Do you believe bush lied about wmd and iraq's ties to osama bin laden? 64% yes I do
[ February 03, 2004, 03:20 AM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posted by JayTaylorWV (Member # 4399) on :
Jealous that the right has an honest person in the White House instead of a constant liar? Someone that actually cares about the people and will do that right thing instead of listening to the latest flash poll. I’m proud of Bush and am anxious for him to be reelected.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Jealous that the right has an honest person in the White House instead of a constant liar? Someone that actually cares about the people and will do that right thing instead of listening to the latest flash poll. [...] I’m proud of Bush and am anxious for him to be reelected.
Um. Wow. Do you have any idea how much you're contradicting yourself?
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
quote:Jealous that the right has an honest person in the White House instead of a constant liar? Someone that actually cares about the people and will do that right thing instead of listening to the latest flash poll. I’m proud of Bush and am anxious for him to be reelected.
Ummmmmm..... if "Iraq is an immenent threat with WMD that we know are there" said not only by Bush but also by Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney et al isn't a lie then I would like to know what your definition of a lie is.
Of course NOW Bush says we got rid of Hussien because he was "a bad man". Yes he was. But this is not what was said to sell the war to Congress and the nation.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Not to mention it's not our policy to go around clearing the world of bad men. If it were, we'd have invaded a whole lot of places with much worse dictators by now.
"The President has a substance abuse problem. It's spelled O-I-L."
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I do enjoy a well-trimmed nether-region.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Jay, out of interest, what prompted Bush to implement steel tariffs and a massive senior drug pork bill if not the latest polls?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom -- no, he clearly lifted the tariffs because he recalled what every economics professor throughout his entire schooling had been telling him, that tariffs had no positive general economic effects.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Um....I was asking about the tariffs Bush actually IMPOSED. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
How come there is a Love bush and a Hate bush thread and they are both anti Bush?
Oh, sorry, that's a don't hate bush thread. My mistake.
[ February 03, 2004, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
pooka, ask MiniTru.
Or maybe the Evil Liberal Hatracker Cabal(tm) got the munchies.
-Bok
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It could simply be that it's getting harder and harder for even Dittoheads to come up with reasons to not hate Bush, pooka. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Definitely the munchies...
-Bok
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So you all admit that you're stoned. I need a smilie with one eyebrow raised.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I think he implemented the tariffs to please a constituency, not due to polls (despite being taught, presumably well, in his economics classes that tariffs don't make sense). Then he backed out of them because of general polls and the wrath of all the other nations .
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yeah yeah yeah.... I'm so glad that WMD and spending on our national def is all you can claim that Bush lied on. It's so funny. We knew that Iraq did have them, just because they're gone now does not mean they weren't there. Think maybe that some of our bombs might have taken them out? How about they're been moved to another country? We did the right thing in Iraq and I'm glad we did it.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:We did the right thing in Iraq and I'm glad we did it.
You and Halliburton both.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: We knew that Iraq did have them, just because they're gone now does not mean they weren't there. Think maybe that some of our bombs might have taken them out? How about they're been moved to another country?
Yes, in 1991. So you invaded 12 years later... and, it turns out, the weapons hadn't been there.
I'm not saying Iraq without Hussein isn't a better place. But the pre-war justifications were lies.
And post-war: well, if Bush had sunk as much money into rebuilding Iraq as he did toppling Hussein, I'm sure the Iraqi people would currently be a lot better off.
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
He is a liar---and that goes for his administration.
He took us to war for a reason that wasn't even true, and on top of that millions protested it.
And what happened to Osama? Hmm? It was all him...then all the sudden Hussein. They were in "league." Saddam wore Gucci, for goodness sake!
I think they were embarrassed they couldn't find Bin Laden so decided to start a crusade against Iraq.
Busy..will talk later. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Bush lies about considerably more than that, Jay. Consider his "let's save the forests by cutting them down" initiative, or his "let's reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by using fossil fuels to produce hydrogen less efficiently" program. Consider the fact that "No Child Left Behind" is based on Houston statistics that were apparently fabricated by the man who is now his Secretary of Education -- and who is being investigated for his deception.
There is little that Bush says or does that is sincere.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
quote:maybe that some of our bombs might have taken them out?
I'm so glad that you're not in charge of dismantling these things.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
You almost can’t have a decent discussion on this board with all the hate you all spew.
So Tom. Maybe if those environmental waco wouldn’t made so many restricts on cutting CA wouldn’t had such problems with wildfires. Go figure. The boarder in Mexico has the same environment and didn’t have fire problems. Maybe it’s because they get rid of the underbrush and have a sensible environmental plan. And your Hydrogen argument. Ha!! Do you even know what you’re talking about? Do you know we’re on the verge of making a car that can run on Hydrogen and the waste it produces is water?!?! Gee… wouldn’t that be nice. Maybe if some complainers would quit yelling and help out a little we could finish the technology. And you want to talk about our great education system? Ha! Aren’t we last in about everything now? Thanks to our wonderful teachers unions that do nothing but protect the lazy no good teachers who don’t do anything! Why not reward good teachers? Have school choice and competition. Of course we’re having problems but there is only so much you can do with your hands tied.
Sheeze…….. I know I asked the one time if this is a big liberal board. I’ve made a decision. It is, with a couple of token conservative posters.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:You almost can’t have a decent discussion on this board with all the hate you all spew.
Isn't it possible that it isn't hate, but rather honest evaluations of the facts?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:So Tom. Maybe if those environmental waco wouldn’t made so many restricts on cutting CA wouldn’t had such problems with wildfires. Go figure. The boarder in Mexico has the same environment and didn’t have fire problems. Maybe it’s because they get rid of the underbrush and have a sensible environmental plan.
Or maybe it's because there is much more housing built up in CA than Mexico, which causes it to be much easier to have problems with wildfires? You may be right, but what you post is opinion, as do the others who disagree.
quote:And your Hydrogen argument. Ha!! Do you even know what you’re talking about? Do you know we’re on the verge of making a car that can run on Hydrogen and the waste it produces is water?!?! Gee… wouldn’t that be nice. Maybe if some complainers would quit yelling and help out a little we could finish the technology.
And did you know that our only current viable and scalable source of hydrogen to power said wonder vehicles is FOSSIL FUELS, and that processing said fossil fuels into clean hydrogen is as bad, or worse than burning them in a car's ICE? I think that was what Tom was getting at.
quote:And you want to talk about our great education system? Ha! Aren’t we last in about everything now? Thanks to our wonderful teachers unions that do nothing but protect the lazy no good teachers who don’t do anything! Why not reward good teachers? Have school choice and competition. Of course we’re having problems but there is only so much you can do with your hands tied.
And yet almost every country in the world with a public education system follows (in a general manner) the example the US started 200 years ago? Maybe it isn't the public school SYSTEM, but the public schools?
These are honest questions from the other side. You are so sure of your own responses, it seems to me, you feel they are self-evident, while requiring the "Other Side" to not only have a counter-opinion but studies (from non-biased sources, of course) that back it up.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
One more point on hydrogen power. There have been many here, generally _liberals_ (though no shortage of conservatives as well) that have been publicizing through posts and the like the advances of hydrogen power. I was interested and a proponent of it nearly 20 years ago, back when I was in middle school.
You go from accusation to assumption of motive, Jay, and that isn't possible for you to judge.
-Bok
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:Isn't it possible that it isn't hate, but rather honest evaluations of the facts?
Doesn't seem to be here.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: only current viable and scalable source of hydrogen
Wrong! You can get Hydrogen from water too!!!
They talk about using the same process for possible space programs and getting oxygen for people to breath from water that they find where they go.
It's not a tech that we have yet 100% but we're very very close.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: but what you post is opinion
Not sure I see much in the way of facts on this board ever. Most of the time it goes like this:
" WHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!! We lost, we hate Bush, I know! We'll say he lied! Yeah, that's it! But where do we find his lies? Oh, let's go around in a circle, we'll find one! Make it up if nothing else! Very Good! Begin spewing my little pawns! Ha Ha Ha Ha! "
About all I can think is:
[ February 03, 2004, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Jay ]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Current, viable and scalable, Jay. Key words. Splitting a water molecule requires a very strong electric current and it's difficult to harvest any meaningful amount of hydrogen at levels that don't require huge amounts of water and huge levels of electricity. Very costly and very inefficient. Not saying it'll never be viable, but that's where the key word "current" comes in. Frankly, I like the organic system I set up for one of twink's classes. Go S. Wolfei! Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Yes, but currently every process to get hydrogen from water requires MORE ENERGY than you get out. It's a physics/chemistry problem. After all, water doesn't, in any significant amount, spontaneously divide into oxygen and hydrogen. I will add that extracting hydrogen from fossil fuel directly, I believe, is somewhat more efficient, and may be a mid-term answer, but we're still faced with an eventual fossil fuel shortage.
So, you need to build an apparatus to facilitate this (after all, I've seen electrolysis in my high school chemistry class, it works, but you need a catalyst, a battery, and most importantly, time), and a source of power to generate the energy to convert water to hydrogen. Currently, the most effective and scalable method to generate need electricity is fossil fuels (Doh!). In the end, you trade off millions of small ICEs (cars/trucks/etc) for hundreds (or thousands) of large power plants to power the hydrogen extraction process, whether by electrolysis or fossil fuel extraction).
Yes, the tech may be close, but a lot of the funding isn't requiring the acquisition of hydrogen to be equal to or better than the status quo. That means there is a real chance we can make things worse going to hydrogen. This is something to be mindful about.
-Bok
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Current, viable and scalable
Yeah, well, Bill Gates got told Windows wouldn't go anywhere either. And I said it's something we need to work on. The thing is that it's possible and one day will work.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
quote:
We did the right thing in Iraq and I'm glad we did it. [/QUOTE]
You and Halliburton both.
[/QUOTE]
And me.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I'll add that I feel we need to go to solar sooner than later, for our electricity generation (with wind water and nuclear to back it up to some degree), and once our electricity infrastructure is based on this, a lot of the rest well sort itself out.
-Bok
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Re: Forest fires. First, they aren't intrinsically bad things. They renew the life cycle of the forest and are actually required for several species of tree to reproduce. Also, the number one contributor to the size and severity of a burn is the wind not the underbrush. So to really get a sense of what's causing these fires you'd have to compare the levels of human activity in these places (cause of most forest fires) and lightning strikes. Then you'd have to see what the prevailing wind patterns tend to be and compare climates. Lastly, you'd look at undergrowth and the density of the forest itself. It isn't as simple as undergrowth==fire. Also, constantly removing the undergrowth has a huge environmental impact, which may be worse for the forest (in the long term) than any fires would be. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that you haven't presented nearly enough information to make your conclusive statement.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Jay, in all likelihood, you're right.
But I don't want us to be polluting worse than currently between now and then. Funding for commercial mass availability of hydrogen power should be that end to end, it is NO WORSE than right now. Currently, that isn't a stipulation.
-Bok
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Jay, are you reading our posts are just homing in on phrases that you can take out of context to vilify anyone who says anything you don't like?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
You know........ I think it's impossible to make any of you happy. Sheeze....
"Don't use oil! Wahhhh..." Ok, let's work on Hydrogen power. "But it doesn't work! Wahhhhh...." Well, we need to get it working. "But it's hard! Wahhhhh...."
Sheeze.... what on freaking earth do you want!!!
Oh, I know, if the DNC says it, it'll be ok. Gottcha.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
No no no. We're saying hydrogen power doesn't work now and we don't want implemented before the implimentation will cause more pollution than the current system. I think we all agree that it does need to happen, I think we've all said as much. So really we're arguing the same point but you're being really childish about it.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: out of context to vilify
I'm waiting for some good lawyer joke here... But gee.... How am I taking things out of context?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: you're being really childish
Oh brother.... let me cry for a bit Bob called me a name.... ok, I'm better now.
What?
quote: we're arguing the same point
We are? All I have seen is how it won't work and can't be done. Sorry guess I misread all those glorious posts of "Wow, that'll be nice when that works" and "Yeah, it'll take a bit, but it'll be worth it" and "Won't it be nice to get away from oil"
Oh well.... See ya all on the other side, time to head out!
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The problem with President Bush and the Hydrogen Car is not that it is a possibility, its the lopsided trade that he made.
At the time there was a call to raise the MPG required from cars sold in the USA.
President Bush canceled that plan in favor of what he called an "Environmentally Friendly" promise to push for this Hydrogen Car.
At best projections, this car won't be marketable until long after President Bush is out of office (even if he wins in Oct). In fact, most of the funding for this project hasn't materialized. With the major budget crisis we are facing, it might be cut. In other words, to allow car manufacturers to continue to build heavily polluting SUV's we get the promise that we will look into a replacement that may or may not be better, or may have to be cut due to unforeseen economic problems.
This isn't a lie.
Bush's Healthy Forest initiative involves cutting down of a lot of trees. Forests that are to be saved will be subdivided by roads and construction, allowing easier access for lumber poachers and disrupting the territorial habits of unknown numbers of endangered animals. While this is great for the lumber mills, construction companies, and the paper companies who want lots of cheap wood, its value in keeping forests healthy is very questionable. Evaluations of the problems this will cause will only become available long after President Bush is no longer president.
No Child Left Behind is poorly funded, forcing schools to leave children behind. Many schools find it cheaper to turn away Federal Funds and their regulations than try and meet all the requirements that are associated with it.
President Bush made a giant announcement last year that Billions of dollars were going to fight Aids. However, his Anti-Abortion/Anti-Sex Ed (other than simple Abstinence) rulings has made this money undeliverable.
None of this is technically lying
Its doublespeak. Its con-games. Its bait and switch. Its the Ponzi President. But technically, its not lying.
I mean, it all boils down to what your definition of lie is.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Okay Jay here it is.
It will be great when it works.
Currently it is possible, as proven by GM.
There are still some safety issues (minor), hydrogen containment/transport issues (a novel wrinkle to the whole Hydrogen Economy thing is that it's proven to be much more difficult to keep it from seeping out of its containment system, with such seepange a serious fire hazard), as well as the extraction issue discussed above. I don't think any of these are insurmountable, but I think they should all be addressed as REQUIREMENTS for rolling out, on a commercial scale, hydrogen vehicles, and other infrastructure needs, and any funding to aid those efforts should likewise only be paid out to those programs that are trying to follow those requirements.
I think hydrogen research should be continued to be funded (of course, even if it weren't, like, say, after Reagan gutted most of Nixon's alternative energy programs, there are private individuals who have been funding this research all along), but I'm wary of no strings attached funding in this case.
-Bok
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Wrong! You can get Hydrogen from water too!!!"
You know that. I know that. But it doesn't appear that Bush knows that.
Because Bush has not included any additional funding for research into alternative methods of hydrogen production, which is what I originally thought he'd been proposing in his State of the Union speech two years ago. Instead, he has thrown more funding at four or five nuclear and fossil fuel companies -- the companies, ironically, that donated most heavily to his campaign. So since we're agreed that the BEST way to manufacture hydrogen would be to use some kind of renewable resource to do so, you must be disappointed that Bush has instead chosen to ask his friends to do it the half-assed way.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Jay you really need to cut this out, and the people responding to him need to ignore him. It's plain to see he is merely trying to provoke responses and "get your goat" with nonsensical posts. I myself am a conservative Jay, and I will tell you that Bush is no conservative. He is what is termed a Neo-Liberal Institutionalist. But, I am forgetting, Jay is not looking for real conversation, he is looking for places to drop cliches and get tard wars started. If you're not ignoring him then you are part of the problem.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
*High fives Brian*
Jay, you are embarassing to the actual thoughtful conservatives on this board. Please stop. It is ok to argue in favor of the things you believe in, but random nonsensical posts won't convince anyone of anything.
I didn't realize that the Republicans had a munchkin contingent.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Well said, Brian. We should ignore this little troll's bait.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
On the whole Fuel Cell car discussion:
They work
Daimler Chrysler makes the Necar 3, GM makes the HyWire, and Toyota has one as well.
Some of them have on-board gasoline reformers that extract hyrdrogen from gas. That eliminates the possibility of being less dependent on oil though.
The car works, but we as a nation are not ready scientifically and infastructurally to recieve the kind of benefits this kind of car can bring.
It's very easy for me to get information because the California Fuel Cell Research Partnership is in West Sacramento, not far from my house. If any of you want information, let me know. I could just stop by there for info, if they would give me any.
[ February 03, 2004, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Beren! You're a rabble rouser! Amazing!
Posted by Jerryst316 (Member # 5054) on :
quote:I mean, it all boils down to what your definition of lie is.
We arent going to start debating the meaning of IS are we?
Edit: Sorry but I couldnt believe nobody said this already, I like Bush just not the one in office!
Oh come on, Im not aloud one joke in the politcal bush genre?
[ February 03, 2004, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: Jerryst316 ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Speaking of lying and deception, has anyone else noticed that Beren One Hand is either remarkably stupid or intentionally misleading? Because the polls are British and therefore obviously not representative of American public opinion. Just wanted to point that out. Moreover, British public opinion is tainted heavily by the incredibly biased (and they don't try to hide it) BBC network.
The worst Bush did was claim something that he thought was true and ended up not being true, the worst . Personally, I supported the war from the beginning and still do because at the least the ends justify the means. No more genocide, no more brutal tyrant who would conquer the world if only he had the army. This was a man who invaded to nations for the sole purpose of gaining oil and then used chemical weapons against his own civilian population. We should have finished Hussein off in 1991 but since we didn't later is better than never. Before you start making comparisons between Bush and Hussein, two countries/oil ha ha ha, keep in mind that both nations Bush invaded were both brutal dictatorships one of whom was definitely harboring Osama bin Laden and company and the other who was probably harboring terrorists intentionally and definitely possessing them intentionally or not. Furthermore, Hussein would have made Kuwait and Iran extensions of his empire while the U.S. is making democracies where freedom didn't exist prior.
As far as other dictatorships are concerned, I say we should remove them if it all possible because an American is no better of a human being then an Iraqi, an Afgahn, a Rwandan, or a Bosnian. When the UN won't clean up the mess we do have an obligation to end mass murder. The UN has an obligation as well but when they don't act someone has to or millions of lives are forfeit.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:Speaking of lying and deception, has anyone else noticed that Beren One Hand is either remarkably stupid or intentionally misleading?
Yeah, us rabble rousers have to play pretty dirty to stir up the crowd.
It was not my intent to mislead anyone, so I guess I must be remarkably stupid. Note however, my post never claimed to "represent American opinion." In fact, I specifically stated the poll was unscientific.
The title of this thread is "Hate Bush? Vote here," and not "Americans hate Bush, come see the proof!"
I was simply looking for the term "online opinion poll" on Google and found this site as the third sponsored link on the first page of results. If you find a similar American-based site you are more comfortable with, please share, as I can never get tired of voting against Bush in those polls. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"The worst Bush did was claim something that he thought was true and ended up not being true, the worst."
Actually, I think the rapidly swelling deficits and outrageous tax cuts are the worst he's done. The war is largely not on my radar.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Tom, I join you in condemning ballooning budget deficits. But would you agree that the reason we are losing so much money is because we spend too much?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Hear hear!
The only sorrowful thing about all this is that in real life, we only get to vote once!
[ February 04, 2004, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Shan ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But would you agree that the reason we are losing so much money is because we spend too much?"
I would agree that we are losing so much money because we are spending too much relative to the amount we're taxing. I don't necessarily think that we're suffering from excessive taxation.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: I don't necessarily think that we're suffering from excessive taxation.
I do think we are suffering. But that's not what I asked you. So since you think we are not taxed enough, and how much we spend should only be limited by how much we take in with taxes, would you say that there is any kind of a limit? Is there some level where government should stop spending? What percent of our GDP is an acceptable amount?
The problem with our current setup is that we are $7 trillion in debt. The more we spend, the more we go into debt. Even if we raised taxes to cover our budget deficit, we would still have $7trillion of debt. What would happen once we started hearing about surpluses? We would get massive new spending, no one wants to actually pay off our debt.
To me, this is one of the most important issues this election. What is a candidate going to do about the heavy foot of government, and how will said candidate pay off our debts. Democrats want to raise taxes, but this will only result in a bigger government nanny. Republicans want to cut taxes and spend a tiny little bit less. We need someone who will freeze tax rates where they are, and slash spending dramatically. "Welfare" spending needs to be the first to go. Once the spending is under control and we have made significant progress paying off the debt, then we need to abolish income taxes, or failing that, set a flat tax which is very low. Something like 5 - 10%.
(edited for spellink)
[ February 04, 2004, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Is there some level where government should stop spending?"
I think an arbitrary restriction like this is foolish, to be honest. On the other hand, I see no reason we can't write a debt restriction into the actual Constitution, so that Congress can't keep voting to raise it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I see one big reason -- war. If we were ever to have a major war, that debt restriction would have to go right out the window.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
How can we address the problem of massive debt without cutting spending?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Raise taxes.
You may think its a bad idea, but it certainly addresses the problem of a massive debt.
(I think its generally speaking a bad idea. However, I also understand that generally speaking does not mean always).
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Okay, assuming we raise taxes, how will you insure that the extra money goes to paying down the debt, year after year? Its not easy to convince people that a surplus is worth keeping, most will clamor for spending increases, and they would likely get them.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You have the exact same problem if you cut spending to lower the debt -- there's a surplus when you ignore debt services. Your question applies equally to both situations.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"How can we address the problem of massive debt without cutting spending?"
Toss Dubya out of the Presidency and the Republicans out of Congress. Just a bunch of drug crazed animals using Americas' credit card to party down with welfare queens
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
No, the question does not apply to both sides. Getting spending under control is a requirement for debt reduction, no matter how you create a surplus. The reason is that most of the programs which are costing the most are the ones which will continue to grow. No matter how much we raise taxes, we can never cover what the coming expenses will be if we don't put the brakes on Social Security, Welfare, etc.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Toss Dubya out of the Presidency and the Republicans out of Congress.
I totally agree. Who would you replace them with? I would like to see libertarians in control of the budget.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*sigh* That wasn't what you said, you said that "most will clamor for spending increases, and they would likely get them." This occurs in any situation with a surplus, whether that surplus is obtained by cutting spending, raising taxes, or both.
Are you saying that if spending was cut people would magically stop "clamor"-ing for spending increases?
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Are you saying that if spending was cut people would magically stop "clamor"-ing for spending increases?
Does it matter if people clamor or not when the actual spending is being cut?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So now your argument is "Its easy because we said it was going to happen!" Uh huh.
Lets lay out what we're talking about here: Congress cuts certain programs from the budget in year 0. This leads to projected surpluses in years 1, 2 3 . . .
OR
Congress raises taxes in year 0. This leads to projected surpluses in years 1, 2, 3 . . .
Now, you just asserted that because, in scenario one, spending is being cut, that it doesn't matter if people clamor or not, that spending will not be raised again, while in scenario two spending raises will be a concern.
Uh huh.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
What are you saying Fugu?
I have been saying that it is impossible to succeed at cutting the debt without cutting spending heavily. What is it that you are saying?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The worst Bush did was claim something that he thought was true and ended up not being true, the worst.
What you mean to say is, he claimed to KNOW something was true (rejecting even the need to take more time to investigate more closely) that ended up turning not being true, and used it to justify a war that he now claims had other more secret justifications that he didn't talk about because they were less popular and because he knew the American people wouldn't think they were good enough to justify an invasion.
No, this sure isn't enough to hate the man or call him evil. However, it is easily enough to fire him without a second thought.
[ February 04, 2004, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm saying your objection was nonsensically applied to only one method of cutting the debt.
Also, you confuse cutting spending with curtailing spending. Cutting spending means getting rid of spending which already exists/is planned for. Curtailing spending means not introducing new spending.
It is impossible to deal with the debt without largely curtailing spending. One could certainly deal with the debt without cutting spending -- by raising taxes.
Lets specify the two scenarios some more. In the first, spending is cut to the tune of $50 billion. In the second, taxes are raised to create a surplus of $50 billion. In both cases, no additional spending is added. Thus, in both cases the debt goes down at the same rate. If additional spending had been created after the initial cut in spending, that would cause the debt to be repaid more slowly. Similarly, if additional spending had been created after the tax increase, that would cause the debt to be repaid more slowly. Do you see how in both scenarios the debt being paid down is irrespective of whether or not the surplus is generated by spending cut or tax increase, but instead on the difference between taxes and spending, and the curtailment of spending?
[ February 04, 2004, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Do you see how in both scenarios the debt being paid down is irrespective of whether or not the surplus is generated by spending cut or tax increase, but instead on the difference between taxes and spending, and the curtailment of spending?
I see that in your example, yes. In either case, spending must be held steady. At the very least, no increase in spending can be allowed, in your example.
Now, in real life, even if we do not allow discretionary spending to grow, and we do not allow new spending programs, we will still see overall government spending increase. This is because existing programs, like social security, do not have a fixed yearly cost. By any reasonable projection, social security spending will drastically increase over the next 10-20 years. There will need to be a cut somewhere in the social security program if we are going to control our budget. The cut may be in the form of decreasing benefits to all involved, or not allowing some, probably the rich, to receive benefits at all. But the promises that are made by social security will be cut.
Don't get the idea that we always have the option to increase taxes. Even if there were no opposition to taxes, there is a limit to what we can spend, which happens to be our GDP. If we had 100% income taxes we would still have a limited amount which we could spend.
The question becomes one of which way is the best way to reduce government's burden, debt or taxes, on our people. As I stated before, I am all for freezing the tax rate where its at right now, and then slashing and burning most spending our government does. Most of this spending shouldn't be done whether we have the money or not. Then, once we have spending slashed to the bare essentials required to protect our private property and the nation as a whole, we can start slashing the tax rates.
[ February 04, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You aren't talking about general spending cuts, you're talking about particular spending cuts based on an ideological agenda. Don't act like you're talking generalities when you're not.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Toss Dubya out of the Presidency and the Republicans out of Congress. Just a bunch of drug crazed animals using Americas' credit card to party down with welfare queens
Isn't it the democrats that want to spend MORE on welfare?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:By any reasonable projection, social security spending will drastically increase over the next 10-20 years. There will need to be a cut somewhere in the social security program if we are going to control our budget.
Well, we could always cut OTHER areas. For one thing, we waste tons and tons of money on military luxuries. For instance, we spend billions maintaining a nuclear weapons arsenal that hasn't been used in 60 years, doesn't look like we'll need in the next 60, and contains far more warheads than we could ever reasonably use.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: You aren't talking about general spending cuts, you're talking about particular spending cuts based on an ideological agenda. Don't act like you're talking generalities when you're not.
First of all, I have an ideological agenda. I take sides. I have an opinion on how the government should operate. How can anyone have a meaningful discussion on the government if they don't have an opinion about it? Are you arguing for the sake of disagreeing with me? Or do you have some opinion of your own on how the government should operate?
Second, I am talking about freezing the amount of money that the government spends. I am talking about stopping ALL increases in spending, meaning if the gov. spent $2.1 trillion last year, thats exactly how much they spend this year, not $2.101 trillion. This is what is required for your examples to work. I say this is impossible without cutting the promises we make with such programs as social security. If you can explain how we would halt all increases in spending and still not cut social security, please do.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Well, we could always cut OTHER areas.
Sure we could, and should. The point has never been that social security is the only program that needs cutting, they all do. We shouldn't be spending billions maintaining military bases in Germany and Japan when those countries can afford to defend themselves.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
WHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!! We lost, we hate Bush, ![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
I know! We'll say he lied! Yeah, that's it! ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
But where do we find his lies? Oh, let's go around in a circle, we'll find one! Make it up if nothing else! ![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
Very Good! Begin spewing my little pawns! Ha Ha Ha Ha! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
"![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)