"Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead"

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

I know you did - I'm asking you to prove it.

The info came from a Macro-economics book (with an extreme libertarian bias) which I no longer own.

Quote

How is the consumer, spending that 2% in the local economy and creating jobs for other people (that the gov't can then tax) doing a worse job than the gov't could with whatever is left of the 2% after overhead?

The government puts the money back into the economy, also. But, if the consumer keeps the money, some will be saved, often in bank savings accounts. When banks receive deposits, they are required by law to keep a certain percentage of the funds on hand. The money that is kept on hand due to these reserve requirements is NOT put back into the economy.

Let's not forget that governments WASTE a whole lot of money - on things like airborne lasers and elective wars.
It's just WORSE that they spend more than they take in, and borrow the rest from our kids and grandkids.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

I'm also well aware that spending more than you take in leads to debt. Failure to manage debt does not lead to economic well being, as GHW "Read my lips" Bush found out to his cost.

Let's see... I can change the tax rate from %13 to 15% and get $2 more per $100 out of this guy every week, OR, he can spend that $2 per hundred, and I can get $13 per hundred out of the guy that gets hired to take care of new customers at the bookstore he spent the money at, AND $13 per $100 for the guy at the grocery store that got laid on as a night stocker because people were able to afford more things... and so on, and so on....

If you want to argue for a cut in government spending you'll have my support.
Just don't expect my support if you want to raise government spending 7.6% a year (Bush's record) and make up the difference from revenues by running up a record debt.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Let's not forget that governments WASTE a whole lot of money - on things like airborne lasers and elective wars.

I agree that the government wastes a lot of money. However, private industry wastes a lot of money, also. It is not exclusive to government.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,120]

>I agree that the government wastes a lot of money. However, private
>industry wastes a lot of money, also. It is not exclusive to government.

Right. But private industry wastes money that they earned; government wastes money that you and I earned. Which, to me, makes it very different.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

The facts are:
- Clinton was not responsible for the economic boom of the '90's.
- Bush was not responsible for the economic downturn 5 years ago.
- Bush is not responsible for the recent economic upturn.

I agree, but find it funny that many on the left don't agree while Bush is in office, but did when Clinton was.

Same can be said of the flip side as well. But my point is simply if you want to blame the bad on him, maybe he should get credit for the good as well?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

If anything, the attacks on 9/11 have strengthened the economy, since they were used to justify war.

Not a chance.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Could you link to a few of those polls? I don't remember a majority ever supporting the Iraq invasion.

Do a search....It was supported, even by many in congress. You can debate if they were lied to, but not the fact it was supported. In fact it was not until June 2004 that the public opinion started to turn.

Christian Science Monitor - November 21, 2005 editionhttp://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1121/p01s02-usfp.html

Quote

But the seeds of Bush’s woes were planted early on. Just seven months into the Iraq war, Gallup found that the percentage of Americans who viewed the sending of troops as a mistake had jumped substantially - from 25 percent in March 2003 to 40 percent in October 2003.

In June 2004, for the first time, more than half the public (54 percent) thought the US had made a mistake, a figure that holds today.....John Mueller, an expert on war and public opinion at Ohio State University, links today’s lower tolerance of casualties to a weaker public commitment to the cause than was felt during the two previous, cold war-era conflicts. The discounting of the main justifications for the Iraq war - alleged weapons of mass destruction and support for international terrorism - has left many Americans skeptical of the entire enterprise.

In fact, “I’m impressed by how high support still is,” Professor Mueller says. He notes that some Americans’ continuing connection of the Iraq war to the war on terror is fueling that support.

But among Democratic voters who supported the US-led invasion initially, most have long abandoned the president. In polls, independent voters now track mostly with Democrats. And, analysts say, once someone loses confidence in the conduct of a war, it is exceedingly difficult to woo them back.

Which goes to show what I am saying, people supported the war, and now are growing sick of it....But they did support it. The graph at the bottom of that source shows intial opposition was around 24% it has since grown to over 50%. Which goes to show that those who did support it, are now sick of it. The source does a good job of explaining why even.

Quote

I love how in W's world, if things are finally better than when he initially screwed them up, his supporters think he accomplished something great.

W got the start of a recession from the dotcom bust when he took office, that and the 9/11 attacks were both not W screw ups.

Edit also please look at this poll from USA Today/Gallup Poll. Oct. 6-8, 2006. N=1,007 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?"

From 3/03, 23% said it was a mistake, 75
% said it was not.

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Sept. 21-Oct. 4, 2006. N=1,804 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. RV = registered voters.

"Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq?"

3/03 71% said it was the right decision.


source:http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[billvon 3,120]

>W got the start of a recession from the dotcom bust when he took office . . .

So let's see if we can summarize:

The economy was doing well when Clinton was in office, but he was really "setting it up to fail" (no doubt because he wants the US to fail.)

The economy started doing poorly when Bush entered office, but presidents don't have much to do with the economy.

When it recovered, it was because of Bush, because presidents have a lot to do with the economy.

9/11 happened on Bush's watch shortly after he was warned about it. But that was Clinton's fault.

North Korea developed a nuclear weapon six years after Bush took office. That was Clinton's fault too.

The mess in Iraq is the fault of Democratic voters who initially supported the invasion.

Anything else?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

So let's see if we can summarize:

The economy was doing well when Clinton was in office, but he was really "setting it up to fail" (no doubt because he wants the US to fail.)

The economy started doing poorly when Bush entered office, but presidents don't have much to do with the economy.

When it recovered, it was because of Bush, because presidents have a lot to do with the economy.

No, but your story, and others, is that Clinton rocked and Bush did all the bad things. Not really, but it is what you and others sure seem to say.

Quote

9/11 happened on Bush's watch shortly after he was warned about it. But that was Clinton's fault.

Well you have one bit right, it did happen on Bush's watch. But I would have to say that US policy for years lead to the miss. You wish to blame only Bush however and obsolve Clinton for his sins.

Quote

North Korea developed a nuclear weapon six years after Bush took office. That was Clinton's fault too.

Again, I blame Bush AND Clinton...You only want to blame Bush.

Quote

The mess in Iraq is the fault of Democratic voters who initially supported the invasion.

If you mean "democratic" as those that vote...Yeppers. But if you mean "Democrats" as in the party? Nope. But even you will admit, I hope, that if the people who voted to allow the use of force voted "no" , the war would have been delayed or not have happend.

But I love how you ignore the simple facts that public opion for the war was high and the democrats voted the popular way. And now that it is popular to oppose it...They oppose it.

Now, if you care to debate, not try to belittle. I'd love to discuss this. But you have several times in just this post made statements that are not even close to my posted views.

[billvon 3,120]

>No, but your story, and others, is that Clinton rocked and Bush did all the bad things.

You know what they say about assumptions . . .

I don't think Clinton "rocked" and I never claimed Clinton "rocked." Nor did Bush do all the bad things. Take just one area - the environment. In general, Clinton was more supportive of environmental legislation, and overall did more to protect the environment than Bush. But Clinton made a royal mess of the New Source Review regulations, and we're still trying to fix that. Bush, OTOH, signed a pretty important piece of diesel-emissions legislation.

More apropos, Clinton tried to get Bin Laden. He failed, and was crucified for making the effort by the republican congress. Which is bad. (The failure, that is.) Bush ignored a stark warning that Bin Laden was about to attack the US, and failed to even try to stop him after being warned about it. To me, that's worse.

Since then, he has done some good things. Increases in port security have been a good thing, and increases in airline security have been both good and bad, but on balance good. The initial war in Afganistan was well planned, but was aborted to prosecute an unneccessary war in Iraq. We are now floundering in both places because of his poor decision-making skills.

In terms of North Korea, both presidents failed to control what Jong-Il did. Clinton tried with a program to trade fuel and light water reactors with North Korea. Bush tried with threats and insults. Neither one worked. Which overall is not _nearly_ as bad as allowing attacks on US soil, because other sovereign countries get to do what they choose to do unless they attack us. (In other words, they have the same freedoms we claim for ourselves - at least in my opinion.)

However, such positions are not compatible with our modern "you're with us or against us" society. So debate is condensed into simpler terms. You support Bush or you hate america. You either want the US in an endless war or you want the terrorists to win. And in such an environment, there is no way to change direction other than ousting the people making bad decisions - heck, there's no way to even make suggestions without becoming "the enemy." The age of reasonable disagreement is past

So whenever I see someone discussing something about the Middle East, or the environment, or North Korea, I follow along in case there's something to learn - which sometimes there is, even here. But I also just give up whenever I see the first "but Clinton got a blowjob!" post - because any reasonable disagreement becomes a petty war of words at that point. Which can be fun on its own merits, but doesn't lead to much other than a bunch of people yelling at each other. And at that level (which is the level that much of the public discourse is on) the only real solution becomes "change em out and see if things get better" - which is what we're seeing happen now.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

>No, but your story, and others, is that Clinton rocked and Bush did all the bad things.

You know what they say about assumptions . . .

If that came from me to someone else...Would you consider that an insult or attack? The remainder of your post is quite good and I agree on many counts.

Points of contention

Quote

Bush ignored a stark warning that Bin Laden was about to attack the US, and failed to even try to stop him after being warned about it. To me, that's worse.

A good amount of what Bush was told was standard chicken little "The sky is falling". I am sure we had intel about attacks being planned in the US. However, we have those pieces of intel ALL the time. And some people are raging against Bush for the actions he does to try and protect the US. An example is the wire tapping without legal warrant. Now, you can claim that the wire taps are bad or not, but you must admit that the reason was good...To try and prevent future attacks. But many do not bother to look at it that way and focus on how Evil Bush is, but if an attack happens on his watch again, or even close after he leaves some will crucify him for not doing enough. That is a really bad position to be in. Try and do something and get called evil, or do nothing and be held at blame. One thing I can give Bush credit for is it seems to me that he does what he thinks is right no matter how others think of him for it.

Quote

The initial war in Afganistan was well planned, but was aborted to prosecute an unneccessary war in Iraq. We are now floundering in both places because of his poor decision-making skills.

I think we are sucking due to the very nature of the situation. Fighting an insurgency is almost never going to work. As for Iraq not being necessary, several other with much more knowledge than either of us thought it was...Kerry, Clinton ect. Unless you wish to admit that maybe they just voted the popular opinion and never bothered to research and make a choice on their own? (Which is EXACTLY what I feel they did BTW).

Quote

In terms of North Korea, both presidents failed to control what Jong-Il did. Clinton tried with a program to trade fuel and light water reactors with North Korea. Bush tried with threats and insults. Neither one worked. Which overall is not _nearly_ as bad as allowing attacks on US soil

Agree. But don't you think that is the carrot does not work , maybe the stick should be tried?

Quote

However, such positions are not compatible with our modern "you're with us or against us" society. So debate is condensed into simpler terms. You support Bush or you hate america.

Disagree. One could say that some think you either hate Bush of you are an evil war monger with ties to Halliburton. Both sayings are not true, but people on here do not seem to get that.

Quote

heck, there's no way to even make suggestions without becoming "the enemy." The age of reasonable disagreement is past

If you would admit that both sides do exactly that I would agree. Both parties have people that talk that way. There are some on here that if you even think of saying anything against them, they try to belittle you or insult you.

Quote

So whenever I see someone discussing something about the Middle East, or the environment, or North Korea, I follow along in case there's something to learn - which sometimes there is, even here. But I also just give up whenever I see the first "but Clinton got a blowjob!" post - because any reasonable disagreement becomes a petty war of words at that point.

Add in starting to call anyone that disagrees with you as a Fascist, and I would agree.

I would also like to point out that YOU mentioned the Blowjob first!