[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Tax cuts do lead to increased revenue. Remember, I was arguing against one who unequivocally stated they do not. Which technically, is also inaccurate.

What are you talking about? Under what conditions do you believe tax cuts really do lead to increased revenues?

I'd be willing to imagine that under some extreme circumstances, such as moving from communism to capitalism, that you could see increased government revenues. I have my doubts about that, too - I bet with a 100% tax rate, the government still has more money than when it has, say, a 50% rate. But I'd be willing to entertain that it may be true.

But the reality of what we're talking about is the same one that the Republican candidates are talking about when they say that "tax cuts pay for themselves:" the current American economic situation. That's what we're discussing here. Not some contrived hypothetical situation.

If you were talking about nutrition, and someone said "eating broccoli will kill you," they'd be wrong. That is a false statement. Even though technically, there's probably some conditions where it could, like if you ingested 20 pounds via a stomach tube or if the broccoli had poison on it. But in the realistic context that everyone accepts that we'd be talking about, it would be a false statement. It's the same here.

[thunderous_funker]

Tax cuts can only lead to increased government revenue if the capital stays here. Right now America is a shaky investment so all the capital we are freeing up for investment is leaving the country.

And it amazes me that people are still calling for tax cuts to stimulate growth as if there wasn't enough capital floating around. Um, anyone miss the news about the off the charts profits and margins going on? Anyone else notice that the top tier has seen their wealth explode in the last 10 years?

There is no shortage of available capital. In fact, there's never been more of it. There is more wealth today than any time in history. The problem is that its all in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Well, actually the bigger problem is that some people still believe that the uber-wealthy still need even more wealth so that somehow it will start to spread around.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker 

Tax cuts can only lead to increased government revenue if the capital stays here. Right now America is a shaky investment so all the capital we are freeing up for investment is leaving the country.

And it amazes me that people are still calling for tax cuts to stimulate growth as if there wasn't enough capital floating around. Um, anyone miss the news about the off the charts profits and margins going on? Anyone else notice that the top tier has seen their wealth explode in the last 10 years?

There is no shortage of available capital. In fact, there's never been more of it. There is more wealth today than any time in history. The problem is that its all in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Well, actually the bigger problem is that some people still believe that the uber-wealthy still need even more wealth so that somehow it will start to spread around.

QFT.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker 

There is more wealth today than any time in history. The problem is that its all in the hands of fewer and fewer people.

Once again, the belief in zero-sum. More wealth than ever? IT is in the hands of fewer people? Wealth isn't an object or an "it", nor part of a zero-sum game. Anyone can create wealth, as opposed to just incur debt, which our consumer-treadmill "I'm entitled to everything" society encourages. That fewer people know how to create wealth, in a system where it's not all that difficult, is the fault of lazy zero-sum thinking that doesn't teach wealth creation in the first place.

Well, actually the bigger problem is that some people still believe that the uber-wealthy still need even more wealth so that somehow it will start to spread around.

I'd say the bigger problem is people thinking that income in the $300,000 a year range is "uber-wealthy".

[peeb]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker 

Tax cuts can only lead to increased government revenue if the capital stays here. Right now America is a shaky investment so all the capital we are freeing up for investment is leaving the country.

And it amazes me that people are still calling for tax cuts to stimulate growth as if there wasn't enough capital floating around. Um, anyone miss the news about the off the charts profits and margins going on? Anyone else notice that the top tier has seen their wealth explode in the last 10 years?

There is no shortage of available capital. In fact, there's never been more of it. There is more wealth today than any time in history. The problem is that its all in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Well, actually the bigger problem is that some people still believe that the uber-wealthy still need even more wealth so that somehow it will start to spread around.

Indeed. Actually, redistributing it helps the economy, since the poor spend more of their income than the rich do.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

That fewer people know how to create wealth, in a system where it's not all that difficult, is the fault of lazy zero-sum thinking that doesn't teach wealth creation in the first place.

And therein lies the problem; you actually believe that.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

And therein lies the problem; you actually believe that.

I've DONE that.

If you haven't, it's probably because you spend more time wringing your hands over what the CEO of Home Depot makes, than learning how to create and maintain wealth of your own. Like all too many people.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I've DONE that.

If you haven't, it's probably because you spend more time wringing your hands over what the CEO of Home Depot makes, than learning how to create and maintain wealth of your own. Like all too many people.

That's great that you've done it. That doesn't mean that your experiences and opportunities extrapolate out to everyone else.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

That's great that you've done it. That doesn't mean that your experiences and opportunities extrapolate out to everyone else.

That's a useless sentiment, because it's true of everyone, about most everything. I don't have your experiences, you don't have mine, we both don't have anyone else's. Great.

Now where does anyone get with that? Mire themselves down in hopelessness, despair, and too much focus on what other people have? Or does one go and find out what IS available to them, and how to use what they do have (most of us have TIME, which is the key ingredient for anyone wanting to secure wealth and a financial future) and then learn and figure out what others have done. We live in a country practically overflowing with readily available information.

Too many people want get rich quick schemes, or worse- the pretend "fast lane" by buying a lot of crap they can't really afford and that actually are the very things that will land them in the poor house. But those that simply don't care about bullcrap and just want as secure a financial future for themselves as possible, can certainly make that happen.

One guarantee though- anyone waiting around for some politician to do it for them... that will NEVER happen.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by peeb 

This is pretty obviously a pretty offensive and grossly inaccurate characterization of famine.

I was referring to the lazy bums sucking the tax dollars IN THIS COUNTRY.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Indeed. Actually, redistributing it helps the economy, since the poor spend more of their income than the rich do.

But 80 percent of $10K a year isn't 20 percent of $30 million.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I was referring to the lazy bums sucking the tax dollars IN THIS COUNTRY.

Ah, forgive me, you didn't say that. Worked pretty well in the Great Depression, didn't it?

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Tax cuts do lead to increased revenue. Remember, I was arguing against one who unequivocally stated they do not. Which technically, is also inaccurate.

Well I'm just glad that you are finally admitting that you were wrong.

Originally Posted by BadKosh

But 80 percent of $10K a year isn't 20 percent of $30 million.

Well, I could argue that your math is no good. No doubt ebuddy would step in to take up the cause for a few pages before finally admitting that 1+1 != 3, but I'll pass on this one.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

That's a useless sentiment, because it's true of everyone, about most everything. I don't have your experiences, you don't have mine, we both don't have anyone else's. Great.

Now where does anyone get with that? Mire themselves down in hopelessness, despair, and too much focus on what other people have? Or does one go and find out what IS available to them, and how to use what they do have (most of us have TIME, which is the key ingredient for anyone wanting to secure wealth and a financial future) and then learn and figure out what others have done. We live in a country practically overflowing with readily available information.

Too many people want get rich quick schemes, or worse- the pretend "fast lane" by buying a lot of crap they can't really afford and that actually are the very things that will land them in the poor house. But those that simply don't care about bullcrap and just want as secure a financial future for themselves as possible, can certainly make that happen.

One guarantee though- anyone waiting around for some politician to do it for them... that will NEVER happen.

QFT

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

QFT

We would all like to believe that's true, but humans act in response to how they see the world and their chances of succeeding in it, and to many the American Dream is an unobtainable myth, so rather than sitting around spouting useless platitudes, we need to help them see how it can be reality, and that of course is more difficult when they see rampant greed and corruption and self serving actions on the part of those in power.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

We would all like to believe that's true, but humans act in response to how they see the world and their chances of succeeding in it, and to many the American Dream is an unobtainable myth, so rather than sitting around spouting useless platitudes, we need to help them see how it can be reality, and that of course is more difficult when they see rampant greed and corruption and self serving actions on the part of those in power.

The problem here is not the mindset of the rich, it is the mindset of those looking to an excuse for mediocrity. Furthermore, "rampant greed and corruption and self serving actions on the part of those in power" is just a different kind of meaningless platitude. Which is more productive? The one that discusses the American Dream and the potential for all to attain it with a wealth of "rags to riches" testimony from the minority and the poor or one that sees only greed and corruption?

You're right though, dreaming is not for the pessimistic. We'd all like to believe you can be both tirelessly pessimistic and extremely successful, but the two just don't line up in reality.

As far as "helping them see how it can be a reality"; you'd be hard-pressed in finding poor people effectively helping poor people see how wealth can be a reality. There are a great many teaching others how to build and maintain wealth and like any other program, you have to avail yourself of it instead of assuming it's not for you. There's a mindset that fosters this pessimism and it is one that assumes the government is responsible for building your wealth for you. A mindset enjoyed by those statistically less willing to help others see how wealth can be a reality and statistically less apt to put their own money in the philanthropic buckets of change.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Well, I could argue that your math is no good. No doubt ebuddy would step in to take up the cause for a few pages before finally admitting that 1+1 != 3, but I'll pass on this one.

I'm not the one arguing how to give more money to a government that enjoys less than 24% approval.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The problem here is not the mindset of the rich, it is the mindset of those looking to an excuse for mediocrity. Furthermore, "rampant greed and corruption and self serving actions on the part of those in power" is just a different kind of meaningless platitude. Which is more productive? The one that discusses the American Dream and the potential for all to attain it with a wealth of "rags to riches" testimony from the minority and the poor or one that sees only greed and corruption?

You're right though, dreaming is not for the pessimistic. We'd all like to believe you can be both tirelessly pessimistic and extremely successful, but the two just don't line up in reality.

As far as "helping them see how it can be a reality"; you'd be hard-pressed in finding poor people effectively helping poor people see how wealth can be a reality. There are a great many teaching others how to build and maintain wealth and like any other program, you have to avail yourself of it instead of assuming it's not for you. There's a mindset that fosters this pessimism and it is one that assumes the government is responsible for building your wealth for you. A mindset enjoyed by those statistically less willing to help others see how wealth can be a reality and statistically less apt to put their own money in the philanthropic buckets of change.

Your assumptions that those who aren't looking to build wealth are simply lazy and looking for an excuse for mediocrity, and that the poor assume that the government owes them something, shows how little you understand psychology and motivations, and, most of all, it shows the typical disdain displayed toward the working class, by many of those who think they've achieved their "success" simply via their solo efforts.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There's a mindset that fosters this pessimism and it is one that assumes the government is responsible for building your wealth for you. A mindset enjoyed by those statistically less willing to help others see how wealth can be a reality and statistically less apt to put their own money in the philanthropic buckets of change.

Again we see how mythology trumps reality on this topic.

Who exactly is the goverment building wealth for? You may be shocked to learn that it isn't pouring billions into the pockets inner-city dwellers. On the contrary, its being dumped into the already over-flowing pockets of the wealthy under the guise of "stimulating" the economy.

We're not talking about the pennies this country spends on our rapidly fraying "safety net". We're talking about trillions in direct wealth transfer from hardworking taxpayers to large multinational corporations.

So called conservatives love to play the "blame welfare" game. It makes for easy wedge politics. But it also ignores the facts about exactly where the government is transfering the money. It ain't single mothers on WIC, its the Fortune 500.

From ludicrous defense budgets to the infinite supply of pork to government contractors at every level. Most of the time, the people preaching the hardest about the evil of wealth transfer are those sucking the longest and hardest of the fat government teat.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker 

Again we see how mythology trumps reality on this topic.

Who exactly is the goverment building wealth for? You may be shocked to learn that it isn't pouring billions into the pockets inner-city dwellers. On the contrary, its being dumped into the already over-flowing pockets of the wealthy under the guise of "stimulating" the economy.

We're not talking about the pennies this country spends on our rapidly fraying "safety net". We're talking about trillions in direct wealth transfer from hardworking taxpayers to large multinational corporations.

So called conservatives love to play the "blame welfare" game. It makes for easy wedge politics. But it also ignores the facts about exactly where the government is transfering the money. It ain't single mothers on WIC, its the Fortune 500.

From ludicrous defense budgets to the infinite supply of pork to government contractors at every level. Most of the time, the people preaching the hardest about the evil of wealth transfer are those sucking the longest and hardest of the fat government teat.

QFT

We have now entered a reprise of The Gilded Age of the Robber Barons, where obscene amounts of wealth are concentrated in the hands of a relatively few, who pat each other on the back for having worked so hard to achieve their success, when that is anything but the truth.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

QFT

We have now entered a reprise of The Gilded Age of the Robber Barons, where obscene amounts of wealth are concentrated in the hands of a relatively few, who pat each other on the back for having worked so hard to achieve their success, when that is anything but the truth.

Like the Kennedy's

After Prohibition ended, Kennedy amassed a large fortune when his company, Somerset Importers, became the exclusive American agent for Gordon's Dry Gin and Dewar's Scotch.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Like the Kennedy's

Absolutely. Depending on how you look at it, Joe Kennedy was either at the tail end of the Robber Baron age or the foundation for the next age that came to fruition beginning in the 60s and 70s with the expansion of the military-industrial complex. But, no doubt about it, the Kennedy's wealth is just as tainted as that of the robber-barons of yore or the Bushes of today. It was all made from using and abusing government access to privilege one's own private financial interests and that behavior is NOT acceptable no matter who does it.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Like the Kennedy's

You are absolutely right. It doesn't matter which side of the aisle one is on.

[peeb]

Chongo, this is theme with you - you want to excuse every bad thing currently going on by either finding a precedent for it, or speculating that future politicians may do the same - I don't understand why that makes it ok from your perspective.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Your assumptions that those who aren't looking to build wealth are simply lazy and looking for an excuse for mediocrity, and that the poor assume that the government owes them something, shows how little you understand psychology and motivations, and, most of all, it shows the typical disdain displayed toward the working class, by many of those who think they've achieved their "success" simply via their solo efforts.

Show me how much you understand about psychology and motivations. What about them?

Each one who has attained success has attained it with some help, but there is a tenacity and a tireless optimism that must exist for wealth to be maintained. There are many a government program that will enable you, creating a dependency class and a cycle of poverty. The cycle must be broken. The government is not capable of breaking it. The government is not resourced to care more for you than you.

It is not about compartmentalizing people in terms of "poor people=lazy" and "rich people= chortling back-patters". It is about identifying the pattern and changing it from the inside-out. People who espouse the virtues of government aid and advocate its growth do so out of absolutely no concern for the poor, but blind faith to an antiquated ideal doomed to repeated failure. These are they who statistically donate less to charity. Don't like poverty? Pick up a shovel. Don't wait for the government to help. Sounding good to the choir of chattering monkeys at Starbucks over a $4 latte isn't going to cut it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker 

Again we see how mythology trumps reality on this topic.

How so?

Who exactly is the goverment building wealth for? You may be shocked to learn that it isn't pouring billions into the pockets inner-city dwellers. On the contrary, its being dumped into the already over-flowing pockets of the wealthy under the guise of "stimulating" the economy.

No one, that's what I'm trying to tell you. If you're going to build wealth, you'd better seek out someone with wealth to do it instead of waiting for the government to take from them and give to you.

We're not talking about the pennies this country spends on our rapidly fraying "safety net". We're talking about trillions in direct wealth transfer from hardworking taxpayers to large multinational corporations.

That's precisely why you won't see me advocating ways of giving the government more of our tax dollar, our health care, our carbon credit...

So called conservatives love to play the "blame welfare" game. It makes for easy wedge politics. But it also ignores the facts about exactly where the government is transfering the money. It ain't single mothers on WIC, its the Fortune 500.

I can tell you from personal experience that it is spending on both. Who is it that employs we tax payers? Who is it that pays the lions share of taxes in this country? Who is it that donates the most to charity? Who is it that funds building projects in inner cities?

From ludicrous defense budgets to the infinite supply of pork to government contractors at every level. Most of the time, the people preaching the hardest about the evil of wealth transfer are those sucking the longest and hardest of the fat government teat.

Let me guess... Haliburton? Name for me the short list of those companies more qualified than they in providing the service they do.

This notion that liberals somehow hold the lock on compassion for the poor, the working class, and the minority is a joke. While I agree that pork is out of control (is this an exclusively (R) anomaly now?), I'm not sure demonizing the wealthy and taking their money by virtue of the assumption that they are all cigar-chomping, chortling, back-patters is the way to encourage building wealth. Which was my point in the first place. There is nothing evil about wealth. There is nothing damning about wealth. If there is a food pantry, there is money behind it. If there is a half-way house, a charitible organization, an inner-city project, or an employer; there is money behind it.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Chongo, this is theme with you - you want to excuse every bad thing currently going on by either finding a precedent for it, or speculating that future politicians may do the same - I don't understand why that makes it ok from your perspective.

I am well aware of Bush's shortcomings. I am just pointing out that there is evil on both sides.

"Stop judging, that you may not be judged.
For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.

Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye.
Matthew 7

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shank from this responsibility - I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavour will light our country and all who serve it -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.
JFK Inaugural Speech

Unfortunately , this is not the case today. There are those who want the government to take care of them from cradle to grave, and there are nations who want the US to come to their rescue.

The time for debating Iraq is over. We are there and must finish the job, even Hilary has acknowledged this.
Iran, on the other hand is open for debate. If you want the US to stay out, make your voice heard NOW, not after the trigger has been pulled.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I am well aware of Bush's shortcomings. I am just pointing out that there is evil on both sides.

The problem is it is Bush that is doing doing it right now railing against Kennedy is pointless - it's done. Railing against Clinton is just speculation. Believe me - I would be as critical as I am of Bush if / when she behaves the same way - but it's Bush that's doing it RIGHT NOW.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The time for debating Iraq is over. We are there and must finish the job, even Hilary has acknowledged this.
Iran, on the other hand is open for debate. If you want the US to stay out, make your voice heard NOW, not after the trigger has been pulled.

That's just it; Many Americans, and many more citizens from around the world, made their voices heard BEFORE we went into Iraq and that didn't make a damn bit of difference to President Bush. Many Americans are making their voices heard NOW in regards to Iran but, myself included, don't expect that to change the Administration's plans for war with Iran. Do you think honestly that President Bush will let American opposition to a war with Iran prevent us from attacking them?
Please.
Once we attack Iran you wil be making the same claim again that "we are there and must finish the job". How about you advocate not starting a war with Iran?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This notion that liberals somehow hold the lock on compassion for the poor, the working class, and the minority is a joke. While I agree that pork is out of control (is this an exclusively (R) anomaly now?), I'm not sure demonizing the wealthy and taking their money by virtue of the assumption that they are all cigar-chomping, chortling, back-patters is the way to encourage building wealth. Which was my point in the first place. There is nothing evil about wealth. There is nothing damning about wealth. If there is a food pantry, there is money behind it. If there is a half-way house, a charitible organization, an inner-city project, or an employer; there is money behind it.

No one is talking about sending them to the guillotine. The topic wasn't about whether or not the wealthy are philanthropic or evil. The topic was about the politically motivated myth that the government is stealing money from the hard-working and successful to give to the undeserving and slothful. Its a myth.

Goverment mandated wealth transfer is very real, but the the flow from middle-class to poor is an absolute tricle compared to the raging floodgates of direct wealth transfer from American taxpayers to corporations and wealthy individuals who, philanthropic or not, simply don't need the public assistance.

$8.3 Billion to profitable companies that layed off the most workers

Not the most recent data, but certainly demonstrates the point. And yes, I'm aware of the fact that this was during the so-called Golden Clinton years. I'm not a Clinton defender. He was almost as guilty of lavashing tax dollars on the wealthy as Bush is. Bush is worse, but only by degree, not in principle.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

That's just it; Many Americans, and many more citizens from around the world, made their voices heard BEFORE we went into Iraq and that didn't make a damn bit of difference to President Bush. Many Americans are making their voices heard NOW in regards to Iran but, myself included, don't expect that to change the Administration's plans for war with Iran. Do you think honestly that President Bush will let American opposition to a war with Iran prevent us from attacking them?
Please.
Once we attack Iran you wil be making the same claim again that "we are there and must finish the job". How about you advocate not starting a war with Iran?

The overwhelming majority of Americans were behind action against Iraq. The reasons for this action were founded in the prior Administration and carried through both sides of the aisle. While I grant you, this Administration has done a dismal job in communicating with the American people and our lack of successes has thwarted any resolve, most were in support of action against Iraq at the outset.

Iran? I'm with you. I strongly advocate not starting a war with Iran.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker 

No one is talking about sending them to the guillotine. The topic wasn't about whether or not the wealthy are philanthropic or evil. The topic was about the politically motivated myth that the government is stealing money from the hard-working and successful to give to the undeserving and slothful. Its a myth.

I think the ones that seem to be arguing this line of reasoning are opposing more measures of government interference via more failed social programs. Most who argue this line of reasoning are arguing not for the elimination of welfare or taxation, but reform. I agree that those who frame it as; "the government stealing money from the hard-working and successful to give to the undeserving and slothful" are politically motivated. I was poor once myself, but certainly not "undeserving" or "slothful". I did however have to cut my hours to get the necessary benefits. A valuable lesson at a very young and impressionable age that seems to have stuck with me. I had to break that cycle. I had to simply stop accepting the help, swallow the jagged pill of living paycheck to paycheck for a while. Breaking the cycle is not easy. That's all I'm trying to say. I apologize for projecting on you, but there definitely seemed to be a little distaste for the wealthy here, I was squelching it.

Goverment mandated wealth transfer is very real, but the the flow from middle-class to poor is an absolute tricle compared to the raging floodgates of direct wealth transfer from American taxpayers to corporations and wealthy individuals who, philanthropic or not, simply don't need the public assistance.

When it comes to farming subsidies, I'm inclined to agree. Overall though, I'd say it depends on the company in question. If the company provides a valid public resource, something the government cannot adequately handle at that time-they may help bail out a corporation. You'd have to give me more specific examples for a more thorough opinion.

$8.3 Billion to profitable companies that layed off the most workers

Not the most recent data, but certainly demonstrates the point. And yes, I'm aware of the fact that this was during the so-called Golden Clinton years. I'm not a Clinton defender. He was almost as guilty of lavashing tax dollars on the wealthy as Bush is. Bush is worse, but only by degree, not in principle.

Perhaps if Bush had been more supportive of the AFL-CIO and other labor union arms (groups taking money from the working class to feed the coffers of the rich by definition), his tax proposal would not have received such harsh rebuke from an arm founded by them; the CTJ. I notice in your link, they were very careful not to include Clinton in their rebuke, but mention the 104th Congress on several occassions. You might say, "makes sense" except for the fact that they are not equally as hesitant in indicting Bush while this present (D) Congress is in session. Some problems with CTJ's corporate tax collection assessment and methodology;

Citizens for Tax Justice's Blundering Corporate Tax Report

I think you'll find that most are politically motivated. It's hard to determine the difference sometimes.

[thunderous_funker]

I don't think we're that far apart on this.

Essentially you're speaking against people becoming complacent on entitlements. While I might agree in principle, I think that its essentially a red herring argument for distracting the public from the fact that the vast, overwhelming majority of entitlements are not going to welfare recipients but to the middle class (social security, medicare) and to corporations (whether through direct subsidies, bailouts or pork barrel contracts).

All the welfare whores and poverty pimps in the whole country still don't count for a fraction of a percent. Its simply a fabrication of wedge politics. Its easy to motivate the rabid base by demonizing welfare recipients, but the fact remains that when it comes to direct wealth transfer from taxpayers to private pockets, corporations and a tiny wealthy elite have managed to secure for themselves a never-ending pipeline of government welfare.

All all the Right/Left, Liberal/Conservative, Democrat/Republican bullshite is simply a carefully choreographed bit of political theater to distract everyone from this fact.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

That's just it; Many Americans, and many more citizens from around the world, made their voices heard BEFORE we went into Iraq and that didn't make a damn bit of difference to President Bush. Many Americans are making their voices heard NOW in regards to Iran but, myself included, don't expect that to change the Administration's plans for war with Iran. Do you think honestly that President Bush will let American opposition to a war with Iran prevent us from attacking them?
Please.
Once we attack Iran you wil be making the same claim again that "we are there and must finish the job". How about you advocate not starting a war with Iran?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The overwhelming majority of Americans were behind action against Iraq. The reasons for this action were founded in the prior Administration and carried through both sides of the aisle. While I grant you, this Administration has done a dismal job in communicating with the American people and our lack of successes has thwarted any resolve, most were in support of action against Iraq at the outset.

Iran? I'm with you. I strongly advocate not starting a war with Iran.

As ebuddy stated there was support for action against Iraq before the war. I am against war with Iran. War with Iran would be the bloodbath predicted for Iraq that did not materialize.
The Iraninan leaders are far more fanatical and far more dangerous than those who led Iraq.
Many of the former Embassy hostages say Ahmadinejad was the leader of the take over.

The Iranian Shia have an ideology of sacrifice and martyrdom (recall the children walking through mine fields in the Iran-Iraq War, holding plastic keys to heaven); Ahmadinejad represents a more extreme version which believes we are living in end times and that the 12th Imam will return if we only bring on the Apocalypse and enable his return.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The time for debating Iraq is over. We are there and must finish the job.

The time for debating Iraq is right now. Nobody even knows what the job is. We need to get out with the least chaos possible as quickly as possible - that's finishing the job.

[besson3c]

Chongo: what is "the job", and when will we know when it is finished?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Chongo: what is "the job", and when will we know when it is finished?

Increase Halliburton share price!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker 

All all the Right/Left, Liberal/Conservative, Democrat/Republican bullshite is simply a carefully choreographed bit of political theater to distract everyone from this fact.

Agreed. Politicians from the Left and Right have been playing both sides against the middle, increasing the friction to gain wealth and power.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Chongo: what is "the job", and when will we know when it is finished?

Once the Iraqi military has been trained and taken over, or when the Iraqi government asks us to leave.

BTW its been 60+ years since the end of WW II and we are still in Germany and Japan. Time to bring those troops home and let them spend their own money for their defense.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Increase Halliburton share price!

oops, another violation of "Godwin's law" using the new "H" word

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

oops, another violation of "Godwin's law" using the new "H" word

I'm still waiting on the list of corporations more adequately resourced and more experienced in providing the services they do.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm still waiting on the list of corporations more adequately resourced and more experienced in providing the services they do.

The new "B" word, Bechtel. Oh no, that's right, they're in bed with GWB, the House of Saud, and the bin Laden family!

[stupendousman]

I'm still waiting for the people that posted this to start wonder why people would be willing to vote for a completely corrupt and phony hack like Hillary, and still be against Bush.

..of course I'm sure that they non-stop liberal media onslaught against Bush has a LITTLE bit to do with it - but you'd think that given the facts that the Democrats could find someone a little more credible? Someone who had views that jibed at least a little bit with the average American. Oh well...I guess they are simply prepared to lose long-term for whatever short-term name recognition gain they might have.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm still waiting for the people that posted this to start wonder why people would be willing to vote for a completely corrupt and phony hack like Hillary, and still be against Bush.

..of course I'm sure that they non-stop liberal media onslaught against Bush has a LITTLE bit to do with it - but you'd think that given the facts that the Democrats could find someone a little more credible? Someone who had views that jibed at least a little bit with the average American. Oh well...I guess they are simply prepared to lose long-term for whatever short-term name recognition gain they might have.

Never underestimate the stupidty and incompetence of the Democratic party

Seriously, 90% of the leadership of both parties should be rounded up, their organs harvested and their useless husks stuffed with sawdust to used to augment levies to prevent flooding in the south.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm still waiting for the people that posted this to start wonder why people would be willing to vote for a completely corrupt and phony hack like Hillary, and still be against Bush.

..of course I'm sure that they non-stop liberal media onslaught against Bush has a LITTLE bit to do with it - but you'd think that given the facts that the Democrats could find someone a little more credible? Someone who had views that jibed at least a little bit with the average American. Oh well...I guess they are simply prepared to lose long-term for whatever short-term name recognition gain they might have.

It astonishes me that people are willing to excuse the current abuses and crimes that Bush is committing on the grounds that someone else in the future might be as bad.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It astonishes me that people are willing to excuse the current abuses and crimes that Bush is committing on the grounds that someone else in the future might be as bad.

Hilary will be as bad, if not worse.

I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president.

Her reply when asked to release the details of her health care plan

[ironknee]

left/right are bad, hillary is bad, etc...

but the ones typing in the bunkers will never admit bush is horrid!

except for zimphire who is back tracking his love for bush

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Hilary will be as bad, if not worse.

Her reply when asked to release the details of her health care plan

You keep parroting the same rubbish. Why is the speculation that someone else might be as bad in the future an excuse for crimes now?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You keep parroting the same rubbish. Why is the speculation that someone else might be as bad in the future an excuse for crimes now?

And you choose to ignore the 800lb gorilla in the room.
Bush IS horrible and should be impeached and removed from office for failing to secure the borders. How do you think three of last group of idiots[Dritan Duka (age 28), Shain Duka (26) and Eljvir Duka (23)] that were plotting to attack Fort Dix entered the country? They came across the border with Mexico, and those are just the ones we know about.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Bush IS horrible and should be impeached and removed from office

I'm glad we agree on that, at least.