quote:The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.
If true, these are some serious allegations. It would seem to confirm that the Bush administration was deliberately misleading us when they portrayed the Iraq War as part of the War on Terror begun because of 9/11. If they had hoped to go into Iraq all along, it means that they were using 9/11 as an excuse.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Bush can always say, "Sooner or later it was going to have to be done, so we figured we might as well go ahead and plan it. It just so happened that the appropriate time came sooner than we expected."
It might even be true.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They have a better defence then that Macca. Didn't Powell do an interview for the NY Times a few days ago in which he said "There was never any evidense to support a link between Iraq and terrorists"? It wasn't pushed to big, but I'm pretty sure it was there.
Thanks to that when asked the question "So the terrorist attacks had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq?" they simply point at that article and say "We already said there was no link." and point to that article. They released first so the story of a cover up gets seriously deflated. I'm sure the White House was scrambling to get that interview out though, ideally they would have wanted to release that begginning to mid December, I guess they only found out it was in the guys book a couple days ago.
-Fooglmog Guy with no clue.
Posts: 37 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I linked to PNAC every week for nearly four months. Apparently not everyone followed the link.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't plans outlined (or at least reoutlined) for wars with Northern Korea, China and a few other hot spot nations as well.
Why Iraq? Well, seeing as the last war never really ended and that there was open hostility and people firing at our planes, it makes sense.
Planning for a war does not a conspiracy make. If I remember correctly, West Point students run exercises planning invasions of all manner of countries, and I'm sure the government has strategies on hand for invasions or "peace keeping" incursions into every country in the world.
It makes sense that a pro-military president taking office after one who shied away from overt military action would make sure such plans were updated rapidly for certain key nations.
Now, this also doesn't mean the current administration didn't capitalize on 9/11 to swing popular support for something planned already. But it also doesn't prove the administration did.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"The treasury secretary is not in the position to have access to that kind of information, where he can make observations of that nature," the official said. "This is a head-scratcher."
posted
Cow, the documents we're referring to weren't about military strategy, they were about neo-conservative doctrine. I don't say that condescendingly -- it's not like this crowd has ever been shy about showing their intentions.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still don't see it any sort of huge damning evidence of anything. It's a disgruntled guy talking about something I expected was happening anyway.
Way back on some other thread I talked about the war as being simply the continuation and conclusion of conflit began in 1991. I'm entirely sure that Bush walked into the White House and said "what do we need to do to stop the problem in Iraq".
War on Terror connections? Yeah, they've always been thin. I'm not exactly happy about the government vacillating on Saudi Arabia and other nations in that region. There are quite a few governments that condone terrorism and terrorist camps, or harbor those who fund terror. Did Saddam Hussein? Yeah. Did he fund or directly support Al Quaida? It doesn't appear so.
Does that mean we shouldn't have taken him out anyway? Well, personally, I think we should have twelve years ago. It seems Bush was of like mind, and planned to go into Iraq from day one.
9/11 rallied the US people against terrorists, and that emotion was harnessed into a war against an entirely different form of terror. Yes, two separate things, both worth pursuing.
Of all Bush's problems and things that tick me off about him, this isn't one of them.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If anything, the War on Iraq was delayed by the war on terror. Also tensions in Palestine prevented going forward in 2002. The Dems could have campaigned on how Gulf I never should have happened in 2000. Why didn't they? Part of why 9/11 happened was because we have had troops in Saudi ever since 1989. Only after Gulf II were we able to remove many of them.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Only after Gulf II were we able to remove many of them."
That's a level of spin, pooka, that really should be below even the most toadyish of Administration mouthpieces. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really, no. Or at least I apparently don't see it as Evil as some other people do.
Using popular support for a War on Terror (originally focused on Al Quaida, but basically focused on terrorism in general) to support other military efforts in the region, essentially aimed at removing those who sponsor terror - well, I don't see that as such an awful thing.
While the impetus to bring the Iraq issue to the public attention was the military successes following 9/11, I'm pretty sure the administration never said "Iraq declared war on us by bombing the WTC". The latter would be a lie to the people, while the former is using popular opinion to accomplish other goals.
The avenues to go after Bush are education, environment, gay rights and women's rights... not the military. At least in my opinion. There are plenty of targets to aim at... if anything, the situation in Iraq is one of the administration's strong points.
Or is that the point? Attack the strongest point about the administration, attempting to find any cracks possible, instead of hammering at the weak places? Seems counterproductive, to me.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd argue his military record is probably his greatest weakness. I mean, not only did he attack a country unprovoked, alienate us heavily from our allies, and endanger any gains we've made in the war on terror, but he also used WMD claims to justify it that have since turned out to be false. And now, if it turns out his administration took the sentiments of 9/11 and twisted them into support for a pre-planned War against Iraq, I'd say that more than qualifies as a huge problem. To let Bush get away with it would be to hand him the election on a silver platter.
The other problems you listed are important too, but what's talk about education and the environment when compared to misuse of war and endangering our nation's security?
posted
Hmmm. I think some important points about that 60 Minutes piece are being missed.
First, 60 Minutes showed a clip of George Bush, campaigning in 2000, criticizing Clinton for being "interventionist", and then Bush shows invasion plans for Iraq within his first ten days of holding office, with "post-Saddam" plans, including maps of oil fields and what companies have interest in them. The fact that Bush came into the White House with regime change in Iraq on his mind wasn't surprising. It had been the policy of the Clinton Administration since 1998. His father had been threatened by Saddam. What was surprising was that Bush had complained about the interventionist policies of Clinton, yet planned to intervene in Iraq the whole time. This from a guy whose strong point is supposed to be honesty...
Second, Bush(43) didn't listen to his Treasury secretary about the second round of tax cuts being only for the wealthy. There wasn't even debate about it. It was Bush's guys with an agenda (Don Rumsfeld called O'Neill and told him to back off about the book and the interview). The way the president was presented by an insider seemed very much to reinforce the idea of a president who wanted experts around him to make decisions for him (the president merely listening in his first sit down with O'Neill), yet once a course of action was decided was unwilling to consider dissenting opinions (Iraq, going in against UN resolutions). Personally, I would want a smarter man in the White House, one who could understand the issues better, and allow for more debate about important issues.
Third, Paul O'Neill didn't take money for the contributions he made to Susskind's book. And he had documentation to back up at least some of what he said. This makes him seem very credible.
I thought the whole thing was very damning to Bush. What I thought were only vague conceptions about him as a result of the media seem to be reinforced here.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw the 60 minutes bit also. It pretty clearly confirms that Bush really doesn't run the country, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Karl Rove do. "A blind man in a room full of deaf people."
As I have always said, Bush shames true conservatism every time he opens his mouth or draws another breath.
posted
We shouldn't be too shocked. The fact that war was one of the first agenda items is depressing. Couple that with a 'trickle down' economic scheme you have an elitist club that is either out of touch with the majority of Americans or a group of folks that are so self centered as to feel that everyone else is of little consequence.
I imagine it is a bit of both, but for the most part I believe it is the former - Either through family history, corporate leadership or very strong faith most of this administration's leadership is out of touch with a very large portion of the middle class. The shame is how strong the popularity numbers are - I guess we all want to be part of the club.
As an indictment - too much goes on behind closed doors for me to know if the O'Niell stuff is a tad out of context. I do know that losing a voice of economic reason is not something this country needs. We are in the midst of the strangest economic recovery - This is very jobless - especially looking at the end of the year. Classically, we should be seeing overtime to meet the demand for product as we are hesitant to conjecture growth, but quite the opposite is happening. I can't buy in yet that there is a new 'economic order', so I remain leery.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Please propose an alternative economic scheme. Perhaps centralized government control? Perhaps government enforced monopolies to cut down on "destructive competition"?
quote: I mean, not only did he attack a country unprovoked, alienate us heavily from our allies, and endanger any gains we've made in the war on terror, but he also used WMD claims to justify it that have since turned out to be false.
Unprovoked, not really. Iraq had been openly hostile for 12 years, in defiance of the UN's resolutions. WMD or no, they fired on US planes, failed to declare anything about their weapons until forced by military threat, and funded terrorism against Israel. Hardly innocent, unassuming "why oh why should anyone want to harm little ol' us" behavior.
Alienate us from our allies? For a time, and only from some. Most of the countries that balked at invading Iraq were first in line to be part of the reconstruction. If anything, the war in Iraq pointed out how ineffectual the UN has been at regulating recalcitrant nations. This one's a whole different can of worms that has more to do with the function of the UN and the world community than anything else, so I'll let that go.
In short, yes the US was alienated by this administration's actions, but I'm not sure that wasn't ultimately for the best.
Endanger gains made during the war on terror? How exactly? And, further, would pulling out of Iraq right now be positive or negative to our struggle against terrorism?
And the WMD claims relied heavily upon the Iraqi government's failure to disclose information and our own limited intelligence in the area. Was that facet of the war overemphasized? Yes. Because there were no WMD's, does that mean the war shouldn't have happened? No.
quote: most of this administration's leadership is out of touch with a very large portion of the middle class. The shame is how strong the popularity numbers are
So which is it? Is the administration in touch, or out of touch? Popular, or unpopular? Representing what the people want, or not? Or is it just not representing what you think most people want? Or what you want yourself?
...
I'm not a huge fan of Bush, really, for the other reasons I mentioned above. Unfortunately, no one's stepped up with anything I like any better. Not that it really matters in the long run, since my individual vote means little against the deluge of devout Democrats in New Jersey. You either vote with them, or your vote gets gets ignored. The outcome in this state is a foregone conclusion.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Please propose an alternative economic scheme. Perhaps centralized government control? Perhaps government enforced monopolies to cut down on "destructive competition"?"
I have no problem with trickle-down economics, but when they are combined with the systematic removal of any and all corporate regulations, accountability, environmental controls, the weakening of watchdog committees, and tort reforms that remove the ability of individuals and communities to sue wrongful companies, it's a perfect recipe for corruption and corporate malfeasance. This has been the goal of the Bush administration, apparently. In a totally free market, the pirates will win.
"Endanger gains made during the war on terror? How exactly? And, further, would pulling out of Iraq right now be positive or negative to our struggle against terrorism?"
We had a chance, a powerful opportunity, to build a coalition with nations that were formerly cool towards us. We blew a chance for a world-wide terrorist hunt with unprecedented support because Bush's people had an obsession with Iraq. Pulling out of Iraq prematurely would cause more damage than staying. We need to stay there and stay strong until the Iraqi people, with the help of the U.N., can govern themselves. I think going there when we did was a huge mistake, but leaving it half-done would be just as bad.
"Because there were no WMD's, does that mean the war shouldn't have happened? No."
Yes. It should not have happened then. There was no reason. Saddam could have waited another year or two. We already had a massive deficit and economic problems at home, and there was the aforementioned chance of a serious terrorist hunt. We were led to beleive that he had to be brought down now, no waiting, hurry hurry, and there was no reason for it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: In a totally free market, the pirates will win.
If the government would stick to enforcing private property laws, piracy would be of no concern. Yarr.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Iraq had been openly hostile for 12 years, in defiance of the UN's resolutions. WMD or no, they fired on US planes, failed to declare anything about their weapons until forced by military threat, and funded terrorism against Israel. Hardly innocent, unassuming "why oh why should anyone want to harm little ol' us" behavior.
Perhaps not innocent, but still far from anything that could be considered a provocation of war. For one thing, we don't think the U.S. would deserve to be invaded, yet we certainly have fired on other nations without warning, refuse to give details on our weapons programs, and funded terrorism against the Soviet Union and other regimes we don't like. What's more, we actually DO have WMDs.
quote:Endanger gains made during the war on terror? How exactly? And, further, would pulling out of Iraq right now be positive or negative to our struggle against terrorism?
Provoking and justifying hatred of us, straining alliances that we need to fight terror on an international level, creating a potential haven for terrorism in Iraq, and taking money we could have used to fight terror. And pulling out now would definitely hurt our struggle against terrorism even more, although I don't think anybody's been advocating that. We're stuck now.
quote:Because there were no WMD's, does that mean the war shouldn't have happened? No.
We're a democracy, and this war should not have happened if the people were against it, and without those WMD claims that Bush kept throwing around the people and congress would not have agreed to it. Polls prior to the war consistently indicated that it was the WMDs that made a lot of people support the war (and any look at the threads on Hatrack at the time would only reenforce that.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the state has the ability to send police into anyone's private property to enforce criminal law, then that throws the idea of not being able to regulate monetary commerce right out the window.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Sounds interesting, I can't wait to hear about it.
quote: this war should not have happened if the people were against it,
We are a representative republic. We delegate decisions such as that to elected officials.
quote: then that throws the idea of not being able to regulate monetary commerce right out the window.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. As far as I know, the only commerce that congress has any right to concern itself with is interstate commerce and international commerce.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry Robespierre, I have to laugh at the notion that if we went to a completely free market with just private property laws enforced piracy would suddenly disappear.
In our current, regulated society people risk arrest all the time in order to steal large sums of money from other people (I'm referring to white collar crime, in this case). This is with all the government oversight. You're telling me that if we remove the government oversight people will suddenly become angels and stop trying to steal?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you mean that you're against any federal regulation of the corporate world?
All the regulations that hamper private property rights, yes. If you want to bring up specific regulations, I will let you know what I think of them on an individual basis.
quote: I have to laugh at the notion that if we went to a completely free market with just private property laws enforced piracy would suddenly disappear.
I have to laugh at the notion that you have to laugh at my notion.
quote: people risk arrest all the time in order to steal large sums of money
Stealing is quite clearly a crime against private property. I do not advocate the legalization of theft.
quote: You're telling me that if we remove the government oversight people will suddenly become angels and stop trying to steal?
There are lots of laws on the books which prevent theft. These are NOT government regulations of commerce.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Please propose an alternative economic scheme. Perhaps centralized government control? Perhaps government enforced monopolies to cut down on "destructive competition"?
Ok - there are two successful variations on how governments respond to downturns (that is the issue - not our responsibility to capitalism, but government actions taken to improve economic well being)in the economy (I am ignoring currency devaluation which is simply a form of bankruptcy that reduces debt obligation and the 'do nothing' libertarian view). Please feel free to research and get the details yourself, but here is the synopsis for those that prefer sound bites:
Trickle Down - Reducing corporate and medium business expenses (usually a tax break/investment incentive) that introduces more corporate revenue. The theory is that by the very nature of capitalism, a portion of that increased net revenue results in business growth that becomes the 'trickle'. This theory assumes that over time there is a righting of the economy based on cumulative trickles. The most recent exclusive prior use of this style was during the first three years of the Reagan presidency.
Direct Investment - this is where dollars are introduced by the government in a more direct way. This is government sponsored spending. The theory here is that money introduced directly into the economy with a focus on the individual has a much more direct and immediate impact. Examples of this are Reagan's Star Wars, Clinton's police force initiative and Bush's Tax cut.
Most times some variation of both are in place in any administration, with a hard lean to one or the other. Every so often there is a switch in the middle to react to degredating economic turns.
Historically (again, you can do the research), the most effective government involvement that encourages a recovery or robust economy is focused direct investment - that is to say focuses on the rather large middle class and job creation. I suggest that this is a far better solution, based on past performance, than either trickle down or mis-directed investment (my term for the recent tax cuts). Trickle down is too much of just that - a trickle and the extra dollars given to the wealthy struggles to get back into the economy with any reasonable consistency.
Rest assured that as a liberal I see no conflict with my being an unreserved capitalist, nor do I flinch at military action. I just see distribution of wealth as an extraordinarily effective solution and , contrary to some pundits, do not see this as a deterent to folks making as much money as they can.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: the most effective government involvement that encourages a recovery or robust economy is focused direct investment - that is to say focuses on the rather large middle class and job creation.
There in lies the problem. The government is not able to create meaningful employment. This must be done by the private sector. Government spending is usually focused at people who already have jobs, like engineers and construction workers, etc. Also, for every dollar spent by the government, a dollar must be taken out of the economy first. The net effect is a shift of wealth from those who earn it, to those with government "pull".
quote: I just see distribution of wealth as an extraordinarily effective solution and , contrary to some pundits, do not see this as a deterent to folks making as much money as they can.
Do you see private property rights as any sort of deterrent to re-distribution of wealth? What gives the government any right to do this? You can rest assured that it is not the constitution. Does a want of wealth equate to right to someone else's wealth?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just see distribution of wealth as an extraordinarily effective solution
This is a common mistake. The government has not the ability to "distribute" wealth. In order to do that, they must have the ability to generate wealth, which they do not. The government is limited to taking wealth from those who create it in the private sector, and "re-distributing" it to other parties in the private sector.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- most of this administration's leadership is out of touch with a very large portion of the middle class. The shame is how strong the popularity numbers are --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So which is it? Is the administration in touch, or out of touch? Popular, or unpopular? Representing what the people want, or not? Or is it just not representing what you think most people want? Or what you want yourself?
Geesh Flyingcow - Of course it is my opinion and what I want myself. I reread my post and thought it was clear it was my opinion, but if I must preface every sentence with that I shall...
I BELIEVE the current administration is out of touch with the majority of the issues that affect the middle class. I THINK it is a shame that they can be so, yet maintain a high popularity.
Enron in America. (I presume you're familiar with this one -- lots of people committing fraud for personal gain?)
Perhaps you're familiar with the savings and loan fraud that resulted in many of our current regulations on those institutions? Notice that these types of fraud are no longer able to bring the economy to its knees.
Or then there's our good friends at SCO, who are lying through their teeth to inflate stock prices and cash out their options.
Or we can go further back, and notice the city bosses of the early 20th, who were essentially untouchable because to break with their organization was to lose a future. It took quite a while until the government managed to crack down on them, and even then the government had to do extensive research in order to build cases, since the government had essentially no oversight.
Simply put, despite our many regulations people lie cheat and steal all the time to make a buck. Many of the very worst abuses throughout history don't happen now, however, because there is oversight to prevent them from happening again. Removing all that oversight will just result in a resurgence of the exact same problems that plagued the US in the past.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A couple of thoughts after watching "60 Minutes" last night.
First of all, I don't have that much problem with having gone after Saddam Hussein. Very bad man. However, I have a great deal of trouble with the way it was presented. Personally, I think it has been obvious from the beginning that what Iraq is really all about is that mosaic of Papa Bush that Saddam had installed so that people would have to walk on his face. Doesn't have much at all to do with WMDs or freeing anyone or oil or even any war on terrorism.
Just my opinion, of course.
Second, I've never been nearly as bothered by the current Bush as much as I'm bothered by those surrounding him. As someone said, that particular cabal has never been shy about their intentions - which as far as I can see are to colonize as much of the rest of the world as they can, with the express purpose of gaining as much money and power for themselves as they can, and to install a police state here at home, for the same purpose. These are scary people.
Again, just my opinion.
Third, I think it's really interesting that the efforts to cut taxes for the wealthiest people in this country are always excused by saying, "Well, they earned it and they should be able to keep it." This brings up a big question in my mind: Aren't the middle classes and the poor also entitled to keep what they earn? The implication of that justification seems to be that, no, the rich are more entitled than others. I find that attitude to be highly unacceptable.
For the third time, just my opinion.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: There in lies the problem. The government is not able to create meaningful employment. This must be done by the private sector. Government spending is usually focused at people who already have jobs, like engineers and construction workers, etc. Also, for every dollar spent by the government, a dollar must be taken out of the economy first. The net effect is a shift of wealth from those who earn it, to those with government "pull".
Of course jobs are created by the private sector. This can be in response to government spending. Government spending does not have to be focused on people who already have jobs - otherwise it is no better than an equivalent tax cut. I suppose one can use that as their simplistic response for choosing one or the other. Most good solutions focus on delivering net new work that can only be accomplished with net new resources.
As to a dollar taken out of the economy, that is interesting - I should use your tact and ask you where that dollar comes from and just how is it placed back in the flow in an exactly equivalent way? - but that is a skimming issue and not necessary. Suffice it to say, dollars in the economy are not equal in effect - A dollar in your mattress is 'in the economy' but holds little value otherwise when the odds of it circulating are so greatly reduced.
Now those who earn it - my goodness, I hope to not be so cynical as to hold that someone working on a government sponsored road project is not earning their money. Singular cases of abuse can be found, but a simple, properly administered project is usually not focused on the few as you insinuate.
Do you see private property rights as any sort of deterrent to re-distribution of wealth? What gives the government any right to do this? You can rest assured that it is not the constitution. Does a want of wealth equate to right to someone else's wealth?
You completely lost me here, but to answer your first question - absolutely not - property rights is not a part of this specific issue. Does want of wealth equate to someone else's wealth? - where did I say that?
It appears that you place my comments into some place I didn't go. My concept of distribution of wealth is not (I'll even repeat it - is not) take from the rich and give to the poor (Robin Hood I ain't). It is based on a flourishing economy with a mix of skills, professions, owners and management that reacts by applying the appropriate resources to support and enhance demand. This creates and distributes jobs that therefore creates a distribution of wealth without denying the wealthy an advantage.
So Robes - are you libertarian or a constitutional republican? You are one hard cat to read.
I must do other work, so all enjoy the fallout...
Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I realize that's your opinion Henry, it just seemed strange. How can someone be so out of touch while maintaining such high popularity? For instance, Pauly Shore is out of touch with what the people want - Orlando Bloom is not. How do we know? The people want more of one and less of the other. Maybe Bush is just out of touch with the minority? If so, that really stands to reason, doesn't it?
Tres,
quote: For one thing, we don't think the U.S. would deserve to be invaded, yet we certainly have fired on other nations without warning, refuse to give details on our weapons programs, and funded terrorism against the Soviet Union and other regimes we don't like. What's more, we actually DO have WMDs.
The US is also not under UN sanctions after losing a war that followed the invasion of another country. To put it simply, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Iraq was repelled and driven back into their own country at heavy losses. Iraq negotiated a peace contingent upon their obeying certain sanctions. Iraq did not obey those sanctions. Hence, the conditions that ended the war were never upheld, and the war should have been resumed... oh, I'd say around 1994 or so if the UN had any actual authority to enforce its decrees.
Chris, I do see that the Iraqi situation could have waited - hell, it had waited 12 years, what's another one or two. Or five. Or ten. Or twenty, when either of his two sons could have gone berzerk on another country for sneezing too close to Iraq's border.
Still, I can't really argue with the results. We had a ridiculously efficient war that toppled the Iraqi regime and captured Saddam Hussein alive. We are in the midst of instituting a non-despotic government which will hopefully become a stabilizing influence in one of the most unstable regions of the world. We've also rounded up untold members of the al Quaida network and are continuing to capture more.
Despite what some may feel are ignoble goals, the results are pretty impressive and successful. I haven't seen an international rally against us, either, unless I've been missing something - at least any more of one than there has been in the past, so it doesn't seem as though our allies have abandoned us.
Do the ends justify the means? Only time can tell that. In the meantime, focusing on programs with poor ends and poor means seems far more relavent.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Perhaps you're familiar with the savings and loan fraud that resulted in many of our current regulations on those institutions?
Do you know what caused the S&L scandals(aside from bad investments)? Government regulation of the banking industry. For some reason, the gov. was insuring depositors up to $100,000. There was little or no reason to actually look at how responsible the banks were being with the money they had because the government was willing to bail everyone out if the bank failed. I think the bill ended up being $500 Billion to the taxpayers to bail out those idiots.
quote: SCO, who are lying through their teeth
Fraud is also already covered, there need not be extra regulations against fraud.
quote: Simply put, despite our many regulations people lie cheat and steal all the time to make a buck.
I'm glad you finally get it that regulations don't have anything to do with lying cheating or stealing. So what *do* regulations do then? They are usually set up to help those with government pull.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: As to a dollar taken out of the economy, that is interesting - I should use your tact and ask you where that dollar comes from and just how is it placed back in the flow in an exactly equivalent way? - but that is a skimming issue and not necessary.
I think you may have missed my point here. I am not talking about private sector "skimming" I am talking about the dollars that the government spends. Every single dollar the gov. spends must first be confiscated from the private sector.
quote: property rights is not a part of this specific issue. Does want of wealth equate to someone else's wealth? - where did I say that?
Property rights are at the heart of this issue. As stated before, for the government to re-distribute wealth, it must first take that wealth from someone who earned it, in effect, confiscate their personal property.
Just because the economy is in downturn, this does not give the gov the right to waive property rights. Just as the war on terror doesn't give the gov the right to detain US citizens forever without a trial or access to a lawyer.
Indeed you don't specifically say anything about need equating a right to someone else's wealth, however, this is what you imply when you sanction government redistribution of wealth.
quote: My concept of distribution of wealth is not (I'll even repeat it - is not) take from the rich and give to the poor (Robin Hood I ain't).
Where then, does the gov. get the money it spends?
quote: It is based on a flourishing economy with a mix of skills, professions, owners and management that reacts by applying the appropriate resources to support and enhance demand.
In short, take wealth from those who earn it, and give it to those who did not.
quote: So Robes - are you libertarian or a constitutional republican? You are one hard cat to read.
Good, I don't tend to limit myself to any one group of thought. Some that might apply are: Libertarian, Federalist, and Classical Liberal(as in free trade and free markets).
posted
"In short, take wealth from those who earn it, and give it to those who did not."
If you do not endorse this approach, how exactly do you believe we should assist those who have not earned sufficient wealth to survive?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: how exactly do you believe we should assist those who have not earned sufficient wealth to survive?
If by "we" you mean the federal government, we do nothing at all. If you mean "we" as a society, we rely on voluntary charity.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like the regulations that are weakened by the "Clean Air" act? Like the regulations that are not being enforced by the toothless SEC? Like the regulations that are being stripped down by regulatory boards headed by Bush nominees that are, to a person, people who were originally either lobbyists or corporate leaders who fought against the very regulations that they are now supposed to enforce?
Bush is known for dispensing with regulations that bother companies he likes. He spent his years in Texas making the oil company environmental regulations voluntary. Guess how many of the oil companies have voluntarily complied?
There is no more Superfund. Companies that pollute areas are no longer required to clean up after themselves, even if damages can be proven.
Bush fought hard in Texas to block the Patients Bill of Rights, and when it passed anyway over his veto he refused to sign the part where patients can sue incompetent doctors. It became law without his signature.
There was a bill circulating through Congress when Bush was elected that would have made offshore transactions transparent with a court order, something that would have been extremely useful in tracking alQueda movements. That died a fast death because it would have inconvenienced corporations.
The Bush dynasty is built on stripping away any and all restrictions to unfettered corporate growth and profit, and he stands firmly in the way of anything that would make those corporations accountable to the American people.
I have no problem with a more fair system of taxation, and I don't wish to take more of the upper tax bracket's money than is due. But I see no reason why the IRS was told to concentrate on lower income cheaters instead of high-roller tax frauds. I don't understand why companies that set up offshore tax havens are still given government contracts. I don't understand why companies with fraudulent, even felonious records are still given government contracts. We don't need to tax rich people unfairly. We need to tax them honestly, and make them pay it.
This country was based on a system of checks and balances. There are none in Bush's corporate dreamland, and he's doing his best to remove those annoying checks and balances in the executive branch.
What scares me, what honestly terrifies me, is what he'll do in the next four years when he doesn't even have to pretend to listen to the voters.
[ January 12, 2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: This country was based on a system of checks and balances. There are none in Bush's corporate dreamland
There are no and should never be any checks and balances on corporations. They are private entities, and as such, are subject the established laws of the land and do not need any balancing.
Corporate dreamland eh? Sounds just terrible for the economy. God forbid corporations are allowed to make money.
As far as environmental regulations, those fall under a different heading, as they protect people's private property from ruin by external pollution. Pollution also destroys property owned by the government.
quote: But I see no reason why the IRS was told to concentrate on lower income cheaters instead of high-roller tax frauds.
The only reason I can imagine is that they are trying to scare people into paying, and feel it will have a bigger effect on the small-fry. I don't know. I certainly don't support everything Bush has done.
posted
"Enron was a case of theft, plain and simple."
Enron was the picture-perfect example of what can happen with deregulation that removes accountability.
In the 1980's and early 1990's, Ken Lay used his political connections to persuade the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to deregulate natural gas. This allowed Enron, one of the largest natural gas companies in the U.S., to take advantage of its position in the market place. It also allowed Lay to push electric deregulation on a state-by-state basis and on a federal level.
Ken Lay's Enron played a major role in lobbying electric deregulation in the Texas, Tennessee, Oregon, and Pennsylvania state legislatures. In Pennsylvania, then Texas governor George W. Bush even called then Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge to encourage him to support deregulation of electricity in Pennsylvania. George W. Bush strongly supported and signed an electric deregulation law in Texas at the behest of Ken Lay and Enron. Enron was successful in pushing through electric power deregulation in 24 state legislatures, which made it possible for them to create the "markets" they needed to rip off consumers. Some experts say that Enron played a significant role in the recent astronomical increases in electric rates in California and other states. According to the National Institute of Money in State Politics, Enron's lobbying included more than $1.9 Million in campaign contributions to more than 700 candidates in 28 states. They met with utilities commissioners and worked in close tandem with other energy companies to make sure that electric power privatization passed in legislatures across the country. The massive political and lobbying power of these energy companies drowned out the voices of consumer groups and environmental groups who had serious questions and doubts about electric restructuring. These corporate victories set the stage for an "energy crisis" in California and other states.
A deregulation move speareheaded by Joe Lieberman kept the Federal Accounting Standards Board from instituting proper accounting of stock options. This is the then-perfectly-legal way that Enron (and others) overstated their profits by not including the stock options issued to their top executives against their profits.
The Private Securities Litigations Reform Act (1995) made it harder for people to sue a company or its auditors if a company goes bankrupt after cooking the books and engaging in deception. Under this law auditors are liable for only those losses that were caused by the auditors. Under the old law the auditors could be sued in court for all losses caused by the bankruptcy.
Deregulation removes accountability. I'm not asking for constrictive measures, or unfair levies. I'm not even asking for a level playing field. But I damn well expect accountability, and I demand a way to seek redress against a fraudulent company.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There are no and should never be any checks and balances on corporations."
When corporations can legally avoid charges that an individual could not, then corporations must have their own regulations. Corporations exist, in fact, solely to take legal and financial responsibility away from any single individual.
"God forbid corporations are allowed to make money."
I'm all for corporations making money, all they can get. Legally, and without defrauding anybody.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rospierre, you seem to be under the impression that all "Regulation" is evil and all "Law to protect property" is good.
But they are the same.
You say that Fraud is illegal and should be and that the government should punish those who commit it. Yet much of the "Regulations" you want to ditch are designed to enable our government to catch and punish fraud.
You are a strong supporter of Sellers rights, where the rights of the property of the person selling are not touched. What of the rights of the purchaser? When I walk into a store should I be able to determine if product A is what the advertising says it is? Should I be able to determine if its safe? If not then commerce in this country will come to a crashing slowdown. If the food industry suddenly had no regulations would I dare buy food I didn't grow for fear it was bad? WOuld I take any drugs for fear they were mis-labeled.
There are no regulations on how employees are treated in India. I have friends there. One recently lost a months salary and thousands in bonuses because he dared quit. Oh, he gave a demanded 1 month notice, but his boss refused to accept the notice, demanding he stay on the job despite not getting promised raises for two years. He had the choice of staying or going and losing all his bonuses. Because there was no regulation on employee compensation and rights, it was a question of his word against the companies, and no judge would believe him.
Then there is the question of Environmental Regulation. You seem to want to get rid of these. Yet the environment is shared property. The air I breathe, the water I drink, all come from a shared source. If you taint this shared property then you should be punished.
Finally there is your thought that any person who is hungry can go to a charity and get food. Its not that charities have ever embezzled funds or provided sub-standard food. You honestly believe that no one in the US will starve to death if they just sought out charity.
Ask your grandparents about the Depression. Ask yourself why Johnson started his war on poverty. It wasn't about votes. It was because people in the US were starving. Ask about the illegal immigrants dieing of thirst in the dessert today, and their kin hungry children picking lettuce and grapes in California.
Sure, if taxes dropped 90% people will have more funds to donate to the charity of their choice. But there is no proof that it will meet the need of the millions on some assistance who will be unable to afford the food they need.
Not to mention the people who will die because they bought food instead of medicine because the government no longer pays for their heart pills.
You argue that government should be about property. Why?
This is a government about people. The reason any society gets together is for the better welfare of its people, not its property. Sure, better protection of property makes a better welfare for its people, but the people are the main force, not the property.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, its not worth debating with him. He already ignores the evidence staring him in his face, and presenting it in new forms isn't going to change his mind.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: He already ignores the evidence staring him in his face, and presenting it in new forms isn't going to change his mind.
Yeah, I guess I ignored all that evidence that you put forth to support your positions.
A constructive conversation can be had when both sides speak their points clearly, and respond to specific points made by the other side. You do neither of these.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
