some of it understandible or justified ? Yes, that's an entirely different debate but we've seen people elected into office in other places by simply making us out to be the bad guy or worse than Sadamn.
The thing is everyone (well almost) agrees that Sadamn is a bad oppresive and evil dictator. They will all say he's bad and should go. Yet they will do nothing or little about it. He's killed his own people, used chem and bio weapons in the past, he's attacked his neighbors, he kills his realatives even, employs torture, has professional rapists improsions poltical opponenents and lets his people starve while he builds lavish palaces. And yet those same people will never tell you HOW to get rid of him.
We've tried sanctions and then people said it was hurting his own people, true, whose fault was that ? He's broke every deal that enabled him to keep power all the while doing nothing to end sanctions. Yet it's our fault. Medical and humanitarian aid was allowed by the way. The money from oil sales that was supposed to go to his people went to him, and yet, it's the west's fault. Many many things over the years have been tried other than war. And that was criticized, then of course war or the even the threat of it's criticized by the same who say, yep he's bad...but.
So the same folks who decry even sanctions then say of cousre that war won't do it either and is too costly to civilians. They won't tell you how to get rid of him. Apparently thousands dying each year is perefferable to a short albeit intesnse battle in which yes some civlians would sadly be killed or injured. Of course they won't tell you it's because he puts AAA and weapons in civilian areas it'll still be our fault. Why do you think he's let inspectors in this time ? Because force or the threat is all he understands. it took over a decade and looking down the barrel of a rilfe to make any real progress towards holding up his end of the agreement.
Not that war shouldn't be a well weighted and wrenching decision. It is and I'd be happy to never see another one ever, I loathe it, I've seen it and it's a waste. If we were acting as unilatrerally as some say we would already be in downtown Bagdhahd. I'm not 100% sure that we will need to invade.
Will we win if we go ? Yes, the cost is always too high really but we need to remember that they will be on their own soil and I can tell you it makes a diffeerence. Some of the troops we encountered were very loyal and fierce, some were not but they all didn't run out with a white flag.
After seems to be the biggst point of debate currently. You and Rick were correct that keeping peace will be hardest of all. From what I know of the people of Iraq they are ready for change. Are there enough to make it happen. I think so and I think leaving after victory although costly would be a vacumm for every extremist wacko in the M.E.
Seems we can't win politically. They all want him gone but we're bad if we sanction, we're bad if we fight, we're bad if we leave right away and we're imposing our views on them if we stay.
Today's New York Times magazine has a cover story by Michael Ignatieff called:
"The American Empire
(Get Used to it)."
"What empires lavish abroad, the cannot spend on good republican government at home: on hospitals, or roads or schools. A distended military budget aggravates America's continuing failure to keep its egalartian promise to itself. And these are not the only costs of empire. Detaining two American citizens without charge or acess to counsel in military brigs, maintainting illegal combatants on a foreign island in a legal limbo, keeping lawful aliens under permanent surveilllance while deporting others after secret hearings: these are not the actions of a republic that lives by the rule of law, but of an imperial power reluctant to trust its own liberties.
"Such actions may be a long way short of Roosevelt's internment of the Japanese, but that may mean only that the worst -- following , say another large attack on United States citizens that produces mass casualties -- is yet to come. "
A final quote from the story:
"A role once played by the Ottoman Empire, then the French and the British, will now be played by a nation that has to ask whether in becoming an empire it risks losing its soul as a republic."
"Having said that, how do we fight these people who attacked our country, since they have thrown the "Old Rules" for waging war, Out the Freaking Window?"
Unless your question was rhetorical, it seems we'll all know the anwer soon.
If, after the war, the United States treats Iraq like it's a brand new gas station it's going to be harder for Bush to make the case for further incursions in the WOT.
It's going to be a broadside to several industries (notably travel) which I rely on for livelihood.
A contact I have in Bangkok, who puts out a travel newsletter blatently refers to Bush as the "warmonger-in-chief." In it, he juxtaposes Bush's comments against clergymen and Jimmy Carter.
Right or wrong, that's how it's playing in some circles.
this is what worries me...for quite some time now war has been a forgone conclusion
that is troubling
War is a hard decsicion and should never be taken lightly. I think the media has made it more of a foregone conclusion than anyone. Just because troops are deployed doesn't mean war is inevitable. I was deployed in situations like the present (albeit not with the vast media coverage) And it's meant as a warning or a show of strength to backup what is said. Something the U.N never does and why their resolutions mean little anymore. It's why Sadamn was able to thumb his nose at the U.N for over a decade. The threat of force is the only thing that has motivated Sadamn to open up to inspectors. Without those buildups and threat's nothing would have changed and he'd be free to continue to develop WMD's. So I hope that to Sadamn that war does seem inevitable. That being said, I hope inspectors and other means work. I am hopeful but realistic though.
You can bet your contact in Bangkok would be singing a different tune if that country had a 9/11 type of attack or a military base bombed or an embassy bombed or a ship having it's side blown open. But then again, millions of people here and around the world think American lives are expendable and the other cheek should be turned.
Yeah I know Rick. We should just talk it out. Let the U.N. resolve all issues thru meaningless condemnations and sanctions.
So, Bush Sr. was just suffering from the shit Reagan left him?
Hardly. When Reagan took office in 1981, the US economy was in shambles. There was economic stagnation and runaway inflation. The top tax rate was 70% and he cut it in half.
Contrary to Democratic spin about "tax cuts for the rich," incidentally, the rich actually paid higher taxes after Reagan's tax cuts. How could that be? Along with cutting tax rates, Reagan also eliminated many tax shelters and loopholes. Before Reagan, the rich avoided paying taxes by investing in windmills and other garbage blessed by the federal government (the "targeted" tax cuts that Al Gore wanted to reinstate). After Reagan, the rich shifted their investments to the free market, greatly stimulating the private economy and causing the information technology boom.
8 years later, George Bush took over with his now infamous "no new taxes." He eventually gave in to the Democratically controlled Congress and increased taxes. This caused a mild recession. The Bush recession had actually ended before Clinton even took office, with a vibrant 3.9% annual growth rate in the last quarter of Bush's administration.
What did Clinton do to help the economy? Well he did open up free trade and kept the Federal Reserve Board under competent leadership. But if Clinton had not been restrained by the Republicans (who took control of Congress in the middle of his first term) he would have raised taxes even more than he did, and his wife would have nationalized the health care industry causing us many budget problems now.
Contrary to Democratic spin about "tax cuts for the rich," incidentally, the rich actually paid higher taxes after Reagan's tax cuts. How could that be? Along with cutting tax rates, Reagan also eliminated many tax shelters and loopholes. Before Reagan, the rich avoided paying taxes by investing in windmills and other garbage blessed by the federal government (the "targeted" tax cuts that Al Gore wanted to reinstate).
revisionist...
you left out how he raised payroll taxes
lowered taxes for the rich and raised them for the working man.
the theory was that if the rich had enough money, some of it would trickle down to the rest of us...who of course would need it to just get even, since their payroll taxes had been raised.
"8 years later, George Bush took over with his now infamous "no new taxes." He eventually gave in to the Democratically controlled Congress and increased taxes. This caused a mild recession."
It's debatable whether that caused a recession. It seems certainly more logical to attribute the recession to a spike in oil prices and economic broadside caused by the Gulf War. But the economy was softening even before that.
Is it possible for you to trvialize that recession any more, Dan? You called in a "minor downtick" one time, or something like that. C'mon, it ws just slowdown in vibrant growth, a blip, a dork, a 'ground ball with eyes.' Pure serendipity of the economy.
That tax increase was smart because deficits were running about $200 billion a year. Will George the Younger worry about deficits like his Dad? Do you see any signs of that?.
"The Bush recession had actually ended before Clinton even took office, with a vibrant 3.9% annual growth rate in the last quarter of Bush's administration."
Remember that number is acceptable, but coming off a recession economy, it's not as impressive, unless you're using for spin.
face it, by all measures, Clinton did a great job with the economy. He did by mostly keeping his hands off of it. It probably would have done even better if headn't raised taxes in 1993.
if you don't think that the rich didn't get richer and the poor didn't get poorer from it, you are in denial. Many of the poor did better, maybe they didn't improve as much as the rich but then many of the rich are rich for a reason, not blind luck.
That tax increase was smart because deficits were running about $200 billion a year. I don't think we need anymore proof of pure liberal nonsense than this statement.
After Calls on Turkey, U.S. Put on Hold Heeding Public Opposition, Ankara Delays Decision on Use of Bases Against Iraq
ANKARA, Turkey, Jan. 7 -- Concerned about public opinion, Turkish politicians are waffling on earlier expressions of support for U.S. war plans against Iraq, dimming prospects for opening a northern front against President Saddam Hussein, according to diplomats and analysts.
More than six months after the United States approached Turkey for permission to examine military bases here for possible use against Iraq, they said, a 150-person U.S. military survey team remains in Germany, waiting to be waved in. Similarly, the government has not yet decided on a U.S. request to station as many as 80,000 combat troops in Turkey as part of the regional buildup for a possible war
"We gave them dates we needed an answer by. The dates came; the answers didn't come," said one diplomat, referring to the Turkish leadership. "We've held the door open for them, asking what it would take for them to walk through. The door's getting harder and harder to hold open."
So! Look Like turkey is next target for American war monger fatatics :-)
So are crabgrass, Bill and Rick advocating raising taxes now?
after all, we are they same thing, aren't we?
are you advocating now wanting to pay for your government?
are you advocating not paying for all these wars that Bush is trying to get started?
are you advocating that the poor should pay to protect the property of the wealthy?
look, if you don't want to pay taxes, perhaps you should explain how to pay for things or explain just what it is that you do and don't want to pay for
Presidents get saddled with the health of the economy. Clinton will take credit, because if it stunk during his tenure, he knows who would get the blame.
I'm guessing there's more than one conservative (maybe a few who frequent this board) who hoped the economy to sink during Clinton's presidency who it would damage his popularity.
so, you are advocating that the government be corporate?
Not in the least. It's the Liberal mentality that thinks the government should be into everything. I was saying that this county would be third world without big business. You're the one that correlates our government to our success. From a fiscal standpoint our government has been a failure.
Halliburton, Enron...etc...
"One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch, girl".
Never said that, your words not mine. I asked all of you because you seem to be defending tax increases.
are you advocating now wanting to pay for your government?
If you meant do I not want to pay for government, that is not the case. I have no problem paying my taxes. I just think they are to high and the government spends the money unwisely. I do not think we are getting our moneys worth.
are you advocating not paying for all these wars that Bush is trying to get started?
I have always been for a strong military and national defense.
are you advocating that the poor should pay to protect the property of the wealthy?
The poor pay NO taxes. How exactly are they paying to protect the property of the wealthy?
what peace?
The peace that comes after the war.
If the only aim of the United States in Iraq is to kill people and destroy things, the military will leave without accomplishing what it sets out to do. It won't solve the problem.
Kath probably said it better than I did.
there is no peace in the mid east and hasn't been for years. It is really only a question of the scale of the on going war.
You're being needlessly argumentative.
Do you understand the point I was trying to make?
I am needlessly argumentative? Say it ain't so!!!!!!!!!
Kath,
Great post as usual.
I think first off you should look at why the other Arab nations are against taking out Sadamn. In most cases it has little to do with some higher calling or moral mandate. None of them like Sadamn, he has threatened and attacked his neighbors. Each nation acts in there own interest those who say that they aren't are fooling themselves. Take Saudi Arabia. They don't like Sadamn, he attacked them in 91', but they don't want him taken out because 2 things happen if Sadamn is gone. 1) Of course their power from the oil pie is less, America would be able to rely less on S.A and therefore there power and economy in the region is dimminished. 2) The need for us suppliying them with defense is dimminished as well. The Saudi's find it fashionable to complain about our presence (even though we are as culturally sensative as anyone could ask) but have no problem letting us help defend them. They'd like to see the status quo.
The same above is true of Kuwait as well. And in S.A's case as well they have an extremist problem which could boil over if they supported us and they realize we aren't exactly thrilled with them since they were and are a breeding ground for terrorists.
It's getting harder and harder to discern which nations aren't acting in their own interest. We are absolutely. The sad part is that nations like France and Russia are against it because they have BILLIONS in trade with Iraq. It's not out of some greater calling they are acting in there own interest as well. It's become all too fashionable to make the U.S a scapegoat for all of a nations problems and hatered is being bred in many places and much of it undeserved. Is some of it understandible or justified ? Yes, that's an entirely different debate but we've seen people elected into office in other places by simply making us out to be the bad guy or worse than Sadamn.
The thing is everyone (well almost) agrees that Sadamn is a bad oppresive and evil dictator. They will all say he's bad and should go. Yet they will do nothing or little about it. He's killed his own people, used chem and bio weapons in the past, he's attacked his neighbors, he kills his realatives even, employs torture, has professional rapists improsions poltical opponenents and lets his people starve while he builds lavish palaces. And yet those same people will never tell you HOW to get rid of him.
We've tried sanctions and then people said it was hurting his own people, true, whose fault was that ? He's broke every deal that enabled him to keep power all the while doing nothing to end sanctions. Yet it's our fault. Medical and humanitarian aid was allowed by the way. The money from oil sales that was supposed to go to his people went to him, and yet, it's the west's fault. Many many things over the years have been tried other than war. And that was criticized, then of course war or the even the threat of it's
criticized by the same who say, yep he's bad...but.
So the same folks who decry even sanctions then say of cousre that war won't do it either and is too costly to civilians. They won't tell you how to get rid of him. Apparently thousands dying each year is perefferable to a short albeit intesnse battle in which yes some civlians would sadly be killed or injured. Of course they won't tell you it's because he puts AAA and weapons in civilian areas it'll still be our fault. Why do you think he's let inspectors in this time ? Because force or the threat is all he understands. it took over a decade and looking down the barrel of a rilfe to make any real progress towards holding up his end of the agreement.
Not that war shouldn't be a well weighted and wrenching decision. It is and I'd be happy to never see another one ever, I loathe it, I've seen it and it's a waste. If we were acting as unilatrerally as some say we would already be in downtown Bagdhahd. I'm not 100% sure that we will need to invade.
Will we win if we go ? Yes, the cost is always too high really but we need to remember that they will be on their own soil and I can tell you it makes a diffeerence. Some of the troops we encountered were very loyal and fierce, some were not but they all didn't run out with a white flag.
After seems to be the biggst point of debate currently. You and Rick were correct that keeping peace will be hardest of all. From what I know of the people of Iraq they are ready for change. Are there enough to make it happen. I think so and I think leaving after victory although costly would be a vacumm for every extremist wacko in the M.E.
Seems we can't win politically. They all want him gone but we're bad if we sanction, we're bad if we fight, we're bad if we leave right away and we're imposing our views on them if we stay.
OMG, that's almost as long as a Dennis post!
:-)
Speaking of Dennis, where the heck has he been?
O.K so it was a bit long .o.k alot long. I had alot to say on the matter ;)
I thought I saw him on the news. He was down at ol' Huggy Chavez' palace helping to protect him from sriking union folks.
He was down at ol' Huggy Chavez' palace helping to protect him from sriking union folks.
Dennis and Huggy enjoying a good laugh at those meddling strikers.
Luv2Fly 1/3/03 9:07am
Hi Luv:)
thank you for the reply:)
dont have time to reply right now, will do asap though:)
have a great weekend:)
Kath:)
George writes a little letter
http://www.buzzmoo.eon.com.au/comedy/bush.swf
Today's New York Times magazine has a cover story by Michael Ignatieff called:
"The American Empire
(Get Used to it)."
"What empires lavish abroad, the cannot spend on good republican government at home: on hospitals, or roads or schools. A distended military budget aggravates America's continuing failure to keep its egalartian promise to itself. And these are not the only costs of empire. Detaining two American citizens without charge or acess to counsel in military brigs, maintainting illegal combatants on a foreign island in a legal limbo, keeping lawful aliens under permanent surveilllance while deporting others after secret hearings: these are not the actions of a republic that lives by the rule of law, but of an imperial power reluctant to trust its own liberties.
Rick......Gov't whiner.
Payback.
Ignatieff continues:
"Such actions may be a long way short of Roosevelt's internment of the Japanese, but that may mean only that the worst -- following , say another large attack on United States citizens that produces mass casualties -- is yet to come. "
A final quote from the story:
"A role once played by the Ottoman Empire, then the French and the British, will now be played by a nation that has to ask whether in becoming an empire it risks losing its soul as a republic."
Food for thought, Torpedo.
"Having said that, how do we fight these people who attacked our country, since they have thrown the "Old Rules" for waging war, Out the Freaking Window?"
Unless your question was rhetorical, it seems we'll all know the anwer soon.
If, after the war, the United States treats Iraq like it's a brand new gas station it's going to be harder for Bush to make the case for further incursions in the WOT.
this is what worries me...for quite some time now war has been a forgone conclusion
that is troubling
It's going to be a broadside to several industries (notably travel) which I rely on for livelihood.
A contact I have in Bangkok, who puts out a travel newsletter blatently refers to Bush as the "warmonger-in-chief." In it, he juxtaposes Bush's comments against clergymen and Jimmy Carter.
Right or wrong, that's how it's playing in some circles.
Crabgrass,
War is a hard decsicion and should never be taken lightly. I think the media has made it more of a foregone conclusion than anyone. Just because troops are deployed doesn't mean war is inevitable. I was deployed in situations like the present (albeit not with the vast media coverage) And it's meant as a warning or a show of strength to backup what is said. Something the U.N never does and why their resolutions mean little anymore. It's why Sadamn was able to thumb his nose at the U.N for over a decade. The threat of force is the only thing that has motivated Sadamn to open up to inspectors. Without those buildups and threat's nothing would have changed and he'd be free to continue to develop WMD's. So I hope that to Sadamn that war does seem inevitable. That being said, I hope inspectors and other means work. I am hopeful but realistic though.
You can bet your contact in Bangkok would be singing a different tune if that country had a 9/11 type of attack or a military base bombed or an embassy bombed or a ship having it's side blown open. But then again, millions of people here and around the world think American lives are expendable and the other cheek should be turned.
Yeah I know Rick. We should just talk it out. Let the U.N. resolve all issues thru meaningless condemnations and sanctions.
much of the rest of the world see us as thinking non-american lives are expendable.
this is what worries me...for quite some time now war has been a forgone conclusion
that is troubling
The problem should have been taken care of long ago. The fact that it wasn't is what is troubling.
so, you are saying that daddy should have done it?
Saddam works for US. Daddy had him on the payroll.
Somebody should have delt with it. Clinton had eight years and all he wanted to do was puff himself up.
Clinton was too busy spending his time on things like the economy, have you ever heard of it?
Clinton was too busy spending his time on things like the economy, have you ever heard of it?
He didn't spend any time on the economy. It was running fine when he got it and did nothing except take credit for it.
there is a river called denial and you are drowning in it
You look at the numbers and you will find the recovery started in 1992 before Clinton took office.
So, Bush Sr. was just suffering from the shit Reagan left him?
No the downturn started during Bush Sr.'s days but so did the recovery.
remind me not to ask you for any advice on money
So, Bush Sr. was just suffering from the shit Reagan left him?
Hardly. When Reagan took office in 1981, the US economy was in shambles. There was economic stagnation and runaway inflation. The top tax rate was 70% and he cut it in half.
Contrary to Democratic spin about "tax cuts for the rich," incidentally, the rich actually paid higher taxes after Reagan's tax cuts. How could that be? Along with cutting tax rates, Reagan also eliminated many tax shelters and loopholes. Before Reagan, the rich avoided paying taxes by investing in windmills and other garbage blessed by the federal government (the "targeted" tax cuts that Al Gore wanted to reinstate). After Reagan, the rich shifted their investments to the free market, greatly stimulating the private economy and causing the information technology boom.
8 years later, George Bush took over with his now infamous "no new taxes." He eventually gave in to the Democratically controlled Congress and increased taxes. This caused a mild recession. The Bush recession had actually ended before Clinton even took office, with a vibrant 3.9% annual growth rate in the last quarter of Bush's administration.
What did Clinton do to help the economy? Well he did open up free trade and kept the Federal Reserve Board under competent leadership. But if Clinton had not been restrained by the Republicans (who took control of Congress in the middle of his first term) he would have raised taxes even more than he did, and his wife would have nationalized the health care industry causing us many budget problems now.
oh...it was RON who invented the internet!
I did not know that.
but that all is a beautiful example of revisionist history...just beautiful.
face it, by all measures, Clinton did a great job with the economy.
where you were talking about with Reagan is known as "trickle down" economics, and has been shown up for the folly it is.
if you don't think that the rich didn't get richer and the poor didn't get poorer from it, you are in denial.
revisionist...
you left out how he raised payroll taxes
lowered taxes for the rich and raised them for the working man.
the theory was that if the rich had enough money, some of it would trickle down to the rest of us...who of course would need it to just get even, since their payroll taxes had been raised.
that "garbage" is called the infrastructure, which we still needed and had to pay for with...raised payroll taxes.
"8 years later, George Bush took over with his now infamous "no new taxes." He eventually gave in to the Democratically controlled Congress and increased taxes. This caused a mild recession."
It's debatable whether that caused a recession. It seems certainly more logical to attribute the recession to a spike in oil prices and economic broadside caused by the Gulf War. But the economy was softening even before that.
Is it possible for you to trvialize that recession any more, Dan? You called in a "minor downtick" one time, or something like that. C'mon, it ws just slowdown in vibrant growth, a blip, a dork, a 'ground ball with eyes.' Pure serendipity of the economy.
That tax increase was smart because deficits were running about $200 billion a year. Will George the Younger worry about deficits like his Dad? Do you see any signs of that?.
"The Bush recession had actually ended before Clinton even took office, with a vibrant 3.9% annual growth rate in the last quarter of Bush's administration."
Remember that number is acceptable, but coming off a recession economy, it's not as impressive, unless you're using for spin.
Buy you're certainly above that, aren't you, Dan?
can someone say what the growth rate during the Clinton Administration was?
and if it's higher, will they refer to it as even more vibrant?
face it, by all measures, Clinton did a great job with the economy. He did by mostly keeping his hands off of it. It probably would have done even better if headn't raised taxes in 1993.
if you don't think that the rich didn't get richer and the poor didn't get poorer from it, you are in denial. Many of the poor did better, maybe they didn't improve as much as the rich but then many of the rich are rich for a reason, not blind luck.
That tax increase was smart because deficits were running about $200 billion a year. I don't think we need anymore proof of pure liberal nonsense than this statement.
So are crabgrass, Bill and Rick advocating raising taxes now?
After Calls on Turkey, U.S. Put on Hold
Heeding Public Opposition, Ankara Delays Decision on Use of Bases Against Iraq
ANKARA, Turkey, Jan. 7 -- Concerned about public opinion, Turkish politicians are waffling on earlier expressions of support for U.S. war plans against Iraq, dimming prospects for opening a northern front against President Saddam Hussein, according to diplomats and analysts.
More than six months after the United States approached Turkey for permission to examine military bases here for possible use against Iraq, they said, a 150-person U.S. military survey team remains in Germany, waiting to be waved in. Similarly, the government has not yet decided on a U.S. request to station as many as 80,000 combat troops in Turkey as part of the regional buildup for a possible war
"We gave them dates we needed an answer by. The dates came; the answers didn't come," said one diplomat, referring to the Turkish leadership. "We've held the door open for them, asking what it would take for them to walk through. The door's getting harder and harder to hold open."
So! Look Like turkey is next target for American war monger fatatics :-)
after all, we are they same thing, aren't we?
are you advocating now wanting to pay for your government?
are you advocating not paying for all these wars that Bush is trying to get started?
are you advocating that the poor should pay to protect the property of the wealthy?
look, if you don't want to pay taxes, perhaps you should explain how to pay for things or explain just what it is that you do and don't want to pay for
The President has little effect on the economy.
Greenspan has more effect on the economy than the President.
Bill Gates has more effect on the economy than the President.
Ford has more effect on the economy than the President.
his buddies in big business however...
We'd be a third world country without big business.
so, you are advocating that the government be corporate?
Halliburton, Enron...etc...
swell
Presidents get saddled with the health of the economy. Clinton will take credit, because if it stunk during his tenure, he knows who would get the blame.
I'm guessing there's more than one conservative (maybe a few who frequent this board) who hoped the economy to sink during Clinton's presidency who it would damage his popularity.
so, you are advocating that the government be corporate?
Not in the least. It's the Liberal mentality that thinks the government should be into everything. I was saying that this county would be third world without big business. You're the one that correlates our government to our success. From a fiscal standpoint our government has been a failure.
Halliburton, Enron...etc...
"One bad apple don't spoil the whole bunch, girl".
Forget it JT,
He'd much rather we just closed all those evil companies down, that'll show em. They have no real solutions other than tired lines.
after all, we are they same thing, aren't we?
Never said that, your words not mine. I asked all of you because you seem to be defending tax increases.
are you advocating now wanting to pay for your government?
If you meant do I not want to pay for government, that is not the case. I have no problem paying my taxes. I just think they are to high and the government spends the money unwisely. I do not think we are getting our moneys worth.
are you advocating not paying for all these wars that Bush is trying to get started?
I have always been for a strong military and national defense.
are you advocating that the poor should pay to protect the property of the wealthy?
The poor pay NO taxes. How exactly are they paying to protect the property of the wealthy?