You know, I don't think Samson's ever gotten his own blog post, and since he's the one providing me with the space to HAVE a blog, that's probably a little ungood of me, isn't it? So we'll just be doing that for a second, after these messages:
Whir and I have been playing a Battlefield 1942 mod called Battlegroup 42, and it is leet. Astonishingly leet. What BF1942 should've been in the first place leet. Maybe a couple too many antitank rifles running around, but oh well.
Anyway. Politics. We'll start by quoting two comments made to the Four More Years post:
Jesus. It scares me to no end to see how completely ignorant to reality the democrats have become. Really folks, Michael Moore is in fact a big fat ( literally ) liar. You should stop listening to him.
Stop letting the media and its liberal bias dictate how you think, because contrary to what they've been telling you, the job numbers have grown like mad under Bush. Despite Clinton's recession and the impact of 911. Yes, it was Clinton's recession. 6-8 months prior to him leaving office, the stock market spiraled down. It is well known the market is a reliable indicator of the economy in 6-9 months, and lo... what happened... a recession. Before Bush's economic plans were ever put into place. Before he had a chance to enact them, 911 hit and nearly destroyed the airline industry which also heavily impacted plenty of other sectors.
Only through aggressive tax cuts were we able to stop this recession and get the economy back on track. To deny this is to deny how the economy works. Tax cuts for the rich? Maybe so. Who employs you? Surely not the poor. So by pumping money back into the economy, employers were able to hire new people again. Then the second tax cut enabled many of those employees to become permanent. The 3rd tax cut then allowed several of them to invest in long term commitments ( btw, this describes not just myself, but nearly everyone where I work in the last 2 year ).
All this crap about how Bush is going to privatize social security, suppress votes, institute the draft, and otherwise destroy the economy is crap. And the people have seen it as crap, despite the media's best efforts to prove otherwise.
Want to talk about right? Freedoms? Why should I accept the democrat plan to raise my taxes, and use that money for things I don't support? Why should I not be allowed to divert my SSI taxes to an account of my own choosing? Why should I be made to pay to provide benefits to lawbreakers? Illegal aliens in case it wasn't obvious.
All this crap about how the country is supposedly more democrat than republican is also crap - check this out: http://www.iguanadons.net/gallery/Bush-Country-2004-4.html it's a copy of the map at www.hannity.com on his front page. I'd say this more or less proves we are the majority here.
The people saw through Kerry and his terrible Senate record. His dodging of questions during the debate. His flipflopping on every last issue he ever took a stand on. The media's lack of challenge to anything he said. The voters of this country sent a clear message that Bush was their choice to lead us for the next four years, and I assure you they chose wisely.
BTW - the democrats are the party of hate. Just look at how quickly Moore turned from spreading lies about 911 to calling for the impeachment of a president who has done nothing criminal.
Responses will be in some sort of random order, but I'll start by linking to this Tonto thread, which is a pre-election debate thread. I think I lay out my reasons for disagreement with the President fairly clearly, especially in the latter part of this post (the bit below the dashed line). I'll likely be coming back here from time to time.
We'll start with the whole Republican Majority thing, because I've seen that particular county map before, and it amuses the hell out of me. Here is the map Samson posted, which is a county by county map of the US, showing which ones went for Bush, and which for Kerry. Yeah, that's a lot of red. But it's misleading, given the amount of that red being counties in the middle of nowhere where people are thin on the ground, and given the amount of blue being in dense urban areas. So here are a couple of maps putting things in a bit more perspective. Doing a state by state browse of CNN's map is even more fun. Too, let's quote some numbers from there: 59,459,765 people voted for Bush, or 51% of voters. 55,949,407 or 48% went for Kerry. Other people went for random other people, but in the grand tradition of Two Party snobbery, I will choose to pretend they and their 1% don't exist.
So it's not so clear as you might think.
Now, about, oh, Michael Moore. Don't hear a lot of good about the guy. Wouldn't know firsthand, having zoned out halfway through Bowling for Columbine. As to liberal media, well, it's funny. Conservatives scream of the whole media except Fox News being liberally biased, and liberals scream of Fox being a Republican propaganda machine and the rest of the media being dangerously incompetent. Me, I lean towards the incompetent side of things, which is why I do my best to read several different sources for any story I care about, and try to rely less on commentary than my own training and common sense.
So, no. I got to where I am without Moore's help.
That having been said, there are elements on both sides of the liberal/conservative divide who engage in some fairly unsavory tactics. Moore's one from the liberal side. I know there are others, but since I don't listen to them, I don't remember offhand who they are. On the conservative side, well, the whole Swift Boat thing is a pretty (un)shining example of outright fabrication and lies.
Where it gets better is, I also know that the President lied to me, too. Not seeing any WMDs in Iraq, despite what they said. Not convinced of ties between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden. Both of which this administration tried very hard to convince me were true, and both of which have pretty demonstrably have proven to not be true. This is, I think, a fairly serious sort of thing. It is one thing to, say, lie about your extracurricular fun with an intern, and quite another to lie about a war in which a lot of people are going to die. And the instant you do that sort of thing, you deserve a lot, starting with my loss of support, and continuing to things like criminal prosecution and/or impeachment.
As to Kerry's flipflop record, well, without exhaustively researching every vote he took in the Senate, which is what I'd need to do to be definitive about it, I can only say that he was pretty decisive all the times I heard him, which isn't to say he doesn't have a nuanced view of the situation. And, you know, given my choices, I'd rather have the guy who switches positions than the guy who flat out lied to me.
Let's see. Economy. I'm not an economist, and have never pretended to be. And, you know, I can even almost buy the reduction of taxes = jobs thing. Almost. But, and this is a serious but, we're also in a war, struggling to fund both it and a whole host of other programs this president instituted. There's all that news about the debt ceiling, plus the falling dollar. Color me seriously skeptical, and call me strange, but it seems to me that, you know, balancing the budget is a good idea. Which hasn't happened since Clinton's time, as I recall.
*shrug* That'll do it for the moment. Most of what I had to say is in that Tonto thread, so read it.
Posted by Dwip at November 7, 2004 3:28 PMThere will be no economy in four years.
Outsourcing is completely destroying what little we have left. The fact that I'm even trying to be in an IT field is flat-out ridiculous.
I don't know who to blame for it, but I just thought I'd say so.
Posted by: Whir at November 7, 2004 3:50 PMMap or no map. Twisted representation of said map or not, we owned you guys. 52-48 is fairly convincing enough to me. You guys were the ones who whined and cried when Gore won the popular vote but due to electoral math, Bush got the victory. Now we have BOTH and you guys are still trying to claim we cheated. Go figure why I'm none to pleased with the reactions coming from the left. Up to and including those from Moore and the media elite.
Calling the liberal media elite incompetant is only the beginning, and that puts things mildly. When you consider the LA and NY Times, along with the major airwave networks, it's nearly impossible to find impartial reporting. You have to either find a local TV station, local paper, or listen to AM talk radio to find anything that balances them out. The media coudln't understand what they were seeing on 11/2 because the exit polls they rigged didn't jive with what the people were actually voting. Otherwise if you go by them Kerry would have had a landslide victory. Oh wait, that didn't happen, and the *ONLY* network who stepped up to say so was Fox News. And lo, what happened when they did? The other networks had to abandon their use of those same exit polls. Gee, amazing, that.
BTW, if you want a couple more names from the liberal side who did some "unsavory things" there's Al "he betrayed this country!" Gore, Howard "he knew about 911 ahead of time" Dean, Dennis "he concocted a war for political gain" Kusinich, Al "he's suppressing the black vote" Sharpton, Ted "he *hic* lied to the American people" Kennedy, and Al Franken, who I can't think up something witty to insert right now. Though I'm sure he had lots of nasty things to say.
The Swifties lied? All 300+ or so of them? Or however many it ended up being? Somehow I don't think that that many vets who served with and around Kerry can all be liars. Yet, all we have is Kerry's word and the word of the man he saved as counter-proof of these things? Kerry's own diary contradicts the events they dealt with.
What have you got to counter with? The tired old claim that Bush went AWOL. This of course was tried in 2000 and didn't go anywhere. No evidence to support the charge, so it got buried. But, amazingly enough, 2004 comes along and miraculously damning evidence shows up. Linked back to the Kerry campaign itself, and CBS jumps on the story. Of course, we all know the documents turned out to be forgeries thanks to the blogosphere and Fox News, but hey. Don't let the truth get in the way of manufact... er... reporting the news.
The president lied?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/
Well if he did, then that's a shame. Really. Oh... wait... sorry, wrong president. You have no evidence to prove Bush lied. IF he did, then so did the UN, France, Germany, Britain, Poland, Russia, China, The Arab League, and several other nations who all provided the intelligence data supporting that Saddam had WMD's. I have a site on my computer at work with a link to some pretty interesting quotes, all from democrats, who backed up this position back in 2003. Sure, *NOW* we know he didn't have them, but Jesus, why fake the world into thinking you do if you really don't when you know the reaction will be to come kick you out of power and possibly even kill you. Like we did to Saddam's sons. Calling for the impeachment of Bush? Then why not just impeach everyone on Capitol Hill while you're at it. They all must have lied too when they *ALL* voted to authorize the war. Or more technically correct, to *RESUME* the war of 1991.
As for Kerry's record on Iraq: "I actually did vote for the 87 billion, before I voted against it." pretty much says it all I think. Never, ever, EVER, let someone get a bonehead statement like that on tape. NEVER.
As far as the economy. Dwip. You know pretty well what kind of situation I was in back in 1999-2000 with where I worked. You know Clinton closed down dozens of military installations, including Navy bases. You know I worked for the Navy Exchange system. So don't tell me that Bush caused the recession and subsequent loss of jobs. Most of that was caused by slashing defense spending and casting millions of people out of jobs. Myself included in August of 2001. Oddly enough.... BEFORE Bush had his budget policy in place. So I fail to see how anyone with an ounce of sense can pin the recession on Bush when the data clearly shows otherwise. The stock market tanked 6-7 months before Clinton left office. The market is usually a decent indicator of future events. And it called this one pretty much dead on. Now, factor that in with 911 and I'd say it's a miracle that Bush has generated the recovery he has, with job numbers to prove it if you'll just go look. 300,000+ just in October 2004 alone. If that's not a recovery I don't know what is.
What caused it? Yes. Tax cuts. Big ones. Cuts so wide ranging everyone who would pay taxes got something back. Hurts the poor you say? I don't see how. I've been poor before. I know how it works. Poor people don't normally pay income taxes at all. They don't make enough to wipe out the standard deductions or the EIC credit. Tax cuts for the rich you say? Well, ok. Even if this were true... how many poor people do you know of who have employees?
I think we can end this on that note for now. As for the Tonto thread, I failed to see anything in your response to the first post which indicated you had a solid rebuttal based on facts.
Posted by: Samson at November 7, 2004 6:11 PMBTW, maybe I should get myself one of these blog things so I can rant and rave without being just a comment on someone elses :P
Posted by: Samson at November 7, 2004 6:15 PMI seriously need to get out of politics considering that my views are worth nothing as I'm still underage (and that I need to be preparing for a couple of math competitions due in a few months). However, I will say that even John McCain calls those "swift Boat Veterans" liars. Now, McCain may not necessarily be perfect, but if a Republican , even a maverick one, denounces a right-wing group, I would be more certain of the inauthencity of the right-wing group. Even if McCain and Kerry were friends. Besides, McCain is still slighly more conservative than liberal.
'Tis interesting to see the growing partisanship between Democrats and GOP. We're all railing at each other incessantly; blasting each other for every single little move.
By the way, for a list of newspaper endorsements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_U.S._presidential_election%2C_2004 You'll get a good idea of which newspapers are liberal and which are more conservative. The omitted ones will probably be the more impartial ones although of course, I g2g
And you only need to see http://simfish89.tripod.com/simfishblog/ to see how partisan I've become. ;) Though like I said earlier, my views don't mean shit.
Posted by: Simfish at November 7, 2004 6:43 PMI thought you lived in like, Europe or something? Or is that _toast?
Either way, even if they don't count now, they will count in the future and it's never a bad thing to start early.
Look at me, I'm 26 and I haven't got clue one about what's going on in the world, let alone my own country.
A lot of people in this country don't like people like me. But it's my right to be ingorant and misguided. I just don't recommend it.
Posted by: Whir at November 7, 2004 7:45 PMOne thing I'd like to add to all this. People have made an issue of Kerry's Vietnam service as evidence that he has the qualities to lead. But they've forgotten that Bill Clinton dodged the draft, and somehow this didn't matter to the democrats in 1992 or 1996. George HW Bush served his country with honor, and so did Bob Dole. Both men were nearly killed. Yet, somehow, in 2004, it became important that our president must have served in overseas combat? Doesn't that seem a little hypocritical to anyone? Remember this the next time the democrats dredge up "But he didn't serve" as an excuse. It's all a smokescreen. Besides, GW *DID* serve and has the records to prove it. Doesn't really matter if it was only the Air National Guard.
Posted by: Samson at November 8, 2004 4:33 AMSomething I'd like to add, about the whole map thing. Just because people choose to live in the urban, shitty parts of town does not mean that they have the divine right to govern over all other people. As a matter of fact, it is these people who are the ones being unemployed, collecting welfare, and being generally supported by the other taxpayers. It is a totally bogus idea that is it my responsibility to pay to support anyone other than myself or my family. On that same note, i think Social Security was a horrible idea from the start because if you had half a brain when you were earing money you'd put some away for when you got older, if you didn't, it's your own damn fault. Basically, i'm getting tired of people being mooches from the government, expecting handouts all the god damn time and bitching if we tell them to get a job.
Posted by: Clyos at November 8, 2004 11:00 AMWhat I fail to understand is how the people out in Bumfuck Nowhere could vote for a republican in the first place. Most likely, they don't have a prestigious job, and don't make $200k+ a year with which to enjoy the nice cuts. You'd think it would be these people who would vote Dem, if only to take advantage of all the public crap they support.
I guess it's just the common "Let's blow the shit out of anything or anyone who's different or threatens our mamas... where's ma' spitoon? Awww shoot, I'll just spit into ma' hat," mentality that draws their votes.
But hell if I know anything. It's probably something painfully obvious that I'm missing, anyway.
Posted by: Rachael at November 8, 2004 12:48 PMyeah, like how we know how to control our womenfolk and make them vote the way we do, the right way.
Posted by: Clyos at November 8, 2004 12:50 PMAt least Samson doesn't come off as ignorant, Cole. You've got a ways to go.
Posted by: Whir at November 8, 2004 2:25 PMThe fact of the matter is this, i don't much care for making a structured argument on a blog i read for entertainment, i bother to piss people off and get entertainment from that. On that same note, i also act ignorant all the time to try and keep your liberal butts away from where i live, it's not working very well, but eventually i'll get rid of all the dems.
Posted by: Clyos at November 8, 2004 4:54 PMI see Rachael hsn't quite grasped the obvious yet. That we as republicans are sick to death of seeing all these urbanites leeching off the system as though it were some kind of God given right for them to do so. The government has no authority to dole out welfare to people, period. Thus far, we have accepted this behaviour anyway for those who are truly in need of it. I myself have no real problem with that.
What I have a problem with is the overwhelming number of people, especially in California, who have decided to make their living at my expense and have *NO* desire to find a job and support the economy. These people soon turn into baby factories as they realize this is the only way they will continue to draw upon AFDC benefits after the reforms Clinton ( oh, the irony in this ) passed. With this of course then comes the problems of teenage pregnancy as young women begin to grasp that they can make a living this way without having to go to college and get an education. This in turn leads to the decay of the education system as these people realize that the education they are there to get means nothing to the welfare system - which actively supports paying those WHO DONT HAVE ONE!
I won't even go into the whole giving benefits to illegal aliens problem, since that's one of the things that is pissing me off about Bush. He won't do anything to stop it. Then again, Kerry's solution would have made it worse, so where does that leave me?
So you want painfully obvious? There it is. We're tired of supporting a bunch of lazy people who have nothing better to do than make more babies to swell their ranks to then try and dictate this policy to the rest of us in America.
It's about time someone stood up for simple personal responsibility. From where I sit, democrats are incapable of this.
Posted by: Samson at November 8, 2004 7:48 PMZealots. :)
Posted by: Whir at November 8, 2004 7:51 PMMy apologies to Dwip for having to use his comments for this. :P
Alright look, before you aim your little phasers at my head, I did say 'public CRAP'. For Christ's sake, Samson, I live in Memphis; Ghetto Capitol, USA. Every day I see these same 'baby factories' buying beer and Fritos with their EBT cards, while they wear designer clothes and drive brand new Cadillac SUV's with rims alone that cost a few grand a pop. Did I once say that I SUPPORTED the mass abuse of the public welfare system? No. My own mother got denied welfare when I was a baby and my dad was out of work simply because I was 'too healthy'. And as she was leaving, she witnessed a family who didn't even speak English get approved for it. So don't you dare blast away at me like I'm some fucking imbecile because you didn't bother to read my post.
Secondly, I voted for Kerry for a number of reasons. But do I agree with him on every single issue? Does everyone? Does ANYONE? When you're faced with choosing between only two candidates, you can't really afford to be picky; you either pick the one that more closely fits your ideals, or you throw your vote away on someone like Nader. In my opinion, Dubya's actions sealed my vote even before a candidate was chosen. For instance, I have family who served in the military during his term, and got fucked in several ways as a result. Kerry, to me, was a means to an end of a long line of bullshit.
Now, whether you agree with my opinions or not, I don't really give a shit. But you're acting as if everything's black and white, with your 'your' and 'our' statements, and your belligerence. And it's just not that way.
And frankly, what's done is done, and as far as I'm concerned, this whole topic is a dead horse. That's why I only touched on it briefly on my blog, and haven't mentioned it since.
No more fuel from me. :)
Posted by: Rachael at November 8, 2004 10:12 PMHah, just remember, you did start this by asking how any of us could vote Republican. Now obviously from what I see here you've bought into the whole "Bush lied" thing because of what a few disgruntled servicepeople told you. I have however been told far different by those my father is still in contact with and their families - many of whom now have sons and daughters serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of them wonder how anyone could vote for a democrat. Especially one such as Kerry who is an admitted war criminal. Combine that with his stance on social issues and you can see where responsibility minded republican voters boggle at the fact that 48% of the people voted for Kerry at all.
Now, if you want to put a stop to 2 party politics, there is a way. It's called action. Take action, get candidates you want on the ballot. Vote for them. The longer we accept the 2 party system, the longer this will continue happening. Enough people shift to voting the way they truly feel and you'll soon see the traditional system come apart. That is of course assuming the liberal media will allow it to happen in America.
Posted by: Samson at November 9, 2004 5:23 AMStepping gingerly into this debate here...
Samson, can you explain to me exactly how the tax cuts help? You seem to argue that though people/businesses may be rich, they can't afford to create new jobs unless they get a tax cut. How does that work?
Posted by: Regina at November 9, 2004 5:48 AMI'll tell you what tax cuts helped. They ran up a defecit twice as big as King Ron's (at 36 I remember the BS he pulled firsthand to the American people, at least he broke the Russians) and are getting the rest of the world afraid of what we will do to get rid of it.
OPEC is considering switching to the Euro for determining the price per barrel of oil because the dollar is in too much flux to set the price with.
Bush has also cut taxes on people making over 200K. That affect anyone you even know? Doubt it, since it's less than 2% of the population. You want to keep banging on that Left wing eletist drum?
So he cuts taxes, and raises spending, all on the Military. Who makes money off the Military? How many of your 401k's actually invest in military tech stock?
SS was invented after the Great Depression. If you had relatives old enough to tell you of just how scary and long that time was you would know why it was implemented. It was made as a safety net, it's not my fault if the program suffers because Reps insist they get every dime out of it they put in plus more, regardless of if they already have retirement income from other sources. IT IS NOT AN INVESTMENT PLAN, it is a failsafe that has been taken advantage of.
Go ahead and save the money on your own, THE BANKS FAILED. Do you understand what that means?
If you voted Republican, you don't. You probably have a big grand idea in mind, and no clue how to get it accomplished in the real world, just like your leadership.
I'm not going to say the Dems wouldn't cost you money, but they wouldn't run the country out of it either. I'm not going to say I agree with the dems on domestic or foreign policy, but I will say that the Reps have it all wrong.
Okay, I'm done. Thanks Dwip!
Posted by: Tim at November 9, 2004 11:59 AMOK, I've been trolled into talking. I may regret that.
First of all, I have serious concerns about the concept of the "welfare queens" living large on the back of the honest working person. As a Head Start teacher, I work with low income families (many of whom *gasp* don't speak English, but who *are* legal residents, thank you very much). While I know that there are people who abuse the welfare system, I think the number of people who do so are exaggerated in order to villify the entire system. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Also, it's not like families are getting rich off of welfare. I know that in this particular town the cost of living is very high, but the poverty level is set at the federal level and doesn't account for regional variations in the cost of living.
If someone has an idea of a way to reform the welfare system so that it is less prone to abuse, I would probably be in support of the idea. But I won't accept the notion that the whole system should be scrapped because of a few bad apples.
The problem, as I see it, is how to end the multi-generational cycle of poverty. A family's socioeconomic status is the single most important predictor for a child's success in school. This is a problem, because children who aren't succeeding in school aren't likely to break the cycle of poverty. You can tell the parents what they should or shouldn't be doing to be responsible all day long, but unless there is help for the children, who did not choose their situation, then the cycle will continue. It's also pretty basic knowledge that children aren't able to concentrate on school success if their basic needs (food, safety, clothing) aren't met.
Asking people to be responsible only goes so far. You can point fingers at them and tell them to please, please stop making babies that they can't care for, but once that child is born, none of the "should haves" in the world can make it go away. So, we need to look at how to address that rather than stop at being upset that it's happened.
But, once again, I'm not saying that the current system isn't broken. It's just that it seems to be better than the alternative.
Now, on to politics (eek!). I'm not saying that 52-48 percent means that Bush cheated, but he's been going around as if he won a landslide victory with his discussion of "political capitol". He was the winner, but I just don't see where he gets that "mandate".
As far as Kerry's senate record, I'd be shocked if a case for "flip flopper" couldn't be made against any Senator who had served a complete term. The Senate is all about negotiations; fiddling with bills by adding riders, then taking them away, in an effort to gain support for your bill. Small changes to a bill, or even to an unrelated amendment, can cause a senator to vote for a bill one time, then against it on another occasion. That's not flip flopping, that's negotiation, and that's how things are done in the senate.
As far as the economy goes, what I've seen here is a very different situation than you describe, Samson. When I was working on getting my teaching license, I kept hearing about the "critical teacher shortage". Teaching seemed like a relatively stable field. But, the local economy has been hit hard, and at the moment there's not much of anything available. I'm lucky enough to be working part time in a job that's at least related to my licensure, even though I'm hard working and (I believe) quite competent in my field.
The problem with the local education system didn't start with Bush. But, it started with some of the "tax activist" types who are very much in Bush's camp when it comes to tax code reforms. Their hostility towards everyone employed with public money has been slowly starving our public education system, and trying to blame teachers for what has happened.
As far as the tax cuts go, I'm pretty sure that even Greenspan has said that he doesn't see how it's possible that the tax cuts could help the economy. They were much more of a publicity stunt than economic policy in any direction. I don't have a link for you, but I may be able to dig one up if you require one.
Oh, and the Swift Boat vets. Heh. I know for a fact that they did not put a substantial effort into detemining that the people in their ads *ever* served with Kerry. One of the vets is from around here, and it turns out that he never served with Kerry. So, no, I'm not going to put much faith in a group that can't even check its own facts.
I'm pretty sure that the President's foreign policy advisons wanted to go to war even if there were no WMD's in Iraq, perhaps even especially if there were no WMD's in Iraq. Here's what Richard Perle, Defense Policy Board member, had to say about that:
**************************************
Richard Perle from Fresh Air- January 8, 2004
Intelligence is an uncertain business, always. In the specific case of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, we knew that he had them, because he'd actually used them. We knew that he had a substantial program for creating them, parts of which had been found and destroyed, other parts of which we couldn't be sure about. We had the United Nations' accounts of quantities of weapons that had been produced but the destruction of which had never been accounted for. And I suppose it will remain one of the great mysteries of modern history why Saddam Hussein, if he was in a position to document the destruction of those weapons, chose not to do so.
As for the future; will people trust us? You know, at the end of the day, we know that Saddam was concealing things and he had programs, and a desire to resume the production of these weapons, that's even reported in the Washington Post in the story you're referring to. So, the result of hoping for the best and doing nothing would almost certainly have been the eventual reestablishment of his weapons of mass destruction. The question was one of timing.
Terry Gross: But, in the question of timing, you're talking about the eventual reestablishment of the programs. That coud have been a year, two years, ten years, twenty years, but the United States didn't have the patience for the UN Weapons Inspections process to continue, which could have taken perhaps just a few more months.
Richard Perle: Well, but there was no end in sight. If you take the view that there was nothing to be found, then the UN certainly wasn't going to find anything.
Terry Gross: But then they could have said that there really are no weapons, and that perhaps we've-
RP: Right, they would have said that we have not found weapons, and the sanctions would have been lifted, and do you think that Saddam would have refrained from trying to reconstitute that capability after that? I don't think so.
****************************
It sounds like the real imminent threat from Iraq was that the sanctions might have been lifted, not that they currently had WMD's there.
This is too long for a comment box post, I know. But, I couldn't jet let it slide.
-Griselda
Posted by: Griselda at November 9, 2004 10:09 PMWhat all you are failing to understand is that the Federal Government should have none of these programs, whatsoever. It is the Federal Government's job to protect us from threats foreign and domestic, provide a stable currency, and do trade/treaties with foreign countries. This is what they should be restricted to, and in my own not so humble opinion, they shouldn't have all of these programs and handouts for people. The government should be kept to a minimum on all levels so that we may spend money and time as it will be most useful to each of us, thereby strengthening every person/family. This includes welfare, social security, medicare, and many other such programs. Now i'm not saying that the States can't do these things, i'm just saying that the federal government should not be involved.
Posted by: Clyos at November 10, 2004 12:14 AMHow does it feel to be delusional, Cole?
If you had ever lived under the poverty level WITH BOTH PARENTS WORKING, you'd probably understand it a little better.
Posted by: Whir at November 10, 2004 1:06 AMYes, because the poverty level in the United States is so low. Here is what "poor" people own:
from: http://www.fact-index.com/p/po/poverty_line_in_the_united_states.html
Many of the lowest 10 percent of U.S. households - all officially "poor" - have possessions which were considered luxuries 50 years ago: [1]
* 91% own color TVs
* 74% own microwave ovens
* 55% own VCRs
* 47% own clothes dryers
* 42% own stereos
* 23% own dishwashers
* 19% own computers
So you are telling me that i need to pay these people so that they might have these things that you don't actually NEED? I beg to differ. By the statistics given here, our "poor" outclass most of the world for income and luxuries, so these people really should stop their bitching and realize that they don't have it that bad. But still, it doesn't fall under the jursdiction of the Federal Government. It is supposed to fall to the states. (Which I would aruge about, but it would vary from state to state)
Posted by: Clyos at November 10, 2004 1:25 AMYou're young. And that's really sad that I'm saying that because I'm not much older. You want to know what I had on that list until high school? A color TV and a stereo.
Real people that need help don't bitch. Your stereotype is so far beyond idiotic I'm having a hard time keeping my cool.
All I see here is our token republicans being complete assholes to everyone that isn't them. If that's the kind of country you want, you can have it.
I remember a movement like that from that past. I think it was run by a guy named Hitler.
Posted by: Whir at November 10, 2004 2:20 AMAlso, I apologize for calling you an asshole. I take the "you don't know what it's like to be poor" stuff pretty seriously. I seriously doubt any of you grew up in a home like mine, and if you did, then you'd understand that welfare/ADC/foodstamps or whathaveyou can keep a real family in need from doing some irrational things to make ends meet.
I _don't_ support baby-factory welfare mothers. I don't support _illegal_ immigrants getting assistance. However, I don't think you realize the scope of situation this country would be in if it weren't for social projects. You can say that it would make people more responsible, and that's a grand idea, but it wouldn't happen. We'd simply have a bigger homeless problem and higher crime rates.
This country can't be all about "me me me," or it's not going to get any better.
As for the states handling public assistance, I don't know. Maybe it should be the state's responsibility. I, personally, don't think they could do it.
Posted by: Whir at November 10, 2004 5:34 AMHonestly, and not trying to escalate the situation, but a country without adequate social programs AND democracy is India. While I understand the Rep ideal of having the fed govt in control of only the basics (I believe the most right leaning think the Post Office is an abomination) the US is the power it is because of social programs helping to level the playing field.
Personally, I think the problem lies more with population than anything else. Socialism works, in small countries with low growth rates (Scadanavia). Even Communism works in small enough populations (Pre-expansion American Indian tribes, kinda). Democracy (Republic) works in ALL situations, but as population levels rise, so does the discrepancy between the haves and the have nots.
On top of that, the US is the World leader. We need to stop acting so... American. We act like spoiled children that have everything and show off because of it. The current administration doesn't show much fiscal or cultural restraint. We aren't fighting the Nazis, we aren't fighting the Soviets, hell the country we at war with we are at peace with! It's a new world, and we can't pretend it's the 20th century anymore. To keep America moving forward we have to keep our own class war under control to have any unity whatsoever on the current undefined conflict.
I don't want to see the rich hanging from lamp posts any more than I want the poor left to twist in the wind. By leaning as right as we are, we are creating problems we don't need internally.
Posted by: Tim at November 10, 2004 8:36 AMI totally agree with Griselda's point about 'ending the multi-generational cycle of poverty'... but as drastic as it sounds, I believe that mandatory injection-type birth control (or hell, sterilization, for that matter) should be a requirement if you want to receive--or continue to receive--welfare. This whole idea of 'more money for more babies' is so fundamentally fucked, it's beyond any and all joking. They want babies, they'll damn well learn to support them.
And as for the ones who are truly in need of public support, and aren't out to milk as much cash from the working man as possible, let 'em have it... that's what the system was designed for.
But, of course, my dream will never see the light of day, because as a society, we're far too sensitive. God, how I'd love a competent leader with some balls.
Posted by: Rachael at November 10, 2004 10:28 AMTo whichever one of you it was who asked how tax cuts help the economy:
RE: Employers - It enables them to hire on more people, who in turn are now earning a paycheck when they probably weren't before.
RE: Workers - Cutting taxes puts more money into the pockets of employees. Not just the ficticious argument of "tax cuts for the rich" or for the top 2%.
Unless of course I qualify as top 2% at $30,000 per year, because I got those cuts. In the form of two rebate checks from Uncle Sam, and in the form of less federal witholding for the other two. This had a very direct affect on my getting the job I now hold, in addition to making me permanent at said job, and then being able to finance a new car for myself.
Sicne the cuts went into effect, I've seen interest rates for home loans drop to an all-time low. I've seen neighbors who are poor to middle class go out and replace not one, but both cars if they have two - with brand new ones. There are also no more vacant homes in this general area. And when one does go on the market, it lasts all of a few days. Come to where I work, and you'll note that 95% of the cars in the lot are less than 2 years old. Many of them still have the dealer plate on them. I've seen my company grow to almost twice its size as far as people, with even more coming in the next year.
This kind of observable reality was not taking place toward the latter half of Clinton's second term. In fact, most people I know in this area were losing jobs, getting homes forclosed on, and filing for bankruptcy. So when people tell me it was so much better under Clinton, I can only make faces the way Bush did in the first debate. For I was a casualty of the Clinton defense cuts. Less naval bases meant less places to send stuff to the base exchange stores, which meant I was no longer relevent to the company I got laid off from in August of 2001 - while still under Clinton's fiscal plan.
So yeah. It seems pretty plainly obvious to me why tax cuts help, even in time of war.
Posted by: Samson at November 10, 2004 7:58 PMWell, the economy here is in deep recession, has been so for the past four years, and doesn't seem to be recovering the way that other areas of the country are. Oregon's state income tax is tied to the federal taxes, so the federal tax cuts also became state tax cuts for many people. By your logic, that should have meant double the recovery for Oregonians. It didn't happen.
Oregon, unlike the USA, has to balance its budget every year. It can't have tax cuts and maintain services by running a deficit.
Besides, the interest rates weren't low because the economy was doing well, they were low in order to stimulate a sluggish economy. That has kept the housing market increasing, even out here, but that just means that people are needing to spend a larger percentage of their income on housing.
Posted by: Griselda at November 10, 2004 9:06 PMI think it's funny that while you're company was having a boom, the one I worked for ran out of income because our biggest client couldn't afford to pay us. I think you're mistaking a niche business boom for a working economy. It's nothing like that here. It's nothing like that in a lot of places. Probably more places than it is. Using yourself as an example, even your whole town, leaves a pretty big margin of error where it concerns the rest of the country.
BTW, remember when I got hired? It was the same thing as you're experiencing now. My company hired 1,200 people in less than a year. New cars in the parking lot and everything. It's the same situation as you explained. Only it happened under Clinton. So where does that leave the argument?
Posted by: Whir at November 10, 2004 10:06 PMLevi was a tech boom hire, then drop. Samson sounds as if he lives in an area with military jobs and industry. They WOULD see a boom with a war, and declines with peace.
But let me ask you this, did tax cuts put more money in your pocket, or did it put more debt on your head because you could afford more in a monthly payment?
There is nothing ficticious at all about the tax cuts for the top percentage of the population, they got the biggest cuts. They already had the highest income, and they got the biggest cuts.
Business is in the job of MAKING money, not hiring people to keep them happy and let them buy cars and houses. Being able to buy things is a byproduct of the money they make, that goes into the pockets of those on top. Saying that you benefit from business tax cuts directly is like a peasant in a fuedal system saying he is richer because the baron that lets him farm the land now owns more land.
If you enjoy indentured servitude that's fine by me. The fact that you've lost a job and blamed the Govt, and not your employers inability to cope with change is beyond me. Do you understand that YOU lost your job, and the owners that made the real money off of your work only had to declare Chapter 11 and walk away without personal loss? Do you really think those people need a bigger tax cut than you? Do you really think that those people have your best interests in mind?
These are the people you want running the country?
Posted by: Tim at November 10, 2004 10:57 PMThis might be a bit incoherent, but i've had a half rack of beers. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but this country was founded on the idea of capitalism, not communism, not socialism. Thus, people making as much money as they can should be the objective. So when somebody makes a lot of money while paying people minimum wage, i don't see the problem in it, as a matter of fact i applaud them for finding people to work for them. In any event, capitalism rewards you for going out and working hard, or getting people to work hard for you. That is the way our society was originally formed, now if you want socialism or communism where nobody gets any more or less than anyone else reguardless, then nobody will work, there is a reason that U.S.S.R. fell, and that socialist countries have little econoic power in any region of the world. anyways, that is my bit for tonight, bed time.
Posted by: Clyos at November 11, 2004 1:26 AM