Mon Aug 04, 2003 9:29 am
And lastly, for all thopse saying 'pinko' and 'commie' to the Democratic posters: learn about communism.
Why?
Becasue if you did, you would know there has never been a communist nation...EVER. You would learn what communism is truely about.
Or, continue to be ignorant, and say it over and over just because some fat idiot on the Radio told you to.
Why?
Becasue if you did, you would know there has never been a communist nation...EVER. You would learn what communism is truely about.
Or, continue to be ignorant, and say it over and over just because some fat idiot on the Radio told you to.
Mon Aug 04, 2003 11:24 am
Well, Jimmy's posts are too tempting to resist, so here I go...
Actually, if you look closely, you'll see that the terrorist suicide bombings ARE warranting a forceful response. However, it's the Israelis that are doing it, not the US.
Some historical budget figures for you:
For the Dept. of Justice (including FBI), the total law enforcement expenditures starting in Fiscal Year 1993, and going through Fiscal Year 2003 (in millions of dollars):
(Bush Presidency)
FY 1993 - $10,170
(Clinton Presidency)
FY 1994 - $10,005
FY 1995 - $10,778 (first year of Republican Congress)
FY 1996 - $11,954
FY 1997 - $14,310
FY 1998 - $16,168
FY 1999 - $18,317
FY 2000 - $19,554
FY 2001 - $21,296
(Bush Presidency)
FY 2002 - $23,707
FY 2003 - $19,647 (note, this is the Dept. of Justice minus the Immigration and Naturalization service and the Border Patrol, both of which were transferred to the Dept. of Homeland Security)
So, as you can see from these figures, domestic security funding actually increased over the stated period prior to Sept. 11, 2001. (I can also give similar figures for general national defense spending too, but they reflect the same trend).
Actually, Clinton did authorize attacks on Iraq in December of 1998. The attacks were carried out on key sites in Iraq by US and British forces - the opertaion was called Desert Fox. See this speech by Clinton (and the related stories and info) for more details.
Aren't these two statements mutually exclusive? How can "Bush cut national security funds in half" while " the president of the US holds no overall authority over any operation of the US.?"
As for the whole issue of the Reagan tax cuts, please see your earlier remark about the President not being able to singlehandedly do much of anything. Thus, if you point the finger at Reagan and blame him for something, you must also point at the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress of the day.
Interestingly, the economy boomed during the Reagan years, while the deficit ballooned. It's a misconception to consider tax cuts the culprit, as you can't classify a reduction in revenue collection as "spending." Rather, "spending" is the expenditure of funds (whether you have them or not). The deficit in question is a "spending" deficit - expending more money than you're taking in.
If you think declining to take quite as much of people's money as you used to (that's what a tax cut is), then that's your problem.
Originally posted by JimmyTango
Buy two clues, maybe one will be closer to the bullseye than your complete nonsense.
Bush: All terrorist acts will be met with in force, no matter who does them to who.
The nest day: more West Bank suicide attacks.
Bush: Um, well, maybe not ALL terrorist acts........
Actually, if you look closely, you'll see that the terrorist suicide bombings ARE warranting a forceful response. However, it's the Israelis that are doing it, not the US.
Originally posted by JimmyTango
The fact that Bush cut the national secutiry funds in half before 9-11 means nothing, huh?
Some historical budget figures for you:
For the Dept. of Justice (including FBI), the total law enforcement expenditures starting in Fiscal Year 1993, and going through Fiscal Year 2003 (in millions of dollars):
(Bush Presidency)
FY 1993 - $10,170
(Clinton Presidency)
FY 1994 - $10,005
FY 1995 - $10,778 (first year of Republican Congress)
FY 1996 - $11,954
FY 1997 - $14,310
FY 1998 - $16,168
FY 1999 - $18,317
FY 2000 - $19,554
FY 2001 - $21,296
(Bush Presidency)
FY 2002 - $23,707
FY 2003 - $19,647 (note, this is the Dept. of Justice minus the Immigration and Naturalization service and the Border Patrol, both of which were transferred to the Dept. of Homeland Security)
So, as you can see from these figures, domestic security funding actually increased over the stated period prior to Sept. 11, 2001. (I can also give similar figures for general national defense spending too, but they reflect the same trend).
Originally posted by JimmyTango
The fact Clinton wanted to go into Iraq but Republican controlled Congress turned him down means nothing, huh?
Actually, Clinton did authorize attacks on Iraq in December of 1998. The attacks were carried out on key sites in Iraq by US and British forces - the opertaion was called Desert Fox. See this speech by Clinton (and the related stories and info) for more details.
Originally posted by JimmyTango
The fact that Bush cut the national secutiry funds in half before 9-11 means nothing, huh?
Or, simple common sense: the president of the US holds no overall authority over any operation of the US. So, pointing your finger at the President, and not every single other politician in DC shows how clueless you are.
Aren't these two statements mutually exclusive? How can "Bush cut national security funds in half" while " the president of the US holds no overall authority over any operation of the US.?"
As for the whole issue of the Reagan tax cuts, please see your earlier remark about the President not being able to singlehandedly do much of anything. Thus, if you point the finger at Reagan and blame him for something, you must also point at the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress of the day.
Interestingly, the economy boomed during the Reagan years, while the deficit ballooned. It's a misconception to consider tax cuts the culprit, as you can't classify a reduction in revenue collection as "spending." Rather, "spending" is the expenditure of funds (whether you have them or not). The deficit in question is a "spending" deficit - expending more money than you're taking in.
If you think declining to take quite as much of people's money as you used to (that's what a tax cut is), then that's your problem.
Mon Aug 04, 2003 12:26 pm
Bush said the US would step up to any terrorist attacks. He has done nothing with the West Bank situation, while going gun ho for, and making up reasons for, Iraq.
"Aren't these two statements mutually exclusive? How can "Bush cut national security funds in half" while " the president of the US holds no overall authority over any operation of the US.?"
They are seperate. The first is a reply to show that there is a second side to the coin that was already flipped. It is not all Republican or all Democrat. The second I how it really is, the president is not in total control, he is not an Emporer or King. This country has checks and balances. Each branch has the same power when all is said and done.
And lastly, there was no economic boom in the 80's. It is a myth. The stock market did well, large companies, investments, etc. Basicly, the tax cuts to the rich made the rich richer. This is the ame mistake being made now, pointing tot he stock market and saying the economy is better. The FIRST thing you learn in micro or macro economics is the stock market has NOTHING to do with the economy.
Trickle down economics, which Bush is re implemting, does not work. It does not trickle down, it stays up.
"Aren't these two statements mutually exclusive? How can "Bush cut national security funds in half" while " the president of the US holds no overall authority over any operation of the US.?"
They are seperate. The first is a reply to show that there is a second side to the coin that was already flipped. It is not all Republican or all Democrat. The second I how it really is, the president is not in total control, he is not an Emporer or King. This country has checks and balances. Each branch has the same power when all is said and done.
And lastly, there was no economic boom in the 80's. It is a myth. The stock market did well, large companies, investments, etc. Basicly, the tax cuts to the rich made the rich richer. This is the ame mistake being made now, pointing tot he stock market and saying the economy is better. The FIRST thing you learn in micro or macro economics is the stock market has NOTHING to do with the economy.
Trickle down economics, which Bush is re implemting, does not work. It does not trickle down, it stays up.
Mon Aug 04, 2003 12:30 pm
Originally posted by JimmyTango
People like you make me sick. You are so blind that you think that only one way is correct. Not just correct in political beliefs, but in what their beloived politcal party has done,. is doing and will do. They are always right, when something is odd, it must be the other sides fault.
...You, sir, are the largest problem in the US: Uninformed.
...Or, continue to be ignorant, and say it over and over just because some fat idiot on the Radio told you to.
Wow...I read your "enlightened" posts. All I have to say is pot -- kettle -- black.
BTW, I listen to that "fat idiot" when I get the chance. Everything I've ever heard him say he has backed up with facts. I've checked them out. I used to hate the guy until I couldn't disprove what he was saying. It pissed me off so bad that he was right. The few times that I've heard him err, he has owned up to it and either apologized or clarified. Do we ever get that kind of respect from CNN, the NY Times, etc.? I've seen their front-page blunders turned into "page-50" retractions. They bury their apologies deeply (if they ever give one), that way the misleading stories can still swim around the minds of the ignorant.
Shockwave, I'm not going to pile on the Canada insults. It sucks to have the country you love slandered, doesn't it? Maybe you can now understand why some of us here get defensive when you Canucks start piling on America.
The US hyped nothing with regard to Iraq; the US merely quoted UK intelligence, which the Brits STILL STAND BY. But that's an inconvenient wrench in the gears of those who wish to find fault with everything Bush and America.
Folic_Acid, you're trying to cite numbers and facts to back up what you say...there's no place for you here. Come back later with unrestrained emotion, a copy of "Teen Beat", and a bottle.
Mon Aug 04, 2003 12:39 pm
Here we go with "tax cuts for the wealthy" again.
Once again, I am dirt poor. Yet I managed to get a tax cut AND the rebates.
Or maybe...less than $20K IS wealthy. I'm not on food stamps or any kind of gov't assistance, so technically I am part of the problem for Democrats. I'm not on some hand-out program, so I MUST be wealthy.
Once again, I am dirt poor. Yet I managed to get a tax cut AND the rebates.
Or maybe...less than $20K IS wealthy. I'm not on food stamps or any kind of gov't assistance, so technically I am part of the problem for Democrats. I'm not on some hand-out program, so I MUST be wealthy.
Mon Aug 04, 2003 12:48 pm
Originally posted by Doug the Unforgiven
Shockwave, I'm not going to pile on the Canada insults. It sucks to have the country you love slandered, doesn't it? Maybe you can now understand why some of us here get defensive when you Canucks start piling on America.
The US hyped nothing with regard to Iraq; the US merely quoted UK intelligence, which the Brits STILL STAND BY. But that's an inconvenient wrench in the gears of those who wish to find fault with everything Bush and America.
not all 'canucks' slander the US. actually, about HALF our population was in support of the Iraq war, if I remember correctly.
I'm not going to continue to slander the US because there are many people here who are American who I respect. I do have opinions about Bush, and the US, but that will have to wait for another time. I'm old enough to know when I should stop and now I'm stopping. I suggest you all do the same.
Make your points against Bush, or against Chretien, or who ever you are talking about, but hold off on the country slamming. It just makes people mad and doesn't change anything.
Mon Aug 04, 2003 12:54 pm
Originally posted by Doug the Unforgiven
Folic_Acid, you're trying to cite numbers and facts to back up what you say...there's no place for you here. Come back later with unrestrained emotion, a copy of "Teen Beat", and a bottle.
Heh - Doug, I'm all too familiar with the ways that these debates work. This is more for the benefit of those that read, but have better sense than to post meaningless soundbites or other non-sensical drivel. And, I still have a faint hope that some day, logic and reason will prevail over blind emotion and prejudice. But, I appreciate your fighting the good fight with me.
Originally posted by JimmyTango
[B]They are seperate. The first is a reply to show that there is a second side to the coin that was already flipped. It is not all Republican or all Democrat. The second I how it really is, the president is not in total control, he is not an Emporer or King. This country has checks and balances. Each branch has the same power when all is said and done.B]
I'm not even going to try to point out the logical fallacies here, but I haven't really got a clue what you're saying. I am VERY familiar with the inner workings of Washington and the various powers of the three branches of the US government.
No economic boom? Semantics. What shall we call it, then? Economic growth? Positive economic non-stagnation? Economic upward movement? We both agree that the economy fared well during the Reagan years. As for tax cuts, just wait until you pay taxes - you'll appreciate every cut you get. And under the tax cuts signed into law in June 2001, everyone who paid income taxes got a cut, regardless of income. I, for one, am happy to get as much of my hard-earned money back as I can. Having first-hand experience with the appropriations process in Washington, I'm very well aware with the kinds of projects tax money pays for.
Mon Aug 04, 2003 12:54 pm
Just for clarification (and because I'm a nice guy), when I say "Canucks" I mean it in the endearing way, not as name-calling.
Mon Aug 04, 2003 12:55 pm
Originally posted by Doug the Unforgiven
Here we go with "tax cuts for the wealthy" again.
Once again, I am dirt poor. Yet I managed to get a tax cut AND the rebates.
Or maybe...less than $20K IS wealthy. I'm not on food stamps or any kind of gov't assistance, so technically I am part of the problem for Democrats. I'm not on some hand-out program, so I MUST be wealthy.
Please quote where I said no 'poor' people get tax cuts.
Mon Aug 04, 2003 1:03 pm
Originally posted by shockwave203
Make your points against Bush, or against Chretien, or who ever you are talking about, but hold off on the country slamming. It just makes people mad and doesn't change anything.
Shock, I don't know if it makes any difference to you, but I actually rather like Canada. In fact, I am eligible for dual citizenship in both Canada and the US (though I have not yet taken that opportunity), and have greatly enjoyed my many visits to Ottawa to visit my family there.
My differences with Canada are purely political - I have no love of Chretien or the Liberals. In fact, I really wish Preston Manning would get back in the game - I believe he could have had a much better go of it than Stockwell Day. But, such things are history.
Mon Aug 04, 2003 1:12 pm
Originally posted by JimmyTango
And lastly, there was no economic boom in the 80's. It is a myth. The stock market did well, large companies, investments, etc. Basicly, the tax cuts to the rich made the rich richer. This is the ame mistake being made now, pointing tot he stock market and saying the economy is better.
Trickle down economics, which Bush is re implemting, does not work. It does not trickle down, it stays up.
To be fair, you didn't say tax cuts "only to the wealthy" (seems very implied). But it's such an oft-repeated mantra that I practically have my response bound to a key.
I will stand partially corrected. Unlike some here (mostly Bush/US-haters), I know how to admit I'm wrong when the facts are staring right at me.
Mon Aug 04, 2003 1:29 pm
If it helps the conversation any, I just got out of the shower and am now sitting here in my underwear.
Mon Aug 04, 2003 1:37 pm
**Who's the sexy gut? Yeah...that's right, you're the sexy gut.**
Mon Aug 04, 2003 2:32 pm
Where the lower end of the income scale got tax cuts, and are currently(I was speaking of the 80's, and it sounded as if you are speaking of present times), the higher got far more tax cuts, cutting the vast majority of revenue for the country and in the end makign the rich richer.
This was because of the FLAWED trickle down economics. On paper, it sounds great, in reality, greed prevents it from actually happening.
This was because of the FLAWED trickle down economics. On paper, it sounds great, in reality, greed prevents it from actually happening.
Mon Aug 04, 2003 3:10 pm
You said the same thing was happening now as in the 80's, that's why my comments were aimed at the present.
BTW, ALL human enterprises are "flawed". And no nation has EVER taxed itself into prosperity.
I had hoped to bust this thread with comments about my underwear. Don't you guys make me get naked again.
BTW, ALL human enterprises are "flawed". And no nation has EVER taxed itself into prosperity.
I had hoped to bust this thread with comments about my underwear. Don't you guys make me get naked again.