GWB speech last night

[Michele 1]

Quote

See, it was easy to go in and just blow things up, now when it comes to the difficult part, the americans give up and beg for help.

Wow.

Man.

If you really think that's what's going on, I have lost a great deal of respect for your opinions. If you don't think that's really going on, and you simply posted for effect, I am greatly dissapointed in you.

I am done reading this thread. Call that "giving up" if you will...but I don't like the flush of anger which your comment brought on. Because of that, and because I am having a difficult time refraining from commentary which I suspect would a) come from anger and b) simply exacerbate the situation, I think it's time I am done with this thread.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

Canada. We'll be invading and selling the country at auction beginning tomorrow. Didn't you get the memo?

LOL, so there is the 1st 1 million, now where does the remaining 86.9 billion come from?

---------------------------------------------
I like your numbers so ten million dollars equals 1 billion. Now do the rest of you understand why liberals can not balance budgets?

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

That is right a terrorist attack can cost us a hell of a lot more than 87 Billion dollars.

Ummm...the 87billion is just the amount MORE that he ASKED for. It doesn't accurately represent the actual cost. Current operations in Iraq alone cost 1 billion PER DAY!!

I would have no problem paying whatever the cost for a legitimate action to protect us, but that's not what's going on.

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


See, it was easy to go in and just blow things up, now when it comes to the difficult part, the americans give up and beg for help.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow.

Man.

If you really think that's what's going on, I have lost a great deal of respect for your opinions.
========================

Yes, that's a pretty exagerated statement. But in reality, we told the UN that we were going in with or without them. We went in without them, and now we are asking for them to help clean up the results of what they were against in the first place. And the real kicker is, we're refusing to give them any kind of leadership role, we just want them to turn over assets to us.

[TheAnvil 0]

Beg for help? How about offer others a chance to get involved. Take your pick on how you want to personally describe it. The fact remains that the US will set its own course when it comes to directing its foreign policy and will never surrender its soveriegnity in any manner to that glorified forum of discussion.

As far as money goes, if you have the answer in total get ready for a Nobel in economics.

My own economic policy would include the following:

- repeal the SECOND Bush tax cut; that pissed me off
- the US is the only industrialized nation (to my knowledge) to tax US based corporations on profits earned abroad; END THIS IMMEDIATELY (inconjunction with the above)
- no marriage tax penalty
- start us on an incremental drive to a flat income tax of about 17% in conjunction with a National Retail Sales Tax of about 4-8%
- Farm Subsidies - there's so much damned waste there it's not even funny; some serious restructuring needs to be done here
- repeal the protectionist steel tarriffs Bush put in place
- demand a repayment plan for the airline bailout; that really pissed me the hell off too; thanks to their unionized work force, how many of those airlines turn a profit?


There's way too many other points to list here (or in a 100 page document for that manner), but that's a good starter. Historical trends actually show a revenue increase in conjunction with tax cuts, if I'm not mistaken.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,111]

>LOL, so there is the 1st 1 million, now where does the remaining >86.9 billion come from?

>I like your numbers so ten million dollars equals 1 billion. Now do
>the rest of you understand why liberals can not balance budgets?

Uh, 86.9 billion is 100 million less than 87 billion, not 10 million _or_ 1 billion less.

It's like a law of nature - when someone criticizes someone else's spelling they make a spelling mistake. When someone criticizes other people's math, it turns out they are no better.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Now do the rest of you understand why liberals can not balance budgets?

Is that supposed to imply that the current neo-conservative government has, or will???

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAA!

The budget passed this year shows outlays exceeding receipts every year through 2008. And that's the republicans putting their best face on it.

Did you know the budget calls for MORE discretionary spending on non-military than military? To the tune of 2 TRILLION dollars.

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/budget.html

[Steel 0]

>LOL, so there is the 1st 1 million, now where does the remaining >86.9 billion come from?

>I like your numbers so ten million dollars equals 1 billion. Now do
>the rest of you understand why liberals can not balance budgets?

Uh, 86.9 billion is 100 million less than 87 billion, not 10 million _or_ 1 billion less.
---------------------------------------
I know what the correct numbers are. I think while getting my degree in math somewhere along the line learned that 1,000 million = 1 billion. But he suggested that 1 million would lower the 87 billion by .1 billion, which would suggest that 1 million was one tenth of a billion and that would suggest that 10 million = 1 Billion, which is obviously incorrect.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

Quote

Now do the rest of you understand why liberals can not balance budgets?

Is that supposed to imply that the current neo-conservative government has, or will???

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAA!

The budget passed this year shows outlays exceeding receipts every year through 2008. And that's the republicans putting their best face on it.

Did you know the budget calls for MORE discretionary spending on non-military than military? To the tune of 2 TRILLION dollars.

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/budget.html

The president needs a line item veto so that they can cut out the pork.

never pull low......unless you are

[TheAnvil 0]

Discretionary spending on non-military stuff? Hmm.....I'd think that such would be unconstitutional. It would seem that the legislative branch would be ceding its power to spend to the executive branch. Odd.

I CAN see a use for that in the current foreign policy paradigm - like it or not how we got here. It could be a useful tool for the President and Mr. Bremer to use in the Iraqi reconstruction, but that seems like an AWFUL lot of $$ for such. Foreign aid perhaps? Senor Senator Ted 'The Bottle' Kennedy has that bogged down in the Senate with a couple of stupid ammendments that Frist doesn't want to bring to the floor until after the '04 election.

Calls for some reading...

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If you really think that's what's going on, I have lost a great deal of respect for your opinions. If you don't think that's really going on, and you simply posted for effect, I am greatly dissapointed in you

To a large degree that is what I think is going on. Sorry if you don't like it. Lets see. Father Bush had a war in Iraq but didn't finish the job. Then young Bush becomes president. One of the greater tragedies of recent history happens and a War on Terror is started.

Somehow, Iraq becomes a target, eventhough it really has nothing to do with 9/11. There is such a haste to invade that country, that no thought whatsoever is given to the difficult part. See, i9nvading Iraq was easy, we all knew that the Iraqi military would be no match for the US. Many countries and the UN pleaded the US to not act in such haste, but Bush could wait no longer. None of the stated pre war justifications for the invasion turned out to be true.

So, The US invades, victory is proclaimed.

Now for the difficult part. The part we never had time to think about, nor was it really important at the time. The US was in a hurry to go and blow things up. That really is the only thing I can call it, since none of the pre-war justifications were true. Now the US doesn't know what to do any more. Domestic support is waivering, so now all of a sudden Bush wants support. He wants money and people from those countries he somewhat ridiculed prior to the start of the war, well really any country will do.

So, yeah I do really see it that way. The US blasted its way to oil money and wants the rest of the world to clean up its mess. I can also tell you that many other "outsiders" see it that way. I have yet to see anyone make any convincing statements to the contrary.

Sorry to read that you lose respect because my opinion does not match yours. I had figured you for a better person than that.

Since you stated you would not read this thread anymore, I will take the liberty and PM you this reply, since I would like you to read it. Maybe you can convince me that it really is different, since I do value and respect your opinions.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

- start us on an incremental drive to a flat income tax of about 17%

Flat tax is the absolute best way to completely remove the tax burden from the rich. Let's see, I'm only going to pay tax on my income. Well, fortunately, I have 10 million dollars in the bank so I don't work. Nice to not pay any tax.

[jfields 0]

I wouldn't say we are giving up, but there is a definite thread of truth in what he is saying.

Bush reveled in the easy part. Using high-tech weaponry and overwhelming air dominance made the initial stages pretty lopsided. Now we are in the messy part. More of our soldiers have died in Iraq since the end of "major fighting", as declared by Bush, than in it. Makes me wonder about the definitions.

The glory part of the battle is done. That was the tip of the iceberg. There is no effective central goverment in Iraq and we made rubble out of much of the infrastructure. We have an incredibly long, dangerous, expensive and ungrateful process ahead. Now that we are done the "cool" part, and have given the oil and related contracts to US companies, we ask for the international assistance we were too impatient to assemble before.

Iraqi resistance won't fight us with equivalent technology. They can't. But neither could the Vietnamese. What they had was more determination and political will that we did. That isn't derrogatory to our soldiers at all. We are headed toward a politically-inspired failure, not one caused by the military.

Lots of people asked "Why are we starting this war?" before it happened. There were some answers. Some valid and some invalid. But that is done now. I can understand why a lot of other countries would want to sit on the sidelines and wait this one out. If they don't feel there is a credible threat (as many Americans didn't), why should they invest the money, political capital and blood needed to see the job through. I can understand them saying to us, "You started it, now you finish it."

[TheAnvil 0]

So they wouldn't spend any money on retail goods? Laughable. They WOULD pay NRST.

And for those with US$10 mil in the bank right now, what sort of income taxes are they paying under the current system if they don't work?

Rethink, my friend. Your position is untenable.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I know what the correct numbers are. I think while getting my degree in math somewhere along the line learned that 1,000 million = 1 billion. But he suggested that 1 million would lower the 87 billion by .1 billion, which would suggest that 1 million was one tenth of a billion and that would suggest that 10 million = 1 Billion, which is obviously incorrect.

wrong.

What I implied is that with the current president and the current economic policies in place soon 1 million Canadian will be worth 100 million US

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The president needs a line item veto so that they can cut out the pork.

Ummm, actually, Bush is the one who has proposed most of the increased nonn-military spending. Why would he veto his own proposals. Of course with a line item veto he could leave the additional spending in and just cut out the intended purpose of the money. Would make it a lot easier for his friends that head the companies that the money goes to.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

So they wouldn't spend any money on retail goods? Laughable. They WOULD pay NRST.

And for those with US$10 mil in the bank right now, what sort of income taxes are they paying under the current system if they don't work?

Rethink, my friend. Your position is untenable.

Yes, they'd pay sales tax. But not income tax. As far as what they have invested now, they pay income tax on their gains. Every flat tax that's been proposed removes earned interest from the category of income.

I would be more in favor of a higher sales tax on non-essential items and ellimination of all income tax.

Ever hear of the alternative minimum tax? That's a flat tax. There's one in place. And anyone that has to pay it is royally pissed.

http://www.bcentral.com/articles/anthony/201.asp

[SkydiverRick 0]

Let's see, I'm only going to pay tax on my income. Well, fortunately, I have 10 million dollars in the bank so I don't work. Nice to not pay any tax.

[billvon 3,111]

> . . .which would suggest that 1 million was one tenth of a billion and
> that would suggest that 10 million = 1 Billion . . .

With logic like that, I think you're needed in Washington.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Let's see, I'm only going to pay tax on my income. Well, fortunately, I have 10 million dollars in the bank so I don't work. Nice to not pay any tax.

If someone has !0 million in the bank they have already paid the tax on it once.

[billvon 3,111]

>Well, fortunately, I have 10 million dollars in the bank so I don't
>work. Nice to not pay any tax.

Right now, today, someone who has 10 million in the bank doesn't pay any taxes on that money. They do pay money on the interest, which is income.

>Flat tax is the absolute best way to completely remove the tax burden from the rich.

A flat tax removes _some_ burden from the rich, but they still end up paying more taxes than someone who makes less money than they.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If someone has 10 million in the bank they have already paid the tax on it once.

Ahh but what tax would be paid on the income of the $10 million in the bank? Just retail sales tax? that would be a bit of a joke.

[Muenkel 0]

To the two Justins, two of my favorite people on these forums. Let's make a deal, the day we meet in person, we don't talk politics. We just discuss skydiving, boobies and share many beers. I'll buy the first case.

Deal?

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

Quote

Let's see, I'm only going to pay tax on my income. Well, fortunately, I have 10 million dollars in the bank so I don't work. Nice to not pay any tax.

If someone has !0 million in the bank they have already paid the tax on it once.

Not if they inherit it, or get it from investing. I know, you're going to say if they inherit it then tax has already been paid on it. But that's the nature of taxation. It's the transfer of wealth that is taxed, as it has to be. The economy is a closed system. If you elliminate tax because "that money has already been taxed" then eventually, there won't be any money that qualifies.

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

Quote

If someone has 10 million in the bank they have already paid the tax on it once.

Ahh but what tax would be paid on the income of the $10 million in the bank? Just retail sales tax? that would be a bit of a joke.

I would consider interest to be taxable income.

never pull low......unless you are

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I would consider interest to be taxable income.

You would, but every plan that's been proposed, and any plan that would ever have a chance of passing, wouldn't.