How a tax cut works

A tax cut works like this-

1) The tax cut is sent out
2) people get to keep more of their money
3) People have more money, so they swpend more money
4) Businesses have more sales, profits go up
5) The businesses are able to hire more workers
6) There is less enemployment, and more people paying taxes
7) There is just as much tax revenue as there was only a few years ago
8) Everyone is except liberals are happy

This is why Bush's tax cut worked, and it is the reason the economy is on the upswing. No Democrat could give that to us.

I feel enlightened, Mormon... :confused:

1) The tax cut is sent out
2) States and communities get less revenues
3) States and communities pass costs on to you
4) Businesses have more sales, profits do not go up since state and community taxes are raised.
5) Business do not hire more workers, since the cost is way higher than the profit.
6) There is more tax revenue than there was only a few years ago, since states and communities all have to raise taxes to make up for the tax cut.
7) Nobody is happy, except the conservative right-wingers who fail to see the bigger picture.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Negative
I feel enlightened, Mormon... :confused:

1) The tax cut is sent out
2) States and communities get less revenues
3) States and communities pass costs on to you
4) Businesses have more sales, profits do not go up since state and community taxes are raised.
5) Business do not hire more workers, since the cost is way higher than the profit.
6) There is more tax revenue than there was only a few years ago, since states and communities all have to raise taxes to make up for the tax cut.
7) Nobody is happy, except the conservative right-wingers who fail to see the bigger picture.

---

I don't get it Negative. Starting with point #2.

#2. Bush's tax cut affected Federal taxes not State taxes. The State would continue to collect it's taxes from it's residents, and pass some of it on to the communities. Are you trying to say that the Federal government supports communities?

#3. Why would a cost be passed on to me? See #2

#4. Why do taxes need to be raised if more sales taxes are being accrued and sent to the State coffers?

#5. If businesses do not create jobs, then we would not be concerned with the unemployment rate because everyone would be self employed dependent upon his own skills. Also why is the unemployment rate going down if businesses are not creating jobs? I doubt that a significant majority of the jobs created last year are due to self employed individuals that do not hire any other employees to help run the business.

#6. See #4

#7. I guess that your point is that if you are not a Right Wing Conservative, then you are a nobody. Ok I'll by that. :)

My reply was as simplified as TheMormon's post, OverdueSpy...

About the tax cut and states:
The tax cut was proposed as an economic stimulus. The package gives limited aid to states, though. State revenues have gone way down thanks to the recession. The demand for services has gone up, though.

If I'm correct, the tax cut package includes $20 billion in state aid (over the next 2 years) - compare that amount to the state deficits, and you know what's wrong with that amount.

Almost all states are required by constitution to balance their budgets... ouch.
They have only two options: cutting down spending, or raising taxes. Cutting down spending would mean laying off public sector workers (which leads to a decrease in services), or raising taxes. Most states get their revenues from sales/property taxes.

So, not only do middle- and low-income families get lesser tax cuts than the higher-income families, they'll also be screwed by the raised sales- & property-taxes.

The states are affected in another way as well: people will pull money out of the bond market (they'll switch to dividend-paying stocks as they'll become much more attractive), which will lead to higher interest rates, and higher borrowing costs for state and local governments.

The tax cut will benefit the rich, no doubt about it. But rich people tend to save, not spend, additional money they receive. Companies will not hire more employees if there is no demand for their products. The demand for the products has to come from middle- and low-classers. Too bad they won't see much benefits.

And about my #7: What I was trying to say is exactly what I wrote: Those conservative right-wingers who fail to see the bigger picture, are happy.

I'm not saying that all right-wingers fail to see the bigger picture; that would've required an extra comma between "right-wingers" and "who" ;)

Neg, Neg, Neg...... <shaking head>

With your list in mind could you please explain how the two tax _cuts_ that affected the most people in the last 20+ years immediately preceded the two biggest periods of growth in the last 20 years, (The Reagan tax cut 20 years ago and the Bush Jr. tax cut of 2 years ago both were shortly followed by the biggest quarterly growth figures during the entire period).

If you'd like to go the other way, can you explain how Clinton took over a growing economy and raised taxes resulting in a downturn in the economy that his own party were touting as a recession by the time he left office.

Here's a suggestion: Play Sim City and raise the taxes..... watch everything leave, (residents, commerce and industry)..... Then lower the taxes back to the original level and watch everything return..... It's modelled on real life you know....... ;)

No no no, the way it works is:

1. An election (presidential in the states, general election in the UK) is 12 months round the corner
2. A tax cut is announced with a huge blaze of publicity
3. The middle-classes are kept happy and vote for the current government to stay in power
4. The current government wins the election
5. Taxes suddenly jump back to their previous levels

Tax cuts are always announced (or promised) leading up to an election, because they're popular policies at that time and the government is trying to get re-elected (or the opposition is trying to get elected). However, mention tax cuts half-way through your term in office and you'll suddenly be accused of making cuts to public services.

BTW, I'm a right wing Conservative (with a capital 'C', as in the political party - there is a difference between conservative and Conservative) and I don't necessarily support tax cuts all the time.

With regards to The Mormon's point on people spending more money, that is not necessarily true. Once a certain point is reached (which of course may be different for different people) people decide to work less hours because their wages are higher, so they still earn the same amount.

Tax cuts only work to a certain extent, after which they cease to be effective and can even have the opposite effect. Also, there will always be some unemployment no matter how much you cut taxes.

Edit: If I recall correctly, the last time I checked the US government's budget (when I was doing economics) it was in deficit to the tune of something like $500 million, which is about half of the UKs annual GDP. So tax cuts don't always mean prosperity in the long run. ;)

Tiger >
I'm glad you bring up the Reagan tax cut :)
In 1982 (first year after the tax cuts), the economy shrank with 2.2% (the worst since the Great Depression).
Reagan's first deficit was $128 billion. His second was $208 billion. When Bush I took over, it was at $290 billion...
Next: national debt. Carter left Reagan with $994 billion in national debt. By the time Bush left office, it had gone up to $4.3 trillion. It took 200 years for the national debt to reach $1 trillion. In the next 12 years, it quadrupled.

That's the effect of a tax cut.

Einstein once said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

So, we've had Reagan and his tax cut, and the disastrous consequences. We've had Bush I who was left with that nice legacy. Next: Clinton.
Clinton must have listened to Einstein, and raised taxes on the wealthy. The result: between 1992 and 2000, 18 million new jobs were created (the highest level ever). Inflation dropped to 2.5% per year (4.7% average for the previous 12 years). Real interest rates dropped (by over 40%), economy grew by 4% (2.8% over the previous 12 years).
And more important: the giant deficit was actually turned into a surplus. Those surpluses where then used to pay down the national debt.

And look what option Bush is taking. The same scenario is playing again: 2.7 million jobs were lost since Bush took office (worst since the Great Depression... sounds familiar?).
Next: the deficit: Clinton left Bush with a $127 billion surplus. Bush managed to turn that into a $158 billion deficit in his first year ($400 billion in his second).

We've seen it all before, Tiger. And the facts are there to support it. Too bad Bush won't listen to Einstein.

Edit: Pwaring: 500 billion, not million :)
And the national debt is at $7,012,281,097,621 right now. That's 7 trillion :)

Quote:

---

Next: the deficit: Clinton left Bush with a $127 billion surplus. Bush managed to turn that into a $158 billion deficit in his first year ($400 billion in his second).

---

Good point, but you failed to mention that Clinton also left Bush with a recession (early stages, but still one non the less). http://money.cnn.com/2002/08/07/news...y/bush_cheney/

Also, we have experienced 9/11 and have gone to war twice (both of which the majority of Americans supported/still support). Not to mention all the extra/added costs of Homeland Security. The Government is now spending much more on different programs that didn't exist before 9/11. And before anyone says it (I don't like the mars plan either). This all adds up over time.

Who is crazy enough to think that 9/11, coupled with two wars and a handful of corporate scandels to boot wouldn't produce deficits?

Neg:

And you conveniently forget to mention the numerous bleeding heart liberal, special interest, left wing crazy's social programs that cause the spending that cause the National Debt. get rid of them and we would have a surplus like you've never seen. OTOH, Bush is spending like a liberal more every day so I don't see that happening......... :mad:

Quote:

---

It took 200 years for the national debt to reach $1 trillion. In the next 12 years, it quadrupled

---

Love the way you "twist" figures. It took millions of years to get the world population to 2 billion and about 50 years to almost triple it.

Source

Quote:

---

2.7 million jobs were lost since Bush took office (worst since the Great Depression... sounds familiar?).

---

You did it again without a source....... At the very beginning of the depression, (1929), there were about 400,000 unemployed yet at it's peak, (1933), it was closer to 32 million...... Nice little side comment with nothing to back it up and factually inaccurate to boot.... Source (beware of the GAIN d/l).

The point I was trying to get at is that a tax cut helps the economy, and therefore it helps everyone. The employers save more money which eventually leads to higher wages, which are taxed so even though the gov. gets a lower percentage, they still get a lot, and we get to keep more of our money!!! :p

Tiger Shark > My wife just explained the meaning of the word "since" to me... I meant of course after the Great Depression, not including the Great Depression.

Economic Policy Institute
Washington Times
I can't link you to the official statistics because the Bureau of Labor Statistics won't let me...

Neg: Tell your dear sweet wife that now all she has to do is educate you with regard to sound fiscal policy, (which includes the politicians not spending money on things it can't afford just like you and I aren't allowed to do), and she will have done a wonderful thing....... ;)

Seriously, I had an inkling that you meant "since" but when it was sat there in black and white implying the inclusion of the Depression I had to refute it.

Actually, the whole subject of government spending, taxes etc. is a wasted discussion. The tax code should be reformed in the following way:-

You must pay x% of your gross income to the following things: Defense, transportation, infrastructure etc., etc., etc. Then you must pay a subsequent y% _either_ into the any or all of the above or into a list of nice little social programs to make you feel all warm and fuzzy about yourself. You pick the percentages of the y portion, (the x portion is fixed). Then the governemnt adds it all up and budgets with what it has for each, (no robbing Peter to pay Paul). Then we wouldn't have to worry about tax cuts and their effects on deficits etc. because the politicians couldn't play their crooked games.......

As a side benefit, people who believe like myself, that half the people on the welfare rolls are lazy no-good garbage, created by society for the politicians use, wouldn't have to feel like we are subsidising the dregs of society every time I look at how much tax is being squeezed from my paycheck every two weeks.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by The Mormon
The point I was trying to get at is that a tax cut helps the economy, and therefore it helps everyone. The employers save more money which eventually leads to higher wages, which are taxed so even though the gov. gets a lower percentage, they still get a lot, and we get to keep more of our money!!! :p

---

That has to be the most simplistic argument I have ever heard in favour of tax cuts. Unfortunately, the economy of any country is a complex beast and you can't just expect to wave a magic wand and drastically improve things. As for George Bush, I wouldn't trust him to run my local pub, never mind the world's biggest economy.

If you didn't pay a reasonable amount of tax there would be no libraries, no public healthcare (don't know what the exact situation over there is in the US but in the UK any citizen can get free hospital treatment on the NHS), no legal aid (although in some cases that would be a good thing) etc.

If employers save money do you really think that they will spend that on the wages of their employees or on more people? You must be joking. They will employ people up to the point where the marginal cost of the last employee is equal to the marginal revenue that person brings to the business. Anything further than that would reduce the company's profits or increase their losses.

I suggest that all these people raving on about tax cuts (whether in favour of them or not) go away and think about the economics of the matter, rather than the political issues.

The bigger question to ask is:
"What is a reasonable size and scope for government?"

Tax policy would flow from the answer to that question. Now we all have our opinion
on how many services gov't should perform, which should be central gov't, and
which should be local. Unfortunately, few in public office or media want to
start a discussion of the theory of government.

It would be an enlightening discussion. Some people want national health service,
some believe individuals should pay as they go. Some would nationalize steel
and auto industries, some would privatize prisons. Unless there is a discussion
of these issues, we are constantly engaged in a dialog of the deaf.

I may advocate a tax cut because I believe that government can still provide all
necessary services with less money, but my if my reasoning is based on the idea
that some services are illegitemate, I'm not speaking the same language
as the person who says taxes need to be raised to pay for new and unprecedented
services.

Since we're not even talking about the same package of services, how can we
even begin to talk about how much money government really needs to do its job?

After that, there's the whole complex problem of what the tax level does
to the economy in terms of employment etc.

And what about the contentious issue of how you distribute the burden?
Can you really tax the rich? Don't they always find a way to shift the burden
on to someone without political influence?
:cool:

The whole concept that if you have a $1200 tax cut and my pay goes up $22 per week doesn't mean I'm going to spend it. I may be paying off the overwhelming charge card debt that most Americans have.

With the Government running a deficit and competing with the consumers for loans eventually the money supply will run dry, interest rates will go up so will personal bankruptcies.

Then the Federal reserve can print some more money and we can have explosive inflation which will reduce the value of individual savings. Could anarchy be any worse?

Of course when the value of the US$ goes down overseas, all of these products, which US businesses were encouraged to outsource the manufacture of offshore, will increase in price so Americans will be left with their debts and the hangover from a "wild GOP party".

If Bush dosen't get re-elected, I'm going to have to agree with fourdc that anarchy wouldn't be bad

Ok I am sick of all this crack smoking. I am missing out. Deficit bla bla bla. Stop smoking ze cracken and look at history for a moment. The evil deficit has ROSE with EVERY president since the 60s. Gen X'rs like mysellf have seen it rise billions over the 70s and 80s through all kinds of democrat and republican spending on social and political bs. Gen-X Spending In the seventies it was about the same increase year after year which leads to some confusing statements like this reagan example:

Quote:

---

In 1982 (first year after the tax cuts), the economy shrank with 2.2% (the worst since the Great Depression).
Reagan's first deficit was $128 billion. His second was $208 billion. When Bush I took over, it was at $290 billion...
Next: national debt. Carter left Reagan with $994 billion in national debt. By the time Bush left office, it had gone up to $4.3 trillion. It took 200 years for the national debt to reach $1 trillion. In the next 12 years, it quadrupled.

---

Reagan was at 128 billion while Carter was at 998 billion in deficit? Um that is a huge decrease meaning the deficit is way smaller after reagon, by that quote. If it were true we would all be apllauding Reagan. But that isn't the whole crack nugget, next there is notice that Bush and reagan increased an already stifling 994 billion in debt left by carter to over 4.3 TRILLION in increase. Where the Fck does that crap come from? Ihatebushesassonaplate.com? The CURRENT deficite is not anywhere near a single trillion and certainly the 80s didn't see that kind of debt, it does NOT exist. 200 years of national debt never saw 1 trillion UNTIL a few years after the anniversary. That came in 1979 when a democratic good old boy named Carter was el presidente. By the way the 200th anivarsary of the US was in 1976.

Sigh, I see articles all over the planet that state the US deficit is at record proportions. It's not even close to being a record, those are just lies to piss off the people. You can argue that dollar amounts have a large swing but when you compare the deficit to the gross national product it's not so big, but the masses can be led by the nose on negativity. Don't get me wrong, the deficit is a concern, but keep things in context to reality. Clinton did a good job at the budget, I am not sure anyone argues that and one could go into arguing the effects today on decreased government spending in certain areas, but he kept it under wrap. So what about the other years in the 80s and early 90s? If ya'll remember it was Bushy One that pissed a lot of people off by dipping the scale into the negative and he wasn't re-elected.

The ONLY budget surplus we have had since I have been alive is between 1998 and 2001. That was great, who can argue that? Those numbers are based on the percent of domestic product, you HAVE to take in the account of income or the numbers of way off. If I make 10 and spend 8, that is much different then if I make 20 and spend 8. So before screaming "revolution" look at data. Economics is like the universe, many complex formulas are applied to try and predict results. Let's look back to Reagan....

Even if the deficit does go beyond 1.4 trillion as was darkly estimated in 2004, the prevailing algorthyms are producing estimated surplus again by 2012. That would be an excellent time to run for president because that person will get ALL the credit. Bush won't stand much of a chance, assuming that reaches the estimate, I doubt it. Some would hope it will to get him out of office, can't see how that helps anyone.

Now one last item. Taxes. You make less money you pay little taxes, those in the middle a bigger cut those at the top and even bigger cut, so what is the issue? Even say, if the top 1 percent get a tax cut or the top 30 percent... they are still paying 40-50-60 percent more than the guy with a small income and that percentage is based on a base income so it's not just a blanket increase on a set dollar ammount. I don't get it what the problem is? The rich bastards are paying 90-95 percent of the TOTAL income tax, what is the big freakin deal if they get a little more on some investment? Am I missing something?

I place more concern on trade deficit, we can't support a "service" related economy forever. We don't produce anything anymore and I have my own theories on that issue.

Deficit is one indicator, others are positive. Take in the whole picture.

Quote:

---

Reagan was at 128 billion while Carter was at 998 billion in deficit?

---

Now now now, RoadClosed... I must have confoozled you :)
The $128 billion was Reagan's first deficit. That's a budget deficit.
The $994 billion is national debt.

Budget
Reagan left Bush with a $290 billion budget deficit. It wasn't until Clinton that this budget deficit was turned into a budget surplus. When Clinton left office, there was a $127 billion budget surplus. I don't know what Bush did in his last two years (nobody seems to agree, but this year it was budgetted at a $500 billion deficit), but in his first year he turned that surplus into a $158 billion deficit, and $400 billion deficit in his second year. If you say that it isn't near a trillion right now, I'll take your word for it ;)

National Debt
When Carter left office, it was at $994 billion. Right now, it is over $7 trillion.

Quote:

---

Where the Fck does that crap come from? Ihatebushesassonaplate.com?

---

Nope, from official sites and news-articles harvesting info from official government-sites :)
National Debt History
Fox News on the budget deficit
Same on CBS
AP News on the budget deficit
Congressional Budget Office on the budget

Quote:

---

Sigh, I see articles all over the planet that state the US deficit is at record proportions. It's not even close to being a record, those are just lies to piss off the people.

---

If you're talking about the national debt, every day is a new record. See the publicdebt.treas.gov-site for official government-released figures.
If you're talking about the budget deficit: See the Congressional Budget Office for official government-released figures.

Yep I told you it was a monster! Your example of budget deficits versus debt is exactly what I was poking fun at even though I confused terms; you can screw the numbers and cry revolution and people will buy into it. Regan spent a ton of money on defense, you could argue that ended the regime in Russia and issued in a new era of peace, or not... your choice. The facts are he spent alot, **** I would be a fool to argue that, and I don't argue Clinton did a great job fiscally even if you look at the national debt: you can cry that Reagan and Bush left a national debt of 4.3 trillion, but keep going!!! The great and mighty Clinton legacy left us an increase of only a little over 1.3 trillion and he had a budget surplus. Clinton also didn't have much on the radar via international problems, but hey - I can give him credit for that too. My point and argument, badly put perhaps; is that Americans are not going into the toilet and the world isn't ending. :D If Bush can’t satisfy the people that he’ll turn around the Spending then you guys will have Bush out, I don’t think anyone cares who it is as long as it’s not him, that’s my concern as well.

Nice job on your research, be careful you’ll become like me! j/k

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed
If Bush can’t satisfy the people that he’ll turn around the Spending then you guys will have Bush out, I don’t think anyone cares who it is as long as it’s not him, that’s my concern as well.

---

Let's just hope they choose Dean. :D

The political spin on deficit, surplus, national debt can be very misleading.

Each year there is a budget deficit, the national debt goes up. Even with Clinton's budget surplus there was still a national debt, one year of surplus wouldn't pay it off.

There's alway interest on that debt, so even in a balanced budget we have to service that debt or the debt goes up. Someone some day is going to have to pay that debt off. I'd like to see it in my lifetime. I have a conscience that doesn't believe in passing problems on to my kids or gradndkids (not even born yet).

Mormon, you're not agreeing with me about Bush being re-elected, I hope he gets tossed.

Its just a GD shame that in a country with 250+million people that we always wind up with the losers wanting to be president. I'd run for the office but I smoked dope as a teenager and have overdue library books.

Dean was the governor of my state (Vermont), he was ok. There was some serious issues during his tenure, school funding, health care. Being heterosexual, the civil union issue doesn't excite or bother me. What I don't like about the issue is the heat and praise Dean is drawing for it. The state supreme court said they had to do it, the legislature and the governor avoided the legal issue by passing "marriage light". I predict in 10 years other states will have it as well. The way I see it is the joy that two committed individuals have for each other shouldn't be diminished by their sexual alignment.

Nice Analysis on the budget fourdc. I would like to see it paid off as well, in my life time. Unfortunately is has been increasing steadily forever in the past.

Yeah we all want to see the budget deficit gone. Its been estimated that each American has to pay over $26,000 to releive the deficit. I don't think that the deficit is going to be gone any time soon, with any Presidential canidate we know

The Congressional Budget Office released the budget figures for this year:
$477 billion deficit (last year, it was at $295.4 billion).
So know we have the complete official figures for the Bush-administration :)

2001: $158 billion deficit
2002: $400 billion deficit
2003: $295 billion deficit
2004: $477 billion deficit

That's the budget, and it's got nothing to do with the national debt (altough the bigger the deficit is, the harder the national debt will be to pay off, of course...)
The national debt is at $7,021,382,752,486 (7 trillion) right now.

TheMormon > the $26,000 per American you mention, would be to pay off the national debt, NOT the budget deficit (it'd be $23,952 per American, btw).

"Paying off" the budget deficit wouldn't be a problem at all.

This is where you all have it a tad wrong IMO.

The deficit is not something we all have to pay to reduce it's something where you have to tell your representatives to start being fiscally responsible!!!

The bank doesn't let you have an overdraft willy-nilly but the congress thinks it can just spend and if they go overdrawn they shrug and say "WTF"..... That's what has to stop! If there isn't enough money left after the essentials, (defense, infrastructure etc.), to pay for 100% of granny's prescriptions then granny should have to kick in the remaining percentage for example. Then there wouldn't be a deficit.

Quote:

---

This is where you all have it a tad wrong IMO.

The deficit is not something we all have to pay to reduce it's something where you have to tell your representatives to start being fiscally responsible!!!

---

Dunno if that was aimed at me as well, but anyways :D

Mormon stated that every American would have to pay $26,000 to pay off the budget deficit, and that is not correct. To pay off a $477 billion deficit, every American would have to pay "only" $1,364 (based on a population of 293,142,190 Americans).
The $26,000 he was referring to would be the amount (although a bit off) required from every American to pay of a $7 trillion national debt.

If Congress would be better at budgetting, granny wouldn't have to kick in the remaining percentage ;) (or finally adopt the Tobin Taxes, of course!).

Neg: Nope not directed at you.... It was directed at all those that think that a budget deficit is something we have to be paid for as opposed to it being something that shouldn't have been created in the first place.

At some point you have to ask, "What's more important, Granny's prescription or a "War Machine" that is going out to fight wars based on erroneous information so that the Vice President's cronies at Halliburton can make more $$"

It's great to have a strong defense it's also great to have a country worth protecting. A country isn't the land, it's the people. At some point "the government of the people, by the people and for the people" better get around to looking after it's people's interests and not that of corporate war profiteers. can you say nukular?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by fourdc
A country isn't the land, it's the people.

---

What good is the "land/people" if they been decimated by Nuclear weapons and/or other variants of Weapons of Mass Destruction? There wouldn't be any people left if we didn't defend this nation. If it were up to many of the Democrats we'd damn near never go to war under most circumstances; leaving Dictators to their own devices. When we allow this, they begin to build their "nukular" weapons in quantity.

.dublix

So just where are these WMDs that Saddam was threatening me and my fellow countrymen with?

Or was Saddam threatening financial interests of some of my select countrymen.

I actually feel more threatened by the dictators the Republicans have propped up, how many years did Papa Bush prop Noriega as the general assisted the drug cartels in getting their wares to the US?

One of the problems that could take the US down is the partisanship that is being passed off as leadership. The words "democrat" and "republican" aren't even in the constitution. It's time to get a few more major parties going so the "tit for tat" and the gridlocking can stop. Make our representatives negotiate and trade off instead of following the party lines.

Anyway you look at it Halliburton's profit loss sheet isn't worth the lives of any more US servicemen or women.

Quote:

---

So just where are these WMDs that Saddam was threatening me and my fellow countrymen with?

---

First of all, I never made mention of Saddam. Look, Saddam was a murderous leader who systematically raped women and children. We also know he used WMD in the past against both Iran and the people of Iraq. If you want to defend his right to exist as a leader in the world we live in today, then that's your problem, not mine! What self-respecting human being would leave someone like that in power to terrorize innocent people? Where was the UN during all these years, why did they allow him to continue? Why did no one else step to the plate to help the Iraqi people? Where is the humanity in allowing him to do this throughout these years? Those questions are far more important to me rather than, "where are the WMD's we all know as fact this brutal Dictator used the past on his people and others". But that's my personal opinion on the matter rather than me making a comment on policy.


If you want to know why we haven't found any WMD then you need to check with the CIA. That's where the failure took place here (that's not to say any WMD won't be found). David Kay said the intelligence community owed Bush an apology and that Bush told him to find the "facts" and that he wasn't pressured in any way to fabricate the Iraqi WMD findings.

Quote:

---

I actually feel more threatened by the dictators the Republicans have propped up

---

That's just an asinine statement. You don't just toss the word Dictator around like that, careless far-left rhetoric at best...

Quote:

---

Anyway you look at it Halliburton's profit loss sheet isn't worth the lives of any more US servicemen or women.

---

The usual, the Dem's constantly looking for dirt on the Pres and Vice Pres. Nothing but rhetoric, nothing tangible.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by dublix
First of all, I never made mention of Saddam. Look, Saddam was a murderous leader who systematically raped women and children. We also know he used WMD in the past against both Iran and the people of Iraq.

---

Yeah, yeah, yeah.... We have heard this arguement 100 times from Bush and everyone else. He was a bad guy. ;) But.... The weapons inspectors did say in the early 90's that all the weapons of mass destruction were destroyed by Saddam's regime and the Gulf War. The nerve gas that Bush spoke of had a life of 3 years. (So it would be dead by now) I just watched a great documentary of this subject and they had some of the intelligence commmunity speaking as well as some of the weapons inspectors in Iraq and they stated that Saddam did not have any weapons of mass destruction or any new programs for creating weapons of mass destruction.

Quote:

---

If you want to know why we haven't found any WMD then you need to check with the CIA. That's where the failure took place here (that's not to say any WMD won't be found). David Kay said the intelligence community owed Bush an apology and that Bush told him to find the "facts" and that he wasn't pressured in any way to fabricate the Iraqi WMD findings.

---

The Bush administration distorted the facts that the CIA gave them. They should not need to apologise. (BTW do you have a link to the articleabout David Kay stating that the intelligence community owed Bush a apology - google has failed to find a site for me) Saddam has not had more than a few weapons of mass destruction for a while now. If we really want to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, why dont we look into our own back yard?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by CXGJarrod
Yeah, yeah, yeah.... We have heard this arguement 100 times from Bush and everyone else. He was a bad guy. ;)

---

Tell me you don't disagree? I think his past is relevant, e.g. his prior use of WMD on his people and Iranians.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by CXGJarrod

The Bush administration distorted the facts that the CIA gave them. They should not need to apologise.

---

You have no evidence of this.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by CXGJarrod

(BTW do you have a link to the articleabout David Kay stating that the intelligence community owed Bush a apology - google has failed to find a site for me)

---

I have been hearing it all day on the news (fox) but I will get you the link when I get a chance (waiting on a package at the moment).

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by CXGJarrod
Saddam has not had more than a few weapons of mass destruction for a while now. If we really want to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, why dont we look into our own back yard?

---

It would be great if no one had WMD, unfortunately the rest of the world has them and we could not allow ourselves to be blackmailed by another rogue, Dictatorial, nation. Given the history of the US (other than Hiroshima/Nagasaki) we have a responsible track record pertaining to our possession/non-use of these weapons ever since.

.dublix

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by dublix
[B]Tell me you don't disagree? I think his past is relevant, e.g. his prior use of WMD on his people and Iranians.

---

Yeah, he is a bad guy, I just disagree with the way we went about going and taking him out of power. (And for the constantly changing reasons)

Quote:

---

You have no evidence of this.

---

At the moment. No. But I do have some good quotes from that documentary that I will share with all of you when I watch it again. It was some good evidence.

Quote:

---

I have been hearing it all day on the news (fox) but I will get you the link when I get a chance (waiting on a package at the moment).

---

I worry about Fox news. Too much celebrity news for me. ;)

Quote:

---

It would be great if no one had WMD, unfortunately the rest of the world has them and we could not allow ourselves to be blackmailed by another rogue, Dictatorial, nation. Given the history of the US (other than Hiroshima/Nagasaki) we have a responsible track record pertaining to our possession/non-use of these weapons ever since.

---

Are we ever going to use the stockpiles of chemical weapons and nukes that the US government still has laying around? Ok, if we dont want to be blackmailed, then keep 100 (or even 500 - that shoud be enough to screw the world up) nukes around for safety (not thousands). (If that makes you feel safe). (Looking for a GWB quote that fits this situation)

Why don't we just tax Jesse Jackson? That would almost eliminate our entire national debt after a few years, wouldn't it? :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by The Mormon
Why don't we just tax Jesse Jackson? That would almost eliminate our entire national debt after a few years, wouldn't it? :D

---

Why dont we just tax the Bush's kickbacks, or better yet the rich! (Since I am not one of them that works even better!)

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by CXGJarrod
Yeah, he is a bad guy, I just disagree with the way we went about going and taking him out of power. (And for the constantly changing reasons)

---

Fair enough. Although I don't think the reasons have changed, just that the outcome (what has been found so far) hasn't brought much fruit to bear just yet. David Kay also said that their ricin research/program continued all the way up until the war and that weapons programs were still intact, ready to be back to production level (at some capacity). Kay also said that terrorist were passing through the country freely (draw from that what you want). I don't have much more specifics on that at the moment. The days ahead will give us a bigger picture about all of this.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by CXGJarrod

I worry about Fox news. Too much celebrity news for me.

---

Yeah, me too, that and they have gone too far to the left! j/k

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by CXGJarrod

Are we ever going to use the stockpiles of chemical weapons and nukes that the US government still has laying around? Ok, if we dont want to be blackmailed, then keep 100 (or even 500 - that shoud be enough to screw the world up) nukes around for safety (not thousands). (If that makes you feel safe).

---

From what I understand we are destroying all of the chemical/bio weapons it's just a slow process. The amount of nukes we have really depends on the size of each warhead. Who knows exactly how big each of those thousands are. Some could be strategic, others could be the mother-load. I agree that we should only keep what we 'need'.

.dublix

Dublix,

I am not a Democrat or a Republican, I probably align more to the Libertarian view. On gun control and the death penalty I am conservative, on a woman's right to choose a liberal. I am a dangerous person, I have a mind, I don't need a political party or union boss to tell me how to think. My opinions on the Bush administration are mine, unfortunately for Mr Bush a lot of other people share them.

Kennedy started a mess in the '60's challenging the country to defend democracy wherever. We are not the global police dept. When the people of the world get sick of their dictators they will revolt and the dictators will become unemployed. If we are threatened than we defend our country. It is not our job to enforce "humanity". If humanity is what we seek to preserve, we could do it within our borders and buy "Granny" her prescription.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by fourdc

I am a dangerous person, I have a mind, I don't need a political party or union boss to tell me how to think.

---

Cheer up, I don't think you're a dangerous person, more an American than anything else. That's your right and so it should be.

By the way, I don't need anyone to tell me how to think either. However, I understand that if I want things to go the way I would like them to go then I need to side with the Elephant party (R). Most of what they stand for I stand for. You may not been as fortunate as I am, perhaps neither party lines up with the majority of what you choose to believe/want for the country. Maybe some day a party will arise that does.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by fourdc

My opinions on the Bush administration are mine, unfortunately for Mr Bush a lot of other people share them.

---

Well, since your in Vermont and the Dem's have been up there for the last year and all this last week bashing Bush it doesn't surprise me others around you are thinking this way. Besides, the NorthEast is fairly Liberal.

The Presidents 'voice' hasn't been heard since he's not unleashed his campaign just yet. Not with any ads at least.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by fourdc

When the people of the world get sick of their dictators they will revolt and the dictators will become unemployed.

---

What dream-world have you been living in? You make it sound like that's an easy task to accomplish? If that were so then the Iraqi people would have done it long ago, they obviously had the will but didn't have the resources. I don't think it's as cut and dry as you think it is.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by fourdc

If we are threatened than we defend our country.

---

And rightly so.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by fourdc


It is not our job to enforce "humanity".

---

That may be true, but it doesn't bother me one bit if we take the initiative and do so. I care more about people than I do about politics.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by fourdc

If humanity is what we seek to preserve, we could do it within our borders and buy "Granny" her prescription.

---

And this is where we agree wholly.

.dublix

Simplicity:

1. The US has a structure where, the more you make, the more you are taxed. The US has a huge middle class and even though I shell out a bitch load of money each year, the so called "rich" pay a vast majority of our taxes. I say "our" because I am part of that middle class. The less you make, the less you pay, SOME - even pay nothing in taxes AND get a check back from the government. I could call that a kickback if you want to throw around the word. That's great incentive to elevate your personal financial standing or keep you there and lead you on a leash to the voting booth. In fact if one in that status did go out in find a job that put him over the kickback limit he might actually take home less at the end of the day. I believe we all pay a fair share, I can't see the oppositional point of view. I think it's just made up to rally the lower classes into some rash action.

2. The popular tag line, in a generic sense I hear and see all over the country "I support the removal of Saddam but not how we did it" does not make sense. OK so what if I buy that line, now what? You support the removal. The how we did it is in the past. "We should have got global consensus" So what? We tried, we as a united states, removed Saddam, you already said you support the removal of Saddam. Goal achieved?

3. "Bush lied to us about WMD", we love WMD it's plastered everywhere. WMD WMD WMD, woo hoo. "The war was manufactured for Haliburton" Haliburton Haliburton Haliburotn woo hoo. This is a grey area for me but I don't give a woo hoo, who the oval office picked to rebuild Iraq. Who cares, I care about them getting the job done and they are. "I support the rebuilding of Iraq, just not how they are going about it, filling Cheney's pockets and kicking back profits to Bushy." ??

"Bush lied to us about WMD" maybe the media hasn't picked up on it but during his speech back before the ware he said "before" they become an issue. But I know that is just being critical on wording etc... so I simply, remember I am guilty of simplicity... I just wonder... where is the lack of WMD? He had them, even the ones who want to put Saddam back into his mansions don't argue that? The UN has too much evidence to support otherwise. So let's pretend he destroyed them all, dismantled his biolabs, took the uranium out of scuds and played nice with the world. Now, where is that evidence? Where are the drums of uranium, where are the stores of toxic chemicals? Did I miss something, those things just don't evaporate into thin air. Did he turn them over to the UN? I can't find any documentation that says so, and in fact I don't even care.

4. I support the removal of Saddam Hussein and since it's happened. I support a peaceful and beneficial relationship of a republic of Iraq, were some kind of democratic government prospers. We don't know what that is yet because the people haven't formulated it but I support whatever they choose, weather a republic where the people elect a representative, to represent them, a true "democracy" where the people vote on everything and decide every course of government. Based on my own contact with the general public in the US I don't really side with that, but it may work there. Although I think it's effectiveness is indirectly hurt through large populous societies, at eny rate I hope it works for them.

5. The success of Iraq is my number one issue. You can make coal mines and religious statues yours, or even Haliburton and WMD. It’s your choice. Mine is Iraq, its costing a lot of lives and a lot of my money. I do not want it to fail. That would be the real atrocity in my mind. Number 2 on the list is continued vigilance, with common sense, to the patriot act. Number 3 is the budget deficit and how it relates to Iraq. Notice how other trivial matters do not play into my major issues. Like, somebody’s impression of the US on a farm in India, or the fact the UN is pissed at us, because I am equally pissed at them for failing. Or Bushes alleged kick backs or his choice on immigration, or Medicare. Those things are important but they are under the bar, I don't agree with them but other matters have priority for me.