Bush has acknowledged that going to war and giving the tax cuts have led to the national debt. He also has said that he's willing to do that to protect the American people and troops, and try to kick-start the economy....and that's what the money is doing.
The debt will eventually be paid down (we've done it before), and yes, the middle class will probably shoulder the burden from most of that. Why? Because the "rich" are already paying a dramatically higher percentage of their income in taxes than everyone else in the country, and frankly the middle class is the largest group of everyone.
Nobody wants to be in debt, but it's probably better for the long-term to go into debt now than have the economy continue in a down-slide that will be harder and harder to dig ourselves out of as time goes on.
So let me get this straight it took 3 years of tax cuts and kick backs to start the economy?
The money spent on the unnessary war in Iraq pales this into nothing by comparison.
As to paying this down.......
The last time we didn't have an on going national debt I was a small boy. It started to get bad when I was in Jr. High ( what's called middle school now ). The reason we paid it down last time was a combination of unusual good times economically and a president who was willing to tighten our belts ( no matter what the cost politically ) and pay for some of the stuff we'd been doing for the last oh 20 to 30 years.
That's what made the surplus we had so special. Too bad we couldn't hold on to at least a part of it.
The site that I mentioned was based on UN information. How is that a private source? I looked at it as a summary of the UNSCOM info.
You and Giant mast have gone to the same conspiracy theory course. You and he make the same week arguments.
Hey lets go this route. Assuming you are right:
What would GWB and his admin have to gain by waging a fake war in Iraq?
If he was just making up the reason for going to war, he or someone in his circle must have known that the lie would have been exposed. You know he is surrounded by a lot of smart/educated people?
Was it to gain political points or votes? Once again someone had to know that would backfire.
Was it to benefit Halabuerten (wrong spelling)? Once again same problem.
I am open to things that make sense So, explain to me, if you can what exactly would he or his admin stand to gain by a war based on lies? I am sure he/they want to stay in office for as long as possible. How would that help them? See if you can do it without sounding like a conspiracy theorist or a democratic talking points parrot.
What makes sense to me is he was unexpectedly faced with a global war, and he and his admin decided to take the bull by the horns and methodically eliminate those known threats, so as to keep the US and it's interests safe. Putting his presidency at serious risk to do the right thing.
And to go along with the thread's topic, if you assume that the war was based on lies, you must then disregard the value and purpose of the terror alert scheme. I guess the whole Air-France thing is just a ploy to help bolster the Bush admin.'s claim. I would guess it is al a facade, right?
Fist of all smart/educated people do dishonest, and not too bright things all the time. Intelligence doesn't imply common sense.
Once again this war was sold on a falsehood. The idea that Iraq was a direct threat to us. That's really the heat of the matter and all the dancing around it won't help. It really doesn't matter what he was really doing ( which I've already outlined for you previously ).
" What makes sense to me is he was unexpectedly faced with a global war, and he and his admin decided to take the bull by the horns and methodically eliminate those known threats, so as to keep the US and it's interests safe. Putting his presidency at serious risk to do the right thing. "
Is not the reason Bush was able to convince everybody here to go along ( as you may recall there were many countries that didn't ). Had it been this war wouldn't have happened.
That's what I and many others have a problem with. A leader who blatantly deceives for his own agenda. I look at Mr. Bush as working for us. Without us he wouldn't have a job. We pick the president to lead us. Now what do you think of an employee that lies to their employer to accomplish their own ends. Lies about something really important ( like lives and a lot of money that it costs you )?
Global war and global terrorism are two very different things.
You are spouting every thing but the answer to that question.
What was GWB's/Bush admin's agenda?
Just tell me what his agenda was. What did he have to gain? Why would an already controversial President perpatrate a giant conspiracy in this day of instant media and never-ending appetite for scandal?
What was his agenda?
I got that you feel he stated WMD as a reason to go to war. Agree or not, whatever. What was his stinking agenda?
You are spouting every thing but the answer to that question.
What was GWB's/Bush admin's agenda?
Just tell me what his agenda was. What did he have to gain? Why would an already controversial President perpatrate a giant conspiracy in this day of instant media and never-ending appetite for scandal?
What was his agenda?
I got that you feel he stated WMD as a reason to go to war. Agree or not, whatever. What was his stinking agenda?
Throw me a bone...
Well ok I'll restate what I've already said. Bush isn't really good at dealing with economic problems. The last 3 years have proved that. I can only guess but I feel it's pretty accurate. He did this to draw attention away from the economic conditions here. What would have been the number one headline if we hadn't had these wars? He may have done it to further his plans in the middle east ( as you've suggested ) albeit he didn't list that as a the primary reason for war. He also did it because it was good for his appearance as a strong leader ( also not listed as the primary reason ).
Ok I've stated it in more clear terms. Please don't play stupid and try to get me to restate something I've already said again as I will not respond to this.
god knows i can only stomach fox news for 48 seconds at a time, but i found it rather funny that three republicans were smiling and lambasting a democrat on how badly they'll lose in 2004 because "everything is so great! the economy is doing great! we caught saddam, and libya's giving up their WMDs!", all while the "TERROR ALERT: HIGH" was on screen and the ticker across the bottom warned of flights being cancelled and anti-air weaponry being deployed in washington.
god knows i can only stomach fox news for 48 seconds at a time, but i found it rather funny that three republicans were smiling and lambasting a democrat on how badly they'll lose in 2004 because "everything is so great! the economy is doing great! we caught saddam, and libya's giving up their WMDs!", all while the "TERROR ALERT: HIGH" was on screen and the ticker across the bottom warned of flights being cancelled and anti-air weaponry being deployed in washington.
Well ok I'll restate what I've already said. Bush isn't really good at dealing with economic problems. The last 3 years have proved that. I can only guess but I feel it's pretty accurate. He did this to draw attention away from the economic conditions here. What would have been the number one headline if we hadn't had these wars? He may have done it to further his plans in the middle east ( as you've suggested ) albeit he didn't list that as a the primary reason for war. He also did it because it was good for his appearance as a strong leader ( also not listed as the primary reason ).
Ok I've stated it in more clear terms. Please don't play stupid and try to get me to restate something I've already said again as I will not respond to this.
once again, It is you who are guessing. Everyone get this! He is guessing, but he thinks it is pretty accurate!
The economy is on a record setting rebound that many prominent economists feel is a direct result of tax-cuts. Tax cuts that bush promised before he was elected. He stated that tax cuts were the answer to the already failing economy before he was elected. I would have to say that he has been proven right. How is he not "really good" at handling economical issues?
"May have", "guess" and "maybe" don't really cut it. For me that would be called stretching, shall I say "A LOT"
You will need to think a little before typing, if only as not to evoke sarcasm and laughter.
Shoud we, down under, assume then that the news reports coming out of America are being "sexed up" for us?
This is not the first time that a news report has suggested that a terror attack is imminent, then nothing.
Perhaps instead of calling the analysts clueless, I need to call the reporters clueless.
If we get a rumor about a buncha Aussies in a disco somewhere about to be blown up, d'you want to be alerted about it before it happens, or do you just want us to phone CNN after it happens?
Afterall, we dumb ol' Americans don't want to be crying 'wolf' all the gosh-darn time. Just letcher mates die, then?
Aries 1B
PS: I hope that our/your Special Ops Guys skinned the scum who killed all those Aussies in that disco. Happy New Year.
once again, It is you who are guessing. Everyone get this! He is guessing, but he thinks it is pretty accurate!
The economy is on a record setting rebound that many prominent economists feel is a direct result of tax-cuts. Tax cuts that bush promised before he was elected. He stated that tax cuts were the answer to the already failing economy before he was elected. I would have to say that he has been proven right. How is he not "really good" at handling economical issues?
"May have", "guess" and "maybe" don't really cut it. For me that would be called stretching, shall I say "A LOT"
You will need to think a little before typing, if only as not to evoke sarcasm and laughter.
Did everyone get that?
Look I don't have to actually stick my face in a lawnmower to know the outcome. Yes I'm guessing but it's really the most likely. We do know he didn't do it for the reason he gave. And NaplesX that's enough.
Also you seem to think you have a lot of support here. I'm not reading that.
No he's not good at economic issues. It took three years of tax cuts to get this slow jobs growth rebound?
If I'm right this recovery won't be so rosy after the election. We'll follow the usual path of recovery, recession. Mean while the deficit will continue to rise. A hallmark republican tactic.
hey look, I can respect you for your opinion, as you should mine. But, it seems that you are preaching guesses as gospel. Try putting IMO in there once in a while it will give you more credibility. You and I are allowed an opinion, but lets keep it real. It is just our opinion. Who the heck are we? And what do we really know? maybe we are both wrong and GWB and SH are both puppets of the Clinton cartel. Who really knows.
But if you will proclaim such inflammatory bile, at least have a reasonable explanation for it. That is the only thing that I cannot stomach. People act as if they are being independent, yet they are spouting regurgitated rhetoric. That is why I asked you for a reasonable explanation as to motives.
I will give you this: you were honest and said you were guessing. I can respect that. i can also agree to disagree.
By the way I need no support form anyone here to form a reasonable and grounded opinion on any given subject. Maybe I am weird that way.
hey look, I can respect you for your opinion, as you should mine. But, it seems that you are preaching guesses as gospel. Try putting IMO in there once in a while it will give you more credibility. You and I are allowed an opinion, but lets keep it real. It is just our opinion. Who the heck are we? And what do we really know? maybe we are both wrong and GWB and SH are both puppets of the Clinton cartel. Who really knows.
But if you will proclaim such inflammatory bile, at least have a reasonable explanation for it. That is the only thing that I cannot stomach. People act as if they are being independent, yet they are spouting regurgitated rhetoric. That is why I asked you for a reasonable explanation as to motives.
I will give you this: you were honest and said you were guessing. I can respect that. i can also agree to disagree.
By the way I need no support form anyone here to form a reasonable and grounded opinion on any given subject. Maybe I am weird that way.
Well I thought I'd throw a little preaching right back at you......from you!
" You Libs got very little left to go against this president. I just think it will be less as time goes on thats all. "
Here's another good one :
" So when they find the nuclear material and those that transported it "
And another :
" You and people like you are putting yourself in a potentially embarrassing position. All the facts are yet to be reviewed. You seem to be basing your opinions on what you hear from like minded politicos. I think you are in a precarious place. "
Notice though I added the ever important phrase "I think" You see that makes that statement one of opinion, and not some self assumed fact.
Does that statement bug you because i Identified your thinking as liberal?
If so, what term would you like me to identify your political leanings?
Ok, all my previous posts are my opinion ( but certainly are based on the facts we have ). Satisfied?
One big fact you can't get away from : The president sold this war on an idea that Iraq was a direct threat to us. When we looked in Iraq after the war there was no apparent threat.
One big fact you can't get away from : The president sold this war on an idea that Iraq was a direct threat to us. When we looked in Iraq after the war there was no apparent threat.
You are a great spinner! I can post a transcript of the SOU speech that GWB gave. That was ONE of a handful of reasons he gave for deposing the leader. Those are the real facts. You are handpicking and leaving out all of the important context. They are not done looking in Iraq yet. They have many more people they need to talk to and/or capture there.
Comments
Originally posted by BuonRotto
What are you trying to hide, Powerdoc?!
Your wife
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Bush has acknowledged that going to war and giving the tax cuts have led to the national debt. He also has said that he's willing to do that to protect the American people and troops, and try to kick-start the economy....and that's what the money is doing.
The debt will eventually be paid down (we've done it before), and yes, the middle class will probably shoulder the burden from most of that. Why? Because the "rich" are already paying a dramatically higher percentage of their income in taxes than everyone else in the country, and frankly the middle class is the largest group of everyone.
Nobody wants to be in debt, but it's probably better for the long-term to go into debt now than have the economy continue in a down-slide that will be harder and harder to dig ourselves out of as time goes on.
So let me get this straight it took 3 years of tax cuts and kick backs to start the economy?
The money spent on the unnessary war in Iraq pales this into nothing by comparison.
As to paying this down.......
The last time we didn't have an on going national debt I was a small boy. It started to get bad when I was in Jr. High ( what's called middle school now ). The reason we paid it down last time was a combination of unusual good times economically and a president who was willing to tighten our belts ( no matter what the cost politically ) and pay for some of the stuff we'd been doing for the last oh 20 to 30 years.
That's what made the surplus we had so special. Too bad we couldn't hold on to at least a part of it.
Originally posted by NaplesX
The site that I mentioned was based on UN information. How is that a private source? I looked at it as a summary of the UNSCOM info.
You and Giant mast have gone to the same conspiracy theory course. You and he make the same week arguments.
Hey lets go this route. Assuming you are right:
What would GWB and his admin have to gain by waging a fake war in Iraq?
If he was just making up the reason for going to war, he or someone in his circle must have known that the lie would have been exposed. You know he is surrounded by a lot of smart/educated people?
Was it to gain political points or votes? Once again someone had to know that would backfire.
Was it to benefit Halabuerten (wrong spelling)? Once again same problem.
I am open to things that make sense So, explain to me, if you can what exactly would he or his admin stand to gain by a war based on lies? I am sure he/they want to stay in office for as long as possible. How would that help them? See if you can do it without sounding like a conspiracy theorist or a democratic talking points parrot.
What makes sense to me is he was unexpectedly faced with a global war, and he and his admin decided to take the bull by the horns and methodically eliminate those known threats, so as to keep the US and it's interests safe. Putting his presidency at serious risk to do the right thing.
And to go along with the thread's topic, if you assume that the war was based on lies, you must then disregard the value and purpose of the terror alert scheme. I guess the whole Air-France thing is just a ploy to help bolster the Bush admin.'s claim. I would guess it is al a facade, right?
Fist of all smart/educated people do dishonest, and not too bright things all the time. Intelligence doesn't imply common sense.
Once again this war was sold on a falsehood. The idea that Iraq was a direct threat to us. That's really the heat of the matter and all the dancing around it won't help. It really doesn't matter what he was really doing ( which I've already outlined for you previously ).
This :
-----------------------------------------------------------
" What makes sense to me is he was unexpectedly faced with a global war, and he and his admin decided to take the bull by the horns and methodically eliminate those known threats, so as to keep the US and it's interests safe. Putting his presidency at serious risk to do the right thing. "
-----------------------------------------------------------
Is not the reason Bush was able to convince everybody here to go along ( as you may recall there were many countries that didn't ). Had it been this war wouldn't have happened.
That's what I and many others have a problem with. A leader who blatantly deceives for his own agenda. I look at Mr. Bush as working for us. Without us he wouldn't have a job. We pick the president to lead us. Now what do you think of an employee that lies to their employer to accomplish their own ends. Lies about something really important ( like lives and a lot of money that it costs you )?
Global war and global terrorism are two very different things.
You are spouting every thing but the answer to that question.
What was GWB's/Bush admin's agenda?
Just tell me what his agenda was. What did he have to gain? Why would an already controversial President perpatrate a giant conspiracy in this day of instant media and never-ending appetite for scandal?
What was his agenda?
I got that you feel he stated WMD as a reason to go to war. Agree or not, whatever. What was his stinking agenda?
Throw me a bone...
Please don't twist that fact.
Originally posted by NaplesX
What was the agenda?
You are spouting every thing but the answer to that question.
What was GWB's/Bush admin's agenda?
Just tell me what his agenda was. What did he have to gain? Why would an already controversial President perpatrate a giant conspiracy in this day of instant media and never-ending appetite for scandal?
What was his agenda?
I got that you feel he stated WMD as a reason to go to war. Agree or not, whatever. What was his stinking agenda?
Throw me a bone...
Well ok I'll restate what I've already said. Bush isn't really good at dealing with economic problems. The last 3 years have proved that. I can only guess but I feel it's pretty accurate. He did this to draw attention away from the economic conditions here. What would have been the number one headline if we hadn't had these wars? He may have done it to further his plans in the middle east ( as you've suggested ) albeit he didn't list that as a the primary reason for war. He also did it because it was good for his appearance as a strong leader ( also not listed as the primary reason ).
Ok I've stated it in more clear terms. Please don't play stupid and try to get me to restate something I've already said again as I will not respond to this.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Wait, the proclaimed "Surplus" was a "projected surplus". We were not operating in a surplus. It was projected that there would be a surplus.
Please don't twist that fact.
Doesn't matter we were closer to it than we had been in 30 years! Too bad we didn't get the chance to experience it.
yep, i feel great.
Amazing!
Originally posted by rok
god knows i can only stomach fox news for 48 seconds at a time, but i found it rather funny that three republicans were smiling and lambasting a democrat on how badly they'll lose in 2004 because "everything is so great! the economy is doing great! we caught saddam, and libya's giving up their WMDs!", all while the "TERROR ALERT: HIGH" was on screen and the ticker across the bottom warned of flights being cancelled and anti-air weaponry being deployed in washington.
yep, i feel great.
WE ARE NOT SAFER THAN WE WERE FOUR YEARS AGO!
Originally posted by jimmac
Well ok I'll restate what I've already said. Bush isn't really good at dealing with economic problems. The last 3 years have proved that. I can only guess but I feel it's pretty accurate. He did this to draw attention away from the economic conditions here. What would have been the number one headline if we hadn't had these wars? He may have done it to further his plans in the middle east ( as you've suggested ) albeit he didn't list that as a the primary reason for war. He also did it because it was good for his appearance as a strong leader ( also not listed as the primary reason ).
Ok I've stated it in more clear terms. Please don't play stupid and try to get me to restate something I've already said again as I will not respond to this.
once again, It is you who are guessing. Everyone get this! He is guessing, but he thinks it is pretty accurate!
The economy is on a record setting rebound that many prominent economists feel is a direct result of tax-cuts. Tax cuts that bush promised before he was elected. He stated that tax cuts were the answer to the already failing economy before he was elected. I would have to say that he has been proven right. How is he not "really good" at handling economical issues?
"May have", "guess" and "maybe" don't really cut it. For me that would be called stretching, shall I say "A LOT"
You will need to think a little before typing, if only as not to evoke sarcasm and laughter.
Did everyone get that?
Originally posted by xenu
Shoud we, down under, assume then that the news reports coming out of America are being "sexed up" for us?
This is not the first time that a news report has suggested that a terror attack is imminent, then nothing.
Perhaps instead of calling the analysts clueless, I need to call the reporters clueless.
If we get a rumor about a buncha Aussies in a disco somewhere about to be blown up, d'you want to be alerted about it before it happens, or do you just want us to phone CNN after it happens?
Afterall, we dumb ol' Americans don't want to be crying 'wolf' all the gosh-darn time. Just letcher mates die, then?
Aries 1B
PS: I hope that our/your Special Ops Guys skinned the scum who killed all those Aussies in that disco. Happy New Year.
Originally posted by NaplesX
once again, It is you who are guessing. Everyone get this! He is guessing, but he thinks it is pretty accurate!
The economy is on a record setting rebound that many prominent economists feel is a direct result of tax-cuts. Tax cuts that bush promised before he was elected. He stated that tax cuts were the answer to the already failing economy before he was elected. I would have to say that he has been proven right. How is he not "really good" at handling economical issues?
"May have", "guess" and "maybe" don't really cut it. For me that would be called stretching, shall I say "A LOT"
You will need to think a little before typing, if only as not to evoke sarcasm and laughter.
Did everyone get that?
Look I don't have to actually stick my face in a lawnmower to know the outcome. Yes I'm guessing but it's really the most likely. We do know he didn't do it for the reason he gave. And NaplesX that's enough.
Also you seem to think you have a lot of support here. I'm not reading that.
No he's not good at economic issues. It took three years of tax cuts to get this slow jobs growth rebound?
If I'm right this recovery won't be so rosy after the election. We'll follow the usual path of recovery, recession. Mean while the deficit will continue to rise. A hallmark republican tactic.
But if you will proclaim such inflammatory bile, at least have a reasonable explanation for it. That is the only thing that I cannot stomach. People act as if they are being independent, yet they are spouting regurgitated rhetoric. That is why I asked you for a reasonable explanation as to motives.
I will give you this: you were honest and said you were guessing. I can respect that. i can also agree to disagree.
By the way I need no support form anyone here to form a reasonable and grounded opinion on any given subject. Maybe I am weird that way.
Originally posted by NaplesX
hey look, I can respect you for your opinion, as you should mine. But, it seems that you are preaching guesses as gospel. Try putting IMO in there once in a while it will give you more credibility. You and I are allowed an opinion, but lets keep it real. It is just our opinion. Who the heck are we? And what do we really know? maybe we are both wrong and GWB and SH are both puppets of the Clinton cartel. Who really knows.
But if you will proclaim such inflammatory bile, at least have a reasonable explanation for it. That is the only thing that I cannot stomach. People act as if they are being independent, yet they are spouting regurgitated rhetoric. That is why I asked you for a reasonable explanation as to motives.
I will give you this: you were honest and said you were guessing. I can respect that. i can also agree to disagree.
By the way I need no support form anyone here to form a reasonable and grounded opinion on any given subject. Maybe I am weird that way.
Well I thought I'd throw a little preaching right back at you......from you!
-----------------------------------------------------------
" You Libs got very little left to go against this president. I just think it will be less as time goes on thats all. "
Here's another good one :
" So when they find the nuclear material and those that transported it "
And another :
" You and people like you are putting yourself in a potentially embarrassing position. All the facts are yet to be reviewed. You seem to be basing your opinions on what you hear from like minded politicos. I think you are in a precarious place. "
-----------------------------------------------------------
You may be slippery and can dance around the subject in order to distract from the main issue almost as good as SDW. But you can't get away with it.
Originally posted by jimmac
Well I thought I'd throw a little preaching right back at you......from you!
-----------------------------------------------------------
" You Libs got very little left to go against this president. I just think it will be less as time goes on thats all. "
-----------------------------------------------------------
Notice though I added the ever important phrase "I think" You see that makes that statement one of opinion, and not some self assumed fact.
Does that statement bug you because i Identified your thinking as liberal?
If so, what term would you like me to identify your political leanings?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Notice though I added the ever important phrase "I think" You see that makes that statement one of opinion, and not some self assumed fact.
Does that statement bug you because i Identified your thinking as liberal?
If so, what term would you like me to identify your political leanings?
Ok, all my previous posts are my opinion ( but certainly are based on the facts we have ). Satisfied?
One big fact you can't get away from : The president sold this war on an idea that Iraq was a direct threat to us. When we looked in Iraq after the war there was no apparent threat.
This part isn't just my opinion. It happened.
End of story.
Originally posted by jimmac
One big fact you can't get away from : The president sold this war on an idea that Iraq was a direct threat to us. When we looked in Iraq after the war there was no apparent threat.
You are a great spinner! I can post a transcript of the SOU speech that GWB gave. That was ONE of a handful of reasons he gave for deposing the leader. Those are the real facts. You are handpicking and leaving out all of the important context. They are not done looking in Iraq yet. They have many more people they need to talk to and/or capture there.
Originally posted by jimmac
End of story.
If you say so.