| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/27/2004 10:45:46 PM · #76 |
Hey Ron...
I explained above why investing that borrowed money in alternative energies would help the country, far better than spending it on Iraq.
We have gained absolutely nothing, unless you want to consider death and destruction as something gained. We have not gained any more security, and if anything, we have made ourselves, and the world even more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Before we invaded Iraq, we probably would have gotten some support for our war on terror, but now the Muslim/Arab world sees what this administration is about...imperialistic self-serving politicians more interested in the status quo than changing things for the better. It does matter what the money is spent on. This war, to be redundant cause it's just not sinking in for you, was not needed, to say the least. There were no WMDs and no links of al Qaeda with Hussein. The money for this war is gone and we could have used it for much better purposes. Yet ANOTHER example of mismanagement and incompetency by the Bush administration.
Alternative fuels would not only benefit the big companies. I don't know why you think that. There would be many companies sprouting up. So we haven't yet started developing these needed technologies and we continue to pollute the earth and our bodies. Not very smart.
When our children have to start paying back this enormous debt, especially to overseas banks, they will be in a big crisis in this country and the politicians who got us into it will be sipping on their pina colodas on some hidden hideaway island. They are theives stealing away our children's future.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
It seems to me that the money that has been squandered in Iraq could have been used elsewhere in our economy, such as developing alternative fuels and the infrastructure needed to deliver those fuels. This would have been the wise thing to do... |
And in terms of the National Debt, what would change if you spent the money as you suggest as opposed to spending it on the war effort? Does my debt load change less if I charge an extra $2000 on a plasma TV or charge an extra $2000 on a used car? I don't think so. My debt STILL goes up by the same amount - $2000. But I forget. . .an increase in the national debt for non-constitutionally supported spending is wise, but an increase for constitutionally mandated national security is "squandering". By the way, who would benefit if the U.S. invested in developing alternative fuels or the infrastructure? Oh, that's right - those nasty, evil, large CORPORATIONS - the ones that contribute so heavily to the Republican Party. And if that happened, it would just give you MORE to rant and rave and blame Bush for. |
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 11:03:59 PM · #77 |
All these arguments are being debated from a very narrow view. Consider that America is so big and so robust that when America goes under so will the rest of the globe. Consider all the charity that we provide to third world countries. Consider all the debt that we have written off. Consider all the goods we buy. Consider America not being the super power that we are.
Because we are so big we have the ability to enter inflation, deflation, big debt a market crash and survive it all over and over again. I am affraid that we are not near any type of disaster. America keeps growing.
9/11 dug a deep hole into this economy and tax cuts are the best way to help and look at how we have recovered so rapidly.
The Democrats want to tax to spend. Bush has helped out the Democratic dream and yet he is hated. Also note that the people who complain about the tax cuts are those that say that they do not need it. The millons of Americans who got theirs are happy and they are not displaying that class envy: yeah, but the rich got more. Sure they got more, they pay more and who is to stand in a pulpit and demand that we rape the rich?
No, no. That is the difference between both parties. The sober party believes that what is your is yours and the Democrats insist in placing their hands into the pockets of what they call the rich when in reality they put their greedy hands into everybody elses pockets because they insist on the re-distribution of property.
They want only programs that build roads and help education and increase out well being....yet, what does all this matter if we are decapitated by the enemy in this war. Liberals do not get it and this is the reason that the enemy wants liberals in charge..Libs are a pushover...Consider the hatred the enemy has for Bush. They know a Liberal would have never invaded Iraq. After 9/11 it is them against us and we took the war to them and with it created a vacuum where all Islamic terroist nations are forced to send in their mutants. Better there than here.
It is amusing how for political reasons the Left Wing of the democratic party has used the war as a negative tool by calling it a wrong war at the wrong time. What better time than after 9/11. There is a war, but the Libs do not get it.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 11:07:51 PM · #78 |
"No President of the United States should employ misguided ideology and distortion of the truth to take the nation to war. In doing so, the President broke the basic bond of trust between government and the people. If Congress and the American people knew the whole truth, America would never have gone to war.
"To remain silent when we feel so strongly would be irresponsible. It would betray the fundamental ideals for which our troops are sacrificing their lives on battlefields half a world away. No President who does that to this land we love deserves to be re-elected. (emphasis added)
"
Ron Bugay of
Republicans for Kerry. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 11:22:14 PM · #79 |
The only problem with the reasoning here is that we were attacked. repeat, we were attacked. These Islamic countries hate us equally. So, of you are in a remote part of the world and New Jersey Attacks you and you attack New York in retaliation, you still attacked the US.
All we did was unseat Sadam and place our military weight right in the hub of activity. And who in the world is Kerry, but a self admitted war criminal. A man with no guts and no convictions, but hey, like he said that dying for the UN is honorable but not when dying for the American flag.
So, of you hate the US, then Kerry is your man.
If you embrace the crooked UN, then Kerry is for you.
If you think that we are too big and too powerful and we should become like a third world country than Kerry is for you.
If you think you are not being taxed enough than Kerry is for you.
Look, Kerry has all of these wonderful feautures and the ability to change his mind tomorrow about his convictions. Is this what you want? Then you deserve Kerry.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 11:48:18 PM · #80 |
It dark in here, so dark...
|
|
|
|
10/28/2004 12:00:08 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
It dark in here, so dark... |
Im scared. |
|
|
|
10/28/2004 12:12:40 AM · #82 |
William F. Buckley:
"“With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war.”
June 29, 2004
Tucker Carlson of CNN:
"I think it’s a total nightmare and disaster, and I’m ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting itâ€Â¦..It’s something I’ll never do again. Neverâ€Â¦Ă˘€Â¦ I want things to work out, but I’m enraged by it, actually."
George Will:
“Being steadfast in defense of carefully considered convictions is a virtue. Being blankly incapable of distinguishing cherished hopes from disappointing facts, or of reassessing comforting doctrines in face of contrary evidence, is a crippling political vice.”
From "Time for Bush to See the Realities of Iraq", May 4, 2004
From This article:
"Prominent among the myths regarding the war in Iraq is the proposition that the pro-war interventionist position is universally supported by pro-American conservatives, and that opposition to the war is a left-wing position.
"Overlooked is that some of the most principled opposition to current Iraq war policy comes from traditional, patriotic, pro-national defense, small-government conservatives, who object to current interventionist policy as over-reaching, counterproductive to our relationships with our allies, a factor aggravating creation of more terrorists, and resulting in an on-going heavy price in American lives and collateral damage.
Amoungst those speaking out against the Iraq war are:
-Representative John Duncan (R-Tenn)
-General Anthony Zinni (retired) former commander of US Central Command in Iraq
-Lieutenant General William Odom US Army
-Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas)
-Pat Buchanan
-Representative Doug Bereuter (R-Nebraska)
-Representative Ken Lucas (R-kentucky)
-Robert Novak
-James Webb (USMC) retired
-George Will
-William S Lund
And many more conservatives speak out against the Bush invasion of Iraq. |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 09:42:43 AM · #83 |
"Year-by-Year Analysis of the Bush Tax Cuts Shows Growing Tilt to the Very Rich" from: This article.
"By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent—whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million."
"Although the rich have already received a hefty down payment on their Bush tax cuts—averaging just under $12,000 each this year—80 percent of their windfall is scheduled to come from tax changes that won’t take effect until after this year, mostly from items that phase in after 2005."
"In contrast, the vast majority of taxpayers have already received most of their tax cuts from the 2001 legislation. For the four out of five families and individuals making less than $73,000 this year, three-quarters of the tax cuts—averaging about $350 this year—are already in place."
The Bush tax cuts are for the RICH and will continue to go their way for many years to come. The Bush economic plan is poor fiscal policy, especially in a time of war! Bush has squandered the money we've borrowed from mostly foreign banks for a war NOT needed and this money is gone and we've gotten nothing for it but death and destruction. There is no more security from this war. If anything, the US and world is MORE AT RISK for terrorist attacks in the coming years. This coming from an administration that promises to continue their war mongering ways against other countries.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2004 10:49:48 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I know a poor man (personally). I know there are many, too many, poorer than him. Yet, it is him I know very well.
[. . . ]
When I look at these two men, knowing what I know of them, whom do you think I favour when it comes to taxes? |
(Note: I didn't include all of it, but you can find it near the beginning of this thread).
I know a poor couple. They have three little girls. They live on welfare, do not work (though he is very capable, physically and mentally), and depend on other charities to supplement what welfare does not pay for. They get completely free medical, dental, etc. In short, they don't have to pay for anything. They are the cheatenest, most dishonest, laziest people I know. She frequents the casinos and "bingo bars" and he has been accused of abusing (mentally, physically, and sexually) the three girls. The last I heard, he was not to have contact with them, but what DSS doesn't know doesn't hurt, right? At one point, they asked a local church to help them make repairs on their car, then told the church it would take about $600 dollars more than it actually did.
I know another couple. She made over $250,000 last year, and I don't have a clue what his income is (he's a stockbroker). They are one of the most gentlest, kindest couples I know. They live in a wonderful house, with nice cars, and are very supportive of charities/organizations in their towns and others. She is the epitome of grace and poise. She is approachable and always wanting to help if at all possible. He is mild mannered, polite, and tries to make everyone feel comfortable if that is what the situation needs. They just bought a new house, and are understandably excited about it (in her words, it is like a vacation home). They have travelled around the world.
My point? Not all wealthy people are dingbats, and not all poor people are noble. Quite frankly, in my experience, it is about half/half.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2004 10:52:15 AM · #85 |
Toilet seat costs government $1000. Toilet seat costs "Bob" $8.50. Bob pockets $991.50 and sends $8.50 to the factory.
Way to help the factory workers!
- Gov't spends too much. (obviously)
- Flat tax makes the most sense, plain and simple.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2004 01:48:07 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by karmat:
...Not all wealthy people are dingbats, and not all poor people are noble. Quite frankly, in my experience, it is about half/half. |
I concede. Your point is valid and, I believe, reasonable. Yet, in my 'republic', welfare would be an unalienable right to ensure that each individual may maintain his most essential 'needs', including his dignity. He should be encouraged to match his right(s) with obligations according to his ability.
People who exceed their obligations by contributing more than what can be expected of them as citizens, neighbours and men, should be awarded privileges. People who enjoy such privileges without contributing to society, land or life should be stripped of an appropiate amount of privilege (taxes being one means in a capitalist society to accomplish just this).
The objective -in my republic- would be to approximate a 'fair distribution of wealth and power'. Present societies, IMO, are a far cry removed from this. It is this economic imbalance that's at the root of much unnecessary misery and injustice (opinion).
How can we educate those who would benefit from an education, how can we inspire good and discourage evil, if we are unwilling to acknowledge the insult of our economic system on those unduly subjected to it?
To punish those who abuse their rights, certainly, should be secondary to attempting to mend a corrupt system of values altogether.
Message edited by author 2004-10-29 13:48:59.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2004 02:08:07 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by karmat:
...Not all wealthy people are dingbats, and not all poor people are noble. Quite frankly, in my experience, it is about half/half. |
I concede. Your point is valid and, I believe, reasonable. Yet, in my 'republic', welfare would be an unalienable right to ensure that each individual may maintain his most essential 'needs', including his dignity. He should be encouraged to match his right(s) with obligations according to his ability.
People who exceed their obligations by contributing more than what can be expected of them as citizens, neighbours and men, should be awarded privileges. People who enjoy such privileges without contributing to society, land or life should be stripped of an appropiate amount of privilege (taxes being one means in a capitalist society to accomplish just this).
The objective -in my republic- would be to approximate a 'fair distribution of wealth and power'. Present societies, IMO, are a far cry removed from this. It is this economic imbalance that's at the root of much unnecessary misery and injustice (opinion).
How can we educate those who would benefit from an education, how can we inspire good and discourage evil, if we are unwilling to acknowledge the insult of our economic system on those unduly subjected to it?
To punish those who abuse their rights, certainly, should be secondary to attempting to mend a corrupt system of values altogether. |
Sounds a lot like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - the fundamental principle of marxism/communism/socialism ( take your pick ).
Just out of curiosity, how would you define "fair" as applied to "distribution of wealth and power"? |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 02:20:04 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Sounds a lot like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - the fundamental principle of marxism/communism/socialism ( take your pick ).
|
I think in principle, marxism/ communism/ socialism are basically not a terrible idea. The problem is human nature gets involved.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others
Message edited by author 2004-10-29 14:20:14.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2004 02:20:42 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Sounds a lot like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" - the fundamental principle of marxism/communism/socialism ( take your pick ).
Just out of curiosity, how would you define "fair" as applied to "distribution of wealth and power"? |
- How about a fundamental principle of Confusionism, Bhuddism, humanitarianism and other -isms I was so careful to leave out?
- I wouldn't define 'fair' at all in this vast context. I would, instead, trust that people of sound mind and heart could arrive at a 'fair' consensus of what it means here. I was not addressing anyone else.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2004 02:33:33 PM · #90 |
Factory gets sued by Dumb Ass.
Factory sends mega bucks to John.
John passes a few dollars to Dumb Ass and pockets mega bucks.
John runs for Vice President of United States.
Facrory closes because of lawsuits, thousands lose jobs.
Mom and Pops store across street from factory closes.
Less revenue to IRS.
National Debt rises.
Toilet seat prices rise due to product libality insurance.
Toilet seats now imported from China.
Democrats blame Bush
Kerry wins another Purple Heart for getting splenter in butt from Chineese toilet seat.
Ten thousand lawyers line up to take the case.
Originally posted by jadin:
Toilet seat costs government $1000. Toilet seat costs "Bob" $8.50. Bob pockets $991.50 and sends $8.50 to the factory.
Way to help the factory workers!
- Gov't spends too much. (obviously)
- Flat tax makes the most sense, plain and simple. |
Message edited by author 2004-10-29 18:50:19. |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 03:04:30 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by RonB:
Just out of curiosity, how would you define "fair" as applied to "distribution of wealth and power"? |
- I wouldn't define 'fair' at all in this vast context. I would, instead, trust that people of sound mind and heart could arrive at a 'fair' consensus of what it means here. I was not addressing anyone else. |
Interesting, but not at all unexpected. YOU state
"The objective -in my republic- would be to approximate a 'fair distribution of wealth and power'"
but then admit that you would not define "fair" at all in "this vast context" but would "trust that people of sound mind and heart could arrive at a 'fair' consensus of what it means".
Suffice it to say, I am of sound mind and heart, and I don't think that redistribution of wealth is 'fair' at all - and I don't believe that I'm alone in that thinking - hence, I don't think that a 'fair' concensus can be reached. |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 04:05:37 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Suffice it to say, I am of sound mind and heart, and I don't think that redistribution of wealth is 'fair' at all - and I don't believe that I'm alone in that thinking - hence, I don't think that a 'fair' concensus can be reached. |
This is probably why my republic remains an ideal, wheras yours 'exists'.
|
|
|
|
10/29/2004 06:59:46 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
"In contrast, the vast majority of taxpayers have already received most of their tax cuts from the 2001 legislation. For the four out of five families and individuals making less than $73,000 this year, three-quarters of the tax cuts—averaging about $350 this year—are already in place."
The Bush tax cuts are for the RICH and will continue to go their way for many years to come. |
(Cut out other parts just for the point I'm about to make. If you feel I've cut unfairly, let me know.)
Depending on what you intend, you either contradict yourself there, or you're agreeing with our argument.
- If you meant "The Bush tax cuts are only for the RICH...", well then, of course, the preceding paragraph proves you wrong, since some of the tax cuts do, in fact, go to lower income earners.
- If you meant "The Bush tax cuts are primarily for the RICH...", well then, of course. How else could it be? As previously pointed out, for the tax cut to have any affect on the economy, then the primary wealth earners will get the primary benefit.
Unfortunately, with the ambiguity of the english language, the statement "the Bush tax cuts are for the RICH..." is incomplete. Which is what Kerry thrives on. |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 11:30:16 PM · #94 |
Unfortunately, for the vast majority of Americans, the fiscal realities of the tax cuts are what the rich and Bush administration thrive on.
Originally posted by ScottK:
Unfortunately, with the ambiguity of the english language, the statement "the Bush tax cuts are for the RICH..." is incomplete. Which is what Kerry thrives on. |
|
|
|
|
10/29/2004 11:33:39 PM · #95 |
| All of the economic systems, whether, socialism, communism, capitalism have their pros and cons. Why can't we as a nation combine the best of the three and leave out the rest? Why does it have to be all or none? |
|
|
|
10/30/2004 12:22:44 AM · #96 |
What do you consider the best of three, because from where I am standing, it seems as if they are philosophically different and to "merge" them simply means that one or two of them have to be changed dramatically from what they fundamentally are?
(Honest question, not arguing, just in case anyone wonders)
|
|
|
|
10/30/2004 12:36:58 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
All of the economic systems, whether, socialism, communism, capitalism have their pros and cons. Why can't we as a nation combine the best of the three and leave out the rest? Why does it have to be all or none? |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
A cursory look at communism and socialism equals no incentive to approach the cutting edge of the best that money can buy either in comforts or necessities. These systems do not reward success.
Captitalism runs the gears at full speed and look at how America Towers above. It is a system that rewards and a system that can bring cuting edge technologies to your fingertips and to the entire globe. |
|
|
|
10/30/2004 12:38:03 AM · #98 |
| I would say that the problem with the way the three of them have been implemented is they have been the means of big and centralized systems where just a few are in control of their respective economies and where the masses have been left out of the equation. This leads to massive corruption and other problems. IN the capitalistic state we live in now, oligopolies and monopolies are major problems and undermine our democracy and economy. That is why we have Anti-Trust legislation. Economies of smaller scale where control lies with localities I think would make for a fairer economy. The breakup of the phone company giants some years back may be a good example. |
|
|
|
10/30/2004 12:41:12 AM · #99 |
Communism was up there with us for quite some time, if you can remember back to the days of the cold war.
Cutting edge has it's limitations too...especially when it comes to the environment, which our system of capitalism is quickly destroying. Our system of capitalism is also running out of raw materials and so turns to invading other countries, espeically when it comes to oil. So this economic system of capitalism may topple some day soon too.
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
All of the economic systems, whether, socialism, communism, capitalism have their pros and cons. Why can't we as a nation combine the best of the three and leave out the rest? Why does it have to be all or none? |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
A cursory look at communism and socialism equals no incentive to approach the cutting edge of the best that money can buy either in comforts or necessities. These systems do not reward success.
Captitalism runs the gears at full speed and look at how America Towers above. It is a system that rewards and a system that can bring cuting edge technologies to your fingertips and to the entire globe. |
|
|
|
|
10/30/2004 01:00:51 AM · #100 |
The oil argument is possibly the biggest. The argument against natural resources is the lamest and pushed mostly by the left environmental wackos. So wacked out that they prevent us from declaring our independence by digging up our own oil. We prefer to dirty someone else's backyard. Yet look at how vulnable this leaves us. So, here is a victory for the left which I must concede.
The environment is not as weak as it is presented. It is even presumptious to believe that a planetary system that has evolved experiencing the pains of its creation from untold swings in temperatures to scorching solar explosions and radiation to our current mutation. Animals have been found frozen in ice with grass in their jaws. An upheavel that took place so rapidly. There have been big upheavels and there will be more to come. Our time line is too short to record anything of value and all we do is talk like fools because this is a topic that is truly too big for our dissection. |
|
