Bush's $87 billion request

[klo1335]

Does anyone else find it amusing that Bush would rather spend more money on helping another country then looking inwards at his own? Maybe I am wrong in this but in an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer this morning and it says that Bush will be spending more on rebuilding Iraq then he will on education, highways, bridges, and public transit systems. Kerry is quoted as saying, "other than telling the country that this will be very expensive, the President did very little to demonstrate he has a true plan."

[pisces2473]

Not only do I find it amusing, I also find it SCARY. So we'll help Iraq rebuild their country when our own is in such dire need? Yes, the Iraqis need help, but why is it always the US's job? When will we stop being martyrs and when will we take care of our own first?

[RedHead1420]

I just find it a little hard to swallow when

a. i see millions of americans who are homeless, jobless, and we do nothing to help them

b. for the average american kid to get a college education it requires them to put themself into debt until they're 45 years old

and

c. i cant even imagine what that many billions of dollars is like, i get excited if i have a twenty in my pocket at any given time.

[coll214]

What i find most disturbing is how can Bush request 87 billion to help Iraq at the same time that he's laying off federal employees and asking them to take pay cuts, cutting back money for education, etc??

Yes, i understand that we need to help the Iraqis - but shouldn't we help the US too??

[tipsy88]

the real problem is the fact that bush went in to iraq without thinking about the conquences of the war and its aftermath. Or perhaps he was thinking that the internation community along with the U.N. would be promptly there to clean up the war torn country that was created by bush on his white horse.

so now bush is in a pickle. bush is slowly losing support one two fronts.

1. soliders not coming home

2. money being spent while out economy is at best flatlining.

unfortunately for bushy, he cannot just simply pull out his troops in a region where little government and large politcal and social unrest are apparent. Nor can he avoid the bill for the cost of rebuilding the infrastructor that was destroyed as a result of the war (talk about double taxation, who paid for those bombs and who is going to pay for those bridge to rebuild them)

for bush and even america to back out and not support rebuilding efforts is worst than where we were before all of this crap happened.

unfortunately i think it's all going to get worst economically speaking before anything gets better.

[jku]

Bush is a combination of the worst of two Administrations - Coolidge and Kennedy/Johnson.
Coolidge's horrible economic plan and servitude to big business (regardless of business scandals) led to Hoover's GREAT DEPRESSION.

Kennedy got us into a minor war in a country called Vietnam; Johnson escalated it. Eventually Johnson became so unpopular he didn't run for re-election.

So just think this through friends. Bush keeps spending money on Iraq - deficits increase. Taxes will have to be raised at some point to cover these expenses, and God forbid Bush raise taxes on the top 1-2% wealthiest Americans like Clinton did. It will be the Middle working class that will share that collective TAX burden. Imagine, huge taxes with VERY little GOOD government in return. You will still pay for health care, education, etc - at least in England and Japan they pay high taxes, but get relief on these two fronts.

(So move to JAPAN or ENGLAND jku!?
No, I love this country, and I will stay and fight to keep it great!)

And if the UN doesn't support us as this battle continues - and Bush won't give up control of Iraqi oil to other Western countries that might want to share in the rebuilding? Then what!?
DRAFT.

You can't imagine it now - but could you imagine this war would cost $87 BILLION just this year, and that Bush would go into Iraq WITHOUT UN support and no evidence of WMDs?


If Bush is elected - a concurrent depression/draft will occur. It will be the scourge of our generation - stoking the fires of class warfare.
BTW, who NOW will pay for this war? We will use bonds, but already the international bond market for America is cooling - why would you invest in America and get 3% when you could put your money in South Africa and get DOUBLE that in Return On Investment. Programs and good government will be cut.

The insanity under this Bush administration must stop.

[dakotagopher]

Good thread.

The frustrating thing about macro level spending is that it takes a long time to see the benefit / detriment of the spending.

A good example: Reagan's masterful job selling congress on the 1980s military spending binge. Huge dollars "down the drain" as many liked (and still like) to say. However, it now appears that this spending is what "won" the cold war (won = lack of nuclear engagement) and I'd warrant only a fanatic would say we'd be better off today if we were still embroiled in the cold war.

So, it is too early to hammer Bush too hard on the $87B, in my opinion. What if, by making this investment (and make no mistake, it is an investment), we take a few strides toward stabilizing the terror threat? Is it still a waste?

As I've said before, if there is not another major terrorist attack domestically in the country, Bush goes down as the best president since FDR. $87B is a ton of money, but we lost, what, $90B in direct property damage alone on 9/11? Plus resultant economic damage & loss of life, etc etc.

I think Bush et al did seriously underestimate the post-"war" problems, but with dedicated focus I believe we can establish a functional democracy in Iraq. And even if you think the neo-cons are complete idiots, you've got to agree with that neo-con goal would go a long way toward global stabilization.

Whether this nation has the stomach and dedication to follow through remains to be seen.

PS - JKU - i personally don't see a draft on the horizon. the military doesn't want it and it'd be the end of any politician that supported it. Just too extreme. Not that it would be a bad thing; I have long thought we should mandate 2 to 4 years of civil service (if not the military, then americorps, peace corps, etc) of all our youth. I think we'd solve most of our social problems inside of a decade were we to do so. However, too many of us are too selfish to make this contribution........

[tipsy88]

Whether this nation has the stomach and dedication to follow through remains to be seen.

Perhaps i err on the side of negativity, or maybe i don't have much faith in the attention span of our culture. That's not to say we don't have strength or resolve to see things get done, we just seem to lack the patience to realize the means to achieve.

[dakotagopher]

HI Tipsy, I question whether our society even has the resolve, period.

If Hitler were rising up in Europe today, would our nation have the resolve to stop him?

Doubtful.

Sixteen soldiers die in Somalia and a scumbag criminal faces down the leader of the free world. At least Bush has had the resolve to end one dictatorship, though had 9/11 not happened, I suspect Bush would have kept his head in the sand like Clinton did for 8 years.

3,000 Americans are murdered on our own soil, and less than 2 years later they are largely forgotten and many want to forget about cleaning up the terrorist mess because it is too hard, too expensive, too many problems at home, etc.

Our societal short memory may be our doom.

[tipsy88]

interesting, if the hitler situation happened today on the exact scale as it did back in the mid 20th century i would argue that we would accord accordingly as we did back then.

My guess is because, people like big action. An even like hilter was evil in the making, real-time and on a large scale. Those two element prompt action because there was a definately declaration enemy and definate cause. However, after the cold war things became more subtle, and on a smaller scale. Because of that peple are unwillingly to take action, unwillingly to commit for fear of casulty.

funny thing is i think people are fearful of casulty which prompts many to criticize us policies of invention in other countries. However, problem is, the world is a small place. It doesn't takes days send a message anymore, it takes nanoseconds. the flow of information is so free people cannot help but be invovled in other people business because everyone broadcasts what they are doing. Not to mention all countries depend on each other for products and supplies. when a country start acting bad, what do you do to punish them? embargo? what if the country has a strong military or has a crazy leader? attack? what if the country has nuclear weapons? At what point is it acceptable for a nation to have casulty due to another countries misbehavior?

i believe the short memory is stemmed from the human trait that people have to learn from their own mistakes and not from the teachings of others.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by dakotagopher


So, it is too early to hammer Bush too hard on the $87B, in my opinion. What if, by making this investment (and make no mistake, it is an investment), we take a few strides toward stabilizing the terror threat? Is it still a waste?



It might be nice if there was any stabilization resulting in reduced terrorism, but there's no evidence of that. No one's dealing with the Saudi's STILL, and if anything, we're only pissing them off more, probably doing the job of recruiting new terrorists for them. The number of them appreciative of our help is outweighed by the number of them wanting us to piss off. Apparently, there are like 5 protests a day in Baghdad against AMerica, which of course, the "liberal" media doesn't show. However, if one gets international news, one gets a better perspective on just how stable we are making this place.

[lostindc]

The problem with bush's $87B request is that this president seems to think that the government can easily print more money. (Actually they can but thats beside the point - and I do think rebuilding iraq is important) Bush is unwilling to scale back some of the tax cuts to pay for it electing to just add it on to the national debt. Bear in mind it is our generation that sooner or later will have to foot the bill for it all. You can't cut taxes and spend more at the same time with creating a fiscal disaster. I'm not a federal employee but it still irks me that Bush demands that federal employees make a sacrifice by reducing their raises, while at the same time advocating tax cuts for the rich.

[bumper3]

This is a little off topic, but it irks me when everyone says that tax cuts are only for the "rich." In the US, the democrats think everyone who makes 30k a year "rich." I used to make 30k a year and believe I did not feel rich. Now that I make more than that, I pay a boatload in taxes and then owe more because of the marriage penalty. Tax cuts benifit everyone who actually PAYS TAXES, which means everyone that make over 10,000 per year. The percentages that people are taxed escalates as they make more money, with the highest percentage at the very top. Do you realize what the tax is on the highest tax bracket? I believe it is something around 49%. I think everyone is paying their share of taxes and those that PAY taxes benifit from the tax cuts.

[jku]

In re to Bush's tax cuts - the view that "I make 30K, I'm rich - leave me alone" is erroneous.

You may get a few hundred dollars back. Fine.
You may spend it, you may keep it. It makes little difference when your getting tax back on 30K.

But people who make millions, get hundreds of thousands back. Not bad if you're putting in donations to Bush on the average of $10,000.

And so you get your few hundred bucks. Great - the evil liberals won't keep your hard earned tax money that makes sure your drinking water doesn't have cholera, your ocean water is safe to swim in, the computer you are using won't shock you, the road you drive on won't crumble, and your car won't explode when you turn it on.

Can you get through one day without your tax money going to some tangible use that directly impacts your life?

In re to taxes - your STATE doesn't get the same federal funds - so you may save hundreds federally, but WILL pay more in property, state, and local taxes. Bush is buying your vote for cheap!

By the way, do we expect to reap the benefits from America, and pay NOTHING?

Yeah, paying taxes sucks - but if you hate it - then don't.
Move to Guatemala - be rich - watch poor people die drinking from sewers. I'm sure its fun.

Bush's tax cuts go to richest people. How is that not clear? How can anyone fall for the PR/Marketing campaign Bush has you thinking is a legitimate administration? How can you cut taxes during a recession, AND pay for War and social services? WHO will pay for the deficit we are having now!? It will be the people on this board!

BTW, if you lost your job, would you buy a Ferrari with your credit card too?

Judge a man by his actions, not his words.

Bankrupting America to feed the military industry,
and using the horror of 9/11 to justify it, is not a policy. It's thievery - and anyone who supports Bush at this point is a schill.

This war has not done one thing to stop terrorism.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
All ARABS are not the same!

We need a new administration that will get serious about fighting terrorism, getting our economy going in a REAL way, and not just talk while selling us a bullsh*t war and historically catastrophic economic policy.

[lostindc]

If we need to spend more to win the war we should spend more. However we can not spend more and tax less at the same time without creating a fiscal meltdown.

BTW the tax cut predominately goes to the rich as:

- a worker making 50K pays about 25% (33% if you include the employer's social security contribution)
- an investor getting 50K in dividends from a $2-3MIL investment pays 15%

the 50K earner pays a marginal rate of 33% (42% including the employer's social security contribution)
the 1M/yr earner's marginal rate is 35%

The 50K earner might be paying $500 less in federal income taxes but that will get wiped out by increased state,local taxes and fees (such as increased car registration costs) as a result of drop in federal money going to the states.

Since multimillionaires are paying tens/hundreds of thousands less in taxes -everyone else must assume more of the tax burden - and thats seen through higher local taxes and fees and fewer services provided by local gov'ts

Also because of the skyrocketing debt our generation is the one going to be saddled with it.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by lostindc


Since multimillionaires are paying tens/hundreds of thousands less in taxes -everyone else must assume more of the tax burden - and thats seen through higher local taxes and fees and fewer services provided by local gov'ts


I would second this, pointing out that these are regressive fees and taxes, therefore shifting from a more egalitarian tax system (progressive) to regressive, because in the end, they still need money, and tax cuts are only going to mean tax and fee hikes in other areas and at other times.

[bumper3]

Ok, it seems like we need a little math lesson.

using your figures on the tax for our 50k earner and our 1 million earner, lets see who pays the most taxes.

50K earner at 25% = $12,500
50K (dividends) on a 2 million dollar investment = $7,500.

Whoa, looks like you got me, but..... that 2 milliion dollar investment is cash that is left over from being taxed at, say 35%. So doing some basic math, that 2 million dollar investment used to be $5,714,285 (2000000/.35). So our person who only pays $7,500 on dividends, has already paid $3,714,285 in taxes.

For the other example:

50k earner at 33% = $16,500 in taxes
1M earner at 35% = $350,000 in taxes

So that concludes our little math lesson, two things to consider when forumulating an aruguemen on taxes:

1. Don't focus on the percentages. Focus on the actual amounts generated from the perecentages.
2. Don't get into a tax arguement with an accountant.

[lostindc]

It seems our accountant needs a little math lesson . . .

Assuming th 2M is after tax dollars that were previously taxed at 35%

the before tax value = 2Mil/(1-0.35) = 3,076923.08 (not 5.7Mil) taxes paid = 1,076923.08 (not 3.7 Mil)

However this analysis assumes that investent was earned as ordinary income. The investment could have been aquired through a capital gain (lower tax rate) other dividends (lower tax rate) a court settlement (potentially not even taxed to begin with) so to assume that the before tax investment was taxed at 35% is not a valid assumption. Regardless the $50,000 earned from the investment is still taxed at a lower rate than some one who earned 50,000 by working a 40hour/wk job.

BTW of course the rich pay more money in taxes - after all they have more money to begin with and get a greater fiscal benefit from our economy. If you think it would be fair for every one to pay the same amount then we should throw out the tax code and give everyone a bill for $10,000.
Gov't spending: 2.5Tril, #americans = 250Mil,
taxes/american = $10,000

How many of you on this board are prepared to pay $10,000 in federal taxes (or $40,000 for a family of 4)?

So concludes our little math lesson, 3 things to consider

1 Percentages ARE important
2 Don't get into a math argument with an engineer
3 Beware of accountants from Arthur Anderson

[bumper3]

Sorry Dilbert, my math was off. Irregardless, the dividend earner paid 1mil in taxes on the original investment. And if you think that items are not taxed like court settlements, where have you been? Even if the original amount has not been taxed, that money will get taxed eventually throught interest earned or throught investments, or even when they die.

No, I dont think everyone should get a bill for 10,000, but I disagree with people who actually PAY the taxes, getting a bill for more than they owe so that someone who chooses not to work can collect their welfare check and food stamps every month. I think the best thing for everyone is to actually get a breakdown on where the tax money we pay is spent. I think the individual making 50k a year would be just as horrified to see that a big chunk of their tax money went to pay for a "program" like welfare, that encourages people not to work and therefore pay no taxes. It is your kind of thinking that scares people in to voting for democrats because they are scared that everyone will get a tax bill for 10,000 or that Social Security will dissappear, and that abortion laws will be repealed.

[cheetah]

Edited because I see lostindc already addressed everything I did. Should finish reading the entire thread first!

bumper3, first of all, irregardless is not a word. it's just regardless. Second, you are overstating and falsely trying to scare people yourself, about welfare. Do you want to end welfare? Welfare, like any program, should have checks and balances and needs reforming, but the people that are making it worse are people like GW Bush with his marriage incentive program. Hey, how about we refuse benefits to women who aren't married in an effort to encourage them to get married? Regardless of what kind of men are available to marry? Did you know something like 50% of women on welfare have been or are victims of domestic abuse? You're just towing the party line, spewing forth the normal garbage about evil welfare.

[dakotagopher]

_________________________________________________
orignally posted by JKU

This war has not done one thing to stop terrorism.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
All ARABS are not the same!
_________________________________________________

A) Can't say this definitively dude! unless i am mistaken, there have not been any further domestic terror attacks since 9/11/01. This is like Reagan's defense spending I referenced earlier........hard to criticize it since war with USSR never happened (since we caused them to spend themselves to death), but also hard to NOT criticize it since war w/USSR never happened. I forget what the "logic" term for this argument is............"can't prove a negative inferance" maybe???

B) Clarification: Iraq had nothing DIRECTLY to do w/9-11. But to say that Saddam didn't support, nurture & encourage terrorist behaviour is patently false. Anyone who does so must go. We've got to hunt down and destroy every last one of these guys. Assuming we have the political & national will. If there's a nest of snakes in your basement, you'd better not leave them there to fester. Go kill them while you've got the ability to do so.

C) Obviously true........I don't think anyone would disagree with this other than wacko extremists.

On taxes - i too bear a major tax burden but I do not mind paying reasonable levels of taxes, say 25% gross, ASSUMING gov't is responsible about spending it. I am pretty conservative fiscally and few things get me as steamed as imprudent spending from either side of the aisle.

There is a fine line with taxing the rich, however, in my opinion. I know a lot of wealthy people who only work half the year.......they feel that were they to earn any more money in a given tax year, that they'd pass a point of diminishing returns. I've always wondered how much this costs our economy, when these "achievers" pull back from their top potential due to gov't interference. Interesting line of thought.

I am doing this myself this year to a lesser degree.......not drawing any more salary during 4th quarter of the year; were i do so so, I'd lose the tax write off on my house. Would the economy not be better served if i were to have the incentive to push myself hard for the rest of the tax year?

[bumper3]

Cheetah,
so what you are really mad about is that there are not enough good men to marry? I made no mention of a marriage incentive program from GW Bush (maybe there is one, I dont know), what I was referring to is that married people who file their taxes together always owe more than non married people. This is because, the money being taken out of each paycheck is based on the income level of the individual. Married people who file together, have their incomes added together which means that it pushes them into the next tax bracket where not enough tax has been taken out. Therefore they owe more. I dont know what you are talking about.

In terms of welfare and abuse, how about all the men that are on welfare, and all the women who had children without being married at 14 years old and dropped out of school? I am not denying that women get abused, and that is sad, but there should be a time limit for welfare benefits. The money should instead be used to help these people find jobs, not pay them to sit on the butts.

[tipsy88]

taxes are not fair unless everyone makes the same amount and pays the same amount of money. The whole tax debate is become a little silly to me. poor/avg wealth people will always feel like the rich get all the breaks and the rich will always be trying to find a way to stay rich.

Can you fault these two types of people?

also this statement:

The money should instead be used to help these people find jobs, not pay them to sit on the butts.

is a very stereotypical. have you actually studied the welfare population? Do you have proof of this statement or does this from the general negative stigma associated with people on the welfare program? Just curious.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by bumper3
Cheetah,
so what you are really mad about is that there are not enough good men to marry? I made no mention of a marriage incentive program from GW Bush (maybe there is one, I dont know), what I was referring to is that married people who file their taxes together always owe more than non married people. This is because, the money being taken out of each paycheck is based on the income level of the individual. Married people who file together, have their incomes added together which means that it pushes them into the next tax bracket where not enough tax has been taken out. Therefore they owe more. I dont know what you are talking about.

In terms of welfare and abuse, how about all the men that are on welfare, and all the women who had children without being married at 14 years old and dropped out of school? I am not denying that women get abused, and that is sad, but there should be a time limit for welfare benefits. The money should instead be used to help these people find jobs, not pay them to sit on the butts.

I didn't think we were talking about the marriage tax at all. I was just giving one example of how republicans are making changes to welfare that do not improve it, but in fact, make it a worse program. And again, I think you are just spewing the required dribble on welfare. Do you have statistics about how many people are getting paid to sit on their butts through welfare? If so, present it. If not, discontinue claiming this is what welfare does. Thanks.

[dakotagopher]

__________________________________________________
originally posted by Cheetah

republicans are making changes to welfare that do not improve it, but in fact, make it a worse program. And again, I think you are just spewing the required dribble on welfare. Do you have statistics about how many people are getting paid to sit on their butts through welfare?
__________________________________________________

The charge that Repubs are wrecking welfare is the same charge that was leveled a few years back when they set the infamous laws that forced welfare recipients to get jobs since benefits were going to expire after a set number of years. That program has worked well, to my knowledge, so it might be a bit early to bash the Repubs for trying again to tweak the system.

Welfare is necessary and important. There must be a net there to catch those that need help. BUT, it should be a short term program, not a life long incentive to suckle the government teet (ha). There is ample evidence of welfare fraud, as opined regularly by one of us on several of these boards over the past few months (somebody who chimes in here regularly is a welfare case worker - sorry i can't recall your name offhand).

Related thought: There was a story just last week in the Minneapolis paper about a couple here in MN that were complaining to high heaven about a rule tied to the government housing assistance they receive. The rule basically mandates that a nonworking spouse must work 8 hours per month in a volunteer role, say at the local nonprofit, to continue to qualify for the housing assistance. The couple was complaining that this was too much of a hardship and the Republicans were evil for trying to get some remuneration for the housing assistance that was provided free of charge to them by the gov't.

They were saying it would be too hard for the couple to fullfill the 8 hour per month requirement (that's two hours per week)because the wife had to say home and take care of their six kids age 4 to 11.

Six. Kids. Six. Not even kidding.

When did irresponsible behaviour become an incentive for getting a reward from our government?

Six. Kids.

So, anyway, obviously they need help to afford housing, and they should get it. But it is NOT unreasonable to hold them to some token standard of contribution to help in some small way to pay for the assistance.

[cheetah]

I agree, dakotagopher, that there is a lot of room for improvement, as I mentioned in a previous post. However, I find it appalling that the Republicans are blackmailing women into marriage to get benefits! This is a ridiculous and artifical incentive if I have ever heard of one. My final point being that to blame arcane, flimsy, loose rules on democrats re: welfare is disingenuous. Clinton signed the last welfare reform bill that you are talking about that has made some progress. And now the Bushies are setting us back...to the middle ages even. Why should the saftey net only be there for married women? highly discriminatory and a bad policy to boot, based on someone's morals that women with babies ought to be married. They are just making welfare more complicated and problematic.

Sidenote: I couldnt agree more about overpopulaters in general. Six kids is excessive and disgusting. As fascist as I may sound, I would literally think favorably of a limit on how many kids (Not 1 like china, but 6?? Who needs 6 kids???) and seriously, some people just plain shouldn't be allowed.
;)

[lostindc]

Bumper,

It seems one way to encourage people to get off welfare is to focus tax cuts for low and middle income earners (such as cutting payroll taxes which are at 8.5% -17% if you include the employer's contribution) instead of cutting capital gains and dividends taxes. The problem now is after taxes a low income job may not pay much more than welfare. Ironically the effective payroll tax rate drops for people earning more than 90K.

[jku]

i just want to second LOSTINDC.
Our tax code under Bush is putting us at a point where the majority of tax money will come from payroll taxes - and all the write-offs and loopholes will be given to companies that need them least. The talking points on this issue are clear - give the tax cuts to people that will SPEND the money - AMERICAN WORKERS - not the ultra-wealthy who will save or invest their money to increase PERSONAL wealth - and NOT the wealth of our nation.

If GW BUsh wasn't a wholly owned subsidy of corporations, and really gave a sh*t about working Americans, oh, dare to dream!

REPLY TO DAKOTA:

A) Can't say this definitively dude! unless i am mistaken, there have not been any further domestic terror attacks since 9/11/01. This is like Reagan's defense spending I referenced earlier........hard to criticize it since war with USSR never...

Wait a minute - every security and terror expert says we are no better off now in terms of safety from terrorism than we were PRE-9/11. 4 months ago a man smuggled a 12 inch blade onto an airplane. Thousands of boxcutters have been confiscated. Canadian borders are stilll porous, and Canada has not reformed their immigration policy completely. Ports are vulnerable. The fact that we have not had a recent terror attack is TOTAL luck - and not the skill of Bush. After 9/11 took the shackles off FBI to do their job and go after Saudi nationals in a real way - but obviously a day late and dollar short because the Saudis we should have been worried about crashed those planes, and by the way - George Tenet is still in charge.

We need someone as President who does not have such close relations to the Bin Laden family and Saudi Arabia. We need someone who is willing to get us AWAY from oil - not more dependent on it. How is Bush coming close to doing any of this?



B) Clarification: Iraq had nothing DIRECTLY to do w/9-11. But to say that Saddam didn't support, nurture & encourage terrorist behaviour is patently false. Anyone who does so must go. We've got to hunt down and destroy every last one of these guys.

Ok, then according to your contention we should also attack Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and the rest of the Arab world. Saddam and Bin Laden were sworn enemies. They had totally different ideologies. Of course Saddam didn't cry on 9/11, but a lot of other countries didn't either. We can't attack countries without proof and provocation.
Dakota, weren't you the one who said a few months ago that Bush MUST find the WMDs?
What happened? Obviously they were never there.
I feel we can't go to war and get soldiers killed so a rich kid can get re-elected President. It's not American.

Saddam was NOT a threat. Containment was obviously the better policy, but it wasn't politically expedient for Bush who wanted to get the House and Senate in 2002.

By the way - the only reason Bush isn't up on impeachment and treason charges is because there is a Republican congress.
And Rove should be on trial for ratting out the wife of Ambassador Wilson - she was a CIA operative who was outed to Robert Novak as a threat to other high level people who may point out the insanity and blatant Anti-Americanism going on in the Bush administration. The operatives she had contact with were killed.
Lest we forgot their lives and the other countless murders committed by this Administration in their blind lust for power and wealth.

[Rainster]

This is a minor point, but re: the couple with 6 kids who needed gov't assistance... A portion of states' TANF budgets is supposed to go towards child care, so that parents are actually *free* to work the X number of hours required to qualify for housing assistance, etc, and eventually be self-suficient.

Undoubtedly, the welfare system can be improved. But I'm always really skeptical when I see these exposes in the media about welfare queens (and in these articles they *are* usually female). I'm guessing a 2-parent family with 6 kids is not the typical welfare recipient. (6 KIDS???? :confused: Hello, birth control....!!!) For every story where people shamelessly mooch off the state, there are probably more untold ones where families have successfully moved off of welfare to work.

[dakotagopher]

__________________________________________________ __
Originally posted by JKU

…… every security and terror expert says we are no better off now in terms of safety from terrorism than we were PRE-9/11. ………….The fact that we have not had a recent terror attack is TOTAL luck - and not the skill of Bush.
We need someone as President who does not have such close relations to the Bin Laden family and Saudi Arabia. __________________________________________________ __

Granted, there is much improvement to be done RE security, but give credit where credit is due. There have been no further attacks………and this is not so easily dismissed.

Your statement that further attacks have been deterred only by “luck” seems a bit out in left field………don’t be afraid to give credit where credit is due……….our enemies are too motivated and well funded to be deterred by luck alone.

What would be interesting, is to know how many terrorist plots have been foiled by our gov’t since 9-11. To know how well this Patriot Act, et al, are working. But that data, unfortunately, is held close to the vest for obvious security and propaganda reasons.

Agree wholeheartedly that our top politicians are too cozy with the Saudis, but that is not limited to Bush & Co. and may still be doing us more good than harm. At least we have a conduit into a semi-“friendly” gov’t in the region. This is, incidentally, one of Bush’s key weaknesses in my opinion, and one that the Dem candidate has a legit shot at to leverage in the election.



__________________________________________________ __
Originally posted by JKU

….according to your contention we should also attack Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and the rest of the Arab world. Saddam and Bin Laden were sworn enemies. They had totally different ideologies………..We can't attack countries without proof and provocation.

Dakota, weren't you the one who said a few months ago that Bush MUST find the WMDs? What happened? Obviously they were never there.
__________________________________________________ _

We must not hesitate to take assertive and proactive means to defend ourselves from future attack. These means will not always include military action, certainly not on the scale seen in Iraq. Should we fail to do so, we have no one to blame but ourselves if we are attacked again.

Yes, the lack of WMD definitely hurt’s Bush’s credibility and frankly may cost him the election. However, you paint yourself with the colors of a political extremist (which is not necessarily a bad thing, mind you) when you say they were “never” there……..they were in fact there to the Iraqi’s own admission. The fact that they have not yet turned up means one of four things:
1) the Iraqis destroyed them and all the records of destroying them
2) the weapons were moved out of Iraq to other unstable regimes
3) we have not yet found them
4) we have found them but the administration waits until a politically expedient time to disclose that we have found them

As I have said before, if it is Option 4, there is no way I vote for Bush, even though the entire Iraqi war gains additional justification. Hopefully, Option 1 is the truth. That way, there is no chance these weapons were given to those that may use them in the future.

It is always easy to sit in the cheap seats, away from pressure, and with the benefit of hindsight second guess the guys who make the tough decisions. I know a lot of business people who play this game………constantly throwing rocks at their peers who are unafraid to make the tough decision even though it’s risky and unpopular. Then the guys in the cheap seats complain about the achiever getting all the breaks and winning all the deals.

I remember how the Far Right despised Clinton………refusing to give him any credit………when the guy did an unarguably good job of administering the economy. Only a political extremist would deny this. I see the same things now from the Far Left………an almost infantile refusal to admit that Bush has or is doing anything right, when there is ample evidence to the contrary on many key issues……..

__________________________________________________ __
Originally posted by JKU

By the way - the only reason Bush isn't up on impeachment and treason charges is because there is a Republican congress.
And Rove should be on trial for ratting out the wife of Ambassador Wilson........Lest we forgot their lives and the other countless murders committed by this Administration in their blind lust for power and wealth.
__________________________________________________ __

I agree on Rove & Novak wholeheartedly. Disagree on the impeachment thing……extremist again in my opinion.

[doctor_kaz]

Wow, it's amazing how spending money on national defense or rebuilding a defeated opponent will suddenly bring out the inner Fiscal Conservative in the Democrats of the world. If only they would scrutinize all of those trillions of dollars that we have spent on that "war on poverty".

Here's a question for everyone -- when was the last time that the dollar value of a spending program made news headlines? Think about it.

[cheetah]

Originally posted by doctor_kaz
Wow, it's amazing how spending money on national defense or rebuilding a defeated opponent will suddenly bring out the inner Fiscal Conservative in the Democrats of the world. If only they would scrutinize all of those trillions of dollars that we have spent on that "war on poverty".



Most of us aren't arguing the need for the money. I for one believe that because we, sadly, took on this war, we have a great responsibility to commit ourselves to the rebuilding, and am further embarrassed that Dubya is "expecting" other countires to help out. He started the war without their support and now he expects them to help pay for the damages? Fine, if they want to, but ultimately, if they don't, we have to pay it.

The problem is, kaz, that we are enraged by the lies that led up to this amountof money. the lies about why the war was started and the lies about how mcuh it would cost afterward, and the incompetence of our leaders who STILL don't have an exit strategy. That's what we're mad about. Is it suddenly ok to be lied to? We still don't think so! Remember Rumsfeld actually laughing at, I think, a senator that suggested it might cost $50B? Not only did they "never imagine it" but even when it was suggested to them, they refused to believe it would cost that much. I would like to see what kind of analysis they did before and after and see exactly what they failed to identify as costs.

[lostindc]

Actually kaz,

I may be left of center, but I do support the military and we should continue support both military research and military personel, for whenever we really need it we should have the best defense possible. Military spending also has many civilian benefits too.

I also think we should have a resonable budget - though not necessarily one that prohibits deficit spending. Right now though the defecit spending is getting out of hand it is our generation that is going to get stuck with the bill. I believe the President's request for more funds to rebuild iraq and support military operations is reasonable.

However instead of adding to the massive deficit why not reduce the tax cut? Why are we asking FEDERAL EMPLOYEES to take a pay cut to fund the war, while at the same time cutting taxes? How can this president ask some americans to sacrifice while giving tax cuts to others? W's fiscal policy makes no sense.