Obama's approval rate drops......

[Hot Mega]

Even Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright and Al Gore said Saddam was a threat to US security. Only when a Republican is in office does the threat no longer exist.

They never took nor supported US military intervention in regime change in Iraq. Rightfully so and beyond enforcing inherited UN resolutions there was NO action toward US military involvement by either of them. You guys keep trotting that gibberish out but a relative threat can mean many things. Every administration since the '50s believes N Korea is a relative threat and would like regime change but not at the hands of US military involvement unless necessary. Iraq was no actionable threat...certainly nowhere near a trillion dollars worth of one to the US taxpayer.

No measurable footprint for terrorism? Assuming that ridiculous statement was true, try and tell that to the Israelis who bore the brunt of suicide bombers that were funded by Saddam Hussein. He paid the families of those bombers. The only thing "Cosmopolitan" about Iraq under Hussein was the Palaces he built for himself and his sons. Meanwhile, the rest of the Iraqi population lived under tyranny and poverty.

Again, no measurable footprint for terrorism. And Saddam never funded one single, suicide ******...assuming it is even true that he gave money to the families of bombers and that's not just more propaganda, that's not funding the attacks. We live under a tyranny once..and we took care of it.

As I said earlier, time will be the judge on whether or not the money spent there is worth it. But a stable even slightly democratic government in that region of the world will benefit the US as well as the neighboring countries for many years to come. We would be talking about how to stop 2 countries from obtaining nuclear weapons instead of only Iran at this present time.

We had to spend a trillion dollars to get a slightly democratic government in that region of the world?? What was wrong with the one we're allied with on Iraq's northern border??? Just patent ignorance....Oh...in case you didn't get the memo, Iraq possessed no WMD....ergo, the sanctions and inspections worked.

Un-fukin-real...

 

[meesterperfect]

you dont know if the sanctions and inspections worked, are you a CIA agent?
you just say it because you want it to be true, because you **** all things republican, not because you know.

un fucking real

 

[Hot Mega]

Correct 2001-2003 it was a 50/50 tie, but Cheny was the deciding factor on votes if it was close.

2003-2005 it was GOP controlled, but that stoped in 2006 where it is not Dem controlled.

So technically only 2 years it was a true GOP congress.

 

[Hot Mega]

you dont know if the sanctions and inspections worked, are you a CIA agent?
you just say it because you want it to be true, because you **** all things republican, not because you know.

un fucking real

There many reports...take your pick....not that facts will matter much to you now when the NEVER do..

 

[Rey C.]

Newt's idea of a tax holiday was interesting. But that sort of fiscal policy would not really be considered a supply side policy initiative, mainly because it would be short term (8 months or 2/3 of a fiscal year) and it would be focused on stimulating demand, not the supply side. As well, you can't think of that sort of tax poilicy as zero sum or deficit neutral anymore than a demand side/Keynesian policy. I didn't read through his proposal fully, but I believe it focused on individual taxpayers and not corporate or excise taxes, is that right? Individual tax receipts make up almost 50% of government revenues, which for 2008 were about $2.5 trillion. So assuming something close to that for the next fiscal year (or 8 months of it), Newt's idea would have resulted in about $1 trillion dollars in lost revenue... and an addition to the deficit to cover that amount. So, there's a trillion. The Dems spent something shy of that amount. It would be debatable figuring out which one would represent money well spent... if either.

Would that have sparked some economic activity? I don't know. It may have sparked some activity (on the demand side at least). It may have just contributed to the savings rate, which has been soaring over the past 12 months or so. But because it would just be a one time, short term event, I doubt that it would have really done that much (immediately) for the supply side. In this case, the supply side of the equation would more likely react to a longer term shift in the demand curve. In the short term, on the supply side, they'd probably just do what they've done for the past year: cut prices, draw down inventories and increase productivity with overtime rather than hiring.

But whether it's Demand Side/Keynesian or Supply Side, they're all economic theories. They're only proved by econometric equations and data collected AFTER an economic event has taken place. Economists are arguing to this day about the contributors, the results and the cause & effect within Reagan's (Laffer's) economic policies of the 80's and 90's.

Short term gimmicks (whether it's Cash for Clunkers, Gingrich's tax holiday or some other short term fiscal policy) may provide enough of a spark to get an economy going, or at least back on its feet enough to get back in growth mode. But they all come with a price: deficit spending, at least in Year 1. Laffer's ideas on addressing tax policies to stimulate the supply side of the equation worked (in part) because the marginal rates were SO much higher then than what we see today, and the theory was based on that wide delta. But the short term effect of the Supply Side tax cuts was increased deficits (because there were not corresponding cuts in spending). Even Laffer admitted in an interview that W. Bush's tax cuts at the margin were probably not enough to actually do much other than add to the deficit. In other words, they weren't enough to spark additional output or productivity on the supply side. Probably, that is. You can debate it either way. But Laffer's opinion does hold a lot of weight.

IMO, lower taxes are better for an economy than higher taxes. And the last thing one would want to do is increase taxes during a recession (especially a deep one). But with any fiscal policy, there is a lag factor... and unintended consequences. And the true benefits might not be seen for years. Monetary policy, on the other hand, tends to work faster than most fiscal initiatives. But with all that said, I think a demand side stimulus was appropriate earlier this year. We really were in a state that few seem to understand or want to admit. My problem with the package that we got was that WAY too many meaningless, pork projects were inserted - and not enough focused, hard hitting projects saw their way into it. The one project that actually made a measurable difference in 3rd quarter GDP (and most likely contributed more than any other in ending the recession... technically) was perhaps the most unloved program of all: Cash for Clunkers. One might save some portion of the extra money from not paying income taxes for 8 months. But the only way to take advantage of that program was to do what people had generally stopped doing: $PEND! But, like I said, it was a short term boost. We'll see if that growth spurt can be sustained.

My hope was that Obama would be more of an economic centrist, and would help craft better tax policies... along with tighter banking/financial regulations for Money Center banks and hedge funds. But I think that's now less likely. He could turn water into ****, but the GOP (the Club for Growth, Evangelicals and Birther types, anyway) would still refuse to embrace or support any proposal that he would make (IMO). And many Democrats believe that anything related to Supply Side theory is an idea from Satan. So they wouldn't be with him either. Where I part with people on the right on economic issues is on trade. I was schooled at a very conservative economics dept. But I have lost my religion. I have come to believe that (when it comes to the American worker) there is no such thing as Free (FAIR) Trade. And because the Club for Growth types don't mind leaving the "fair" out of the free trade equation, I no longer believe that economic libertarianism works for the country that I call home. I admit that I'm selfish: I believe that you take care of your own first. And if you're in the Club for Growth and you care more about the ability/rights(?) of companies to transfer jobs out of America at will than you do about how that affects this nation, then me and you ain't gonna see eye to eye no mo. At one time, we might have. But this Free Trade hoopla is a rigged game. And let's not pretend that it's not.

I think it's just a shame that what I believe would work best for the country is exactly what we WON'T get. And that's another reason I refuse to identify with either politial party. Their main concern is maintaining or protecting their power bases. Not doing what's right for the country and its citizens.

BTW, that was a very impressive post by Mariahxxx. Whether I agree in whole or in part, I respect anyone who conveys their thoughts in that way. :hatsoff:

 

[Hot Mega]

BTW, that was a very impressive post by Mariahxxx. Whether I agree in whole or in part, I respect anyone who conveys their thoughts in that way. :hatsoff:

She is a gem...truly! A far sight better than some of these clogs who could string together a years worth of posts and not come anywhere near her coherent, reasoned offering above.

 

[Jane Burgess]

Correct 2001-2003 it was a 50/50 tie, but Cheny was the deciding factor on votes if it was close.

2003-2005 it was GOP controlled, but that stoped in 2006 where it is not Dem controlled.

So technically only 2 years it was a true GOP congress.

Good post :thumbsup:

 

[Jack Davenport]

Again, no measurable footprint for terrorism. And Saddam never funded one single, suicide ******...assuming it is even true that he gave money to the families of bombers and that's not just more propaganda, that's not funding the attacks. We live under a tyranny once..and we took care of it.

hmmm

Premium Link Upgrade

 

[Jack Davenport]

We had to spend a trillion dollars to get a slightly democratic government in that region of the world?? What was wrong with the one we're allied with on Iraq's northern border??? Just patent ignorance....Oh...in case you didn't get the memo, Iraq possessed no WMD....ergo, the sanctions and inspections worked.

Un-fukin-real...

My side can spend a trillion dollars to free a nation from a vicious dictator while giving millions of people a chance of living in a democratic society in a region that is in dire need of exactly that.

Or we can go with what your side offers, spending a trillion dollars on a health care program that will ultimately destroy one sixth of our economy and create a whole class of people dependent on another government clusterfuck.


The liberal mindset:

un-fucking-believable

 

[Hot Mega]

hmmm

Premium Link Upgrade

Uh, dude we invaded Iraq in 2003....that video was from '92..By 2003 Saddam would have spent the rest of his life trying to regain control of the majority of his country.....let alone threatening anyone else.

Secondly, the association he's likely referring to is in the framework of the claim that Saddam attacked those within his own borders with the aid of people in in Bush's administration. During that time there was no real measurable footprint for known terrorism in general and AQ wasn't widely known or dispersed.

Again, Iraq had no measurable footprint of terrorism...certainly nothing outward facing.

Video proves zip.:wave2:

 

[Jack Davenport]

Uh, dude we invaded Iraq in 2003....that video was from '92..By 2003 Saddam would have spent the rest of his life trying to regain control of the majority of his country.....let alone threatening anyone else.

Secondly, the association he's likely referring to is in the framework of the claim that Saddam attacked those within his own borders with the aid of people in in Bush's administration. During that time there was no real measurable footprint for known terrorism in general and AQ wasn't widely known or dispersed.

Again, Iraq had no measurable footprint of terrorism...certainly nothing outward facing.

Video proves zip.:wave2:

Dear Ergo,


The video proves that Al Gore is a flip flopping bastage who stated in no uncertain terms that Saddam Hussein was linked to terrorism.

 

[Hot Mega]

Correct 2001-2003 it was a 50/50 tie, but Cheny was the deciding factor on votes if it was close.

2003-2005 it was GOP controlled, but that stoped in 2006 where it is not Dem controlled.

So technically only 2 years it was a true GOP congress.

Good post :thumbsup:

Uh, Jason...when you talk about party control of congress that has to with who runs the committees which decide what issues are brought to the floor.

In that (new) light Jason...re-evaluate your assertion.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Uh, Jason...when you talk about party control of congress that has to with who runs the committees which decide what issues are brought to the floor.

In that (new) light Jason...re-evaluate your assertion.

Must we be reminded of the idiotic "power sharing" agreement that the Repubs made to the Dems as a gesture of good will?

So the committee structure was pretty much balanced.

Try again Sagan.

 

[Hot Mega]

Must we be reminded of the idiotic "power sharing" agreement that the Repubs made to the Dems as a gesture of good will?

So the committee structure was pretty much balanced.

Try again Sagan.

"Pretty much balance"? ^^ Land of the lost...

Both houses of congress were considered Republican controlled from practically from Jan 3, 2001 (technically Jan 20th, when Cheney became POS) in the 107th Congress until Jan 4, 2007. when the 110th began it's session.

The 107th started 50/50 Jeffords switched to Indy and Wellstone died and was replaced by an Indy...Since Cheney was POS the Senate was considered GOPer controlled irrespective of the phony power sharing scheme.

 

[Hot Mega]

My side can spend a trillion dollars to free a nation from a vicious dictator while giving millions of people a chance of living in a democratic society in a region that is in dire need of exactly that.

Or we can go with what your side offers, spending a trillion dollars on a health care program that will ultimately destroy one sixth of our economy and create a whole class of people dependent on another government clusterfuck.


The liberal mindset:

un-fucking-believable

Dumbest post of the of the day.

 

[Rey C.]

My side can spend a trillion dollars to free a nation from a vicious dictator while giving millions of people a chance of living in a democratic society in a region that is in dire need of exactly that.


Or we can go with what your side offers, spending a trillion dollars on a health care program that will ultimately destroy one sixth of our economy and create a whole class of people dependent on another government clusterfuck.


The liberal mindset:

un-fucking-believable

I preferred McCain in the 2000 primaries. But I was able to accept Bush, and voted for him in 2000, primarily because he said that he was against nation building. Clearly I was mistaken... as he was only against it before he was for it. I feel bad for the Iraqi people. I feel bad for people in Afghanistan. I feel bad for people in North Korea, Cuba, Peru, Bangladesh, Uganda, Rwanda, Sri Lanka and a whole host of other global shitholes.

But at the end of the day, as bad as I might feel for all of them, I am firmly against spending the first dollar on others before we take care of our own. If we have something to spare, then sure, help whoever you can - as long as you take care of Americans first. But in this case, we don't have anything to spare; every cent that's being spent in the Middle East is being borrowed from nations that are not exactly friends of ours. We have gone from being the greatest creditor nation in the history of mankind to being the greatest debtor nation in the history of mankind... all within a single generation. We bend over backwards assisting nations, who then use their newfound industrial capacity to take jobs from Americans - often by dumping government subsidized products here to capture marketshare. And then Americans (on the take as lobbyists for those countries) talk up the benefits of "free trade". Doncha love it? :lovecoupl We are generous to a fault. And we are foolish to a fault.

The last time I looked up the figures, Iraq was sitting on $80 billion in reserves, primarily from the sale of oil. While the U.S. had spent nearly $800 billion on that great adventure in the sand. And I'm still wondering if all we've done is create enough of a power vacuum in Iraq that Iran will eventually gain control over it, or at least exert primary influence over that nation. Controlling one Saddam seemed to go smoother than controlling a whole bunch of Saddams.

The primary, if not sole mission of the United States government should be to look out for what is in the best interests of Americans. Or as that girl in the Miss Teen South Carolina pageant said, "U.S. Americans". Well, I'm a U.S. American. And all I know is, in order to keep our nation going now, we have to bow down to ChiComs. Whether the money is used to fund feel good efforts for Iraqis or health care for out of work U.S. Americans, we are unable to challenge the ChiComs when they engage in trade practices that only further damage our economy.

I **** Bank of America. I really do. But I tend to be relatively polite and friendly when I go in there. The reason? The same reason that Timmy Geithner doesn't **** off Wen Jiabao: I need them to fund my projects. But at least the profits from the projects go to benefit me and my ******. If I was borrowing money from BofA to give away to people I don't know, and who might not even like me, I dearly hope someone would have me institutionalized. Really.

 

[Facetious]

[ . . At the end of the ads neither one of them is identified as a democrat. All they say is "I'm (fill in the blank) and I approve this ad. . . . ]

Playing it off as if they were in a mayors race huh ?
. . . albeit stealthily :shy:

Premium Image Content

Upgrade to Premium to view all images in this thread

Upgrade to Premium

 

[Hot Mega]

My side can spend a trillion dollars to free a nation from a vicious dictator while giving millions of people a chance of living in a democratic society in a region that is in dire need of exactly that.

Or we can go with what your side offers, spending a trillion dollars on a health care program that will ultimately destroy one sixth of our economy and create a whole class of people dependent on another government clusterfuck.


The liberal mindset:

un-fucking-believable

I preferred McCain in the 2000 primaries. But I was able to accept Bush, and voted for him in 2000, primarily because he said that he was against nation building. Clearly I was mistaken... as he was only against it before he was for it. I feel bad for the Iraqi people. I feel bad for people in Afghanistan. I feel bad for people in North Korea, Cuba, Peru, Bangladesh, Uganda, Rwanda, Sri Lanka and a whole host of other global shitholes.

But at the end of the day, as bad as I might feel for all of them, I am firmly against spending the first dollar on others before we take care of our own. If we have something to spare, then sure, help whoever you can - as long as you take care of Americans first. But in this case, we don't have anything to spare; every cent that's being spent in the Middle East is being borrowed from nations that are not exactly friends of ours. We have gone from being the greatest creditor nation in the history of mankind to being the greatest debtor nation in the history of mankind... all within a single generation. We bend over backwards assisting nations, who then use their newfound industrial capacity to take jobs from Americans - often by dumping government subsidized products here to capture marketshare. And then Americans (on the take as lobbyists for those countries) talk up the benefits of "free trade". Doncha love it? :lovecoupl We are generous to a fault. And we are foolish to a fault.

The last time I looked up the figures, Iraq was sitting on $80 billion in reserves, primarily from the sale of oil. While the U.S. had spent nearly $800 billion on that great adventure in the sand. And I'm still wondering if all we've done is create enough of a power vacuum in Iraq that Iran will eventually gain control over it, or at least exert primary influence over that nation. Controlling one Saddam seemed to go smoother than controlling a whole bunch of Saddams.

The primary, if not sole mission of the United States government should be to look out for what is in the best interests of Americans. Or as that girl in the Miss Teen South Carolina pageant said, "U.S. Americans". Well, I'm a U.S. American. And all I know is, in order to keep our nation going now, we have to bow down to ChiComs. Whether the money is used to fund feel good efforts for Iraqis or health care for out of work U.S. Americans, we are unable to challenge the ChiComs when they engage in trade practices that only further damage our economy.

I **** Bank of America. I really do. But I tend to be relatively polite and friendly when I go in there. The reason? The same reason that Timmy Geithner doesn't **** off Wen Jiabao: I need them to fund my projects. But at least the profits from the projects go to benefit me and my ******. If I was borrowing money from BofA to give away to people I don't know, and who might not even like me, I dearly hope someone would have me institutionalized. Really.

Rey clearly creating a taxpayer funded government "clusterfuck" in Iraq was the superior deed.

Oh, the irony of it all...:yinyang:

A trillion dollars to see if GOPers can create "Gopland"...:throwup:

 

[Jack Davenport]

Dumbest post of the of the day.

Irony abounds.... Pot meet kettle.

 

[Hot Mega]

Irony abounds.... Pot meet kettle.

:thumbsup::wave2: