If you're a staunch Bush fan you might not like this.... [Archive]

wakeech

01-31-2003, 01:33 PM

still, as a Canadian i wanna bitch about what a stupid president you guys have, or at least his "administration's" (read: people that do the work for him) ignorance to fundamental economic theory, and flat-out ignoring developping economic treaties.
this issue, of course, probably doesn't see much media attention in the States 'cause you unfortuneate people have a war-monger on your hands, but that's okay, it's his perogative. what get's my goat is today it was rumoured that the Soft-Wood Lumber Tariff (that's right, Americans putting an import tax on cheap Canadian lumber to make it more expensive and thus less competitive against American lumber) might go as high as 49%... now, obviously his "administration" isn't THAT f'ked in the head that they'd do it so blatently the WTO would come in and kick their ass, but it's already there and could get even higher...

intrest rates are at all-time lows for you guys, and Greenspan isn't going to budge them for a while... this is good for long-term purchases like houses and cars... in fact, this would really encourage high demand for housing, but because supply doesn't simply skyrocket (they take months and months to build, right??) prices might creep up... for those who contract building houses, or even venture to build their own, now you poor Americans have little to choose from now that cheap Canadian lumber is so bloody expensive: either expensive American lumber, or really rediculously expensive Canadain lumber. why would this happen?? what sense does it make??? his protectionist bullshit ("we can't continue to rely on foreign oil") is just that, bullshit, and is spilling over to even the strongest trading partner both we Canadians and you Americans have: each other. remember NAFTA?? that stood for North American Free Trade Agreement... where the hell is the free trade in 49% tariffs on my province's largest industry from our largest importer, eh?? AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! :mad:

*scream of anger trails off as my face gets less red, and steps off soapbox*

cueball

01-31-2003, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Hercules
If you're a staunch Bush fan you might not like this....
If you're a staunch Bush fan you should be shot.
Maybe not shot but at least go back to the Southern bayous you came from.
I don't mean to offend anyone, it is just I hate Bush. It is fine to agree with him on some issues, but anyone who unilateraly supports him has issues.

tpryor

01-31-2003, 02:11 PM

What does ANY of this have to do with the RX-8????

Hercules

01-31-2003, 03:11 PM

Just some humor to alleviate the agony of waiting for the car ! :)

Mind you I don't like Bush, but I don't like Gore either.

fritts

01-31-2003, 04:02 PM

This post is completely useless as anyone can find something they disagree with politically. Sorry herc but to me this is trolling type of post. Everyone has an opinion and it becomes a flame war. If you think a kills section is bad let this thread get out of hand and it will be just as bad or worse than any kills section could get.

Quick_lude

01-31-2003, 04:41 PM

Well this is the off topic lounge where things DON'T have to do anything with the RX-8.. shrug.
A kills section is pointless because of the subject matter.
I don't see why we can't have a sensible heated debate about different political views without resorting to childlish name calling or arguing.

b2k2000

01-31-2003, 06:10 PM

Maybe you all forgot the day Clinton sat in front of live TV camera's and blatanly lied to the entire US population! Gore was apart of all that also. And Clinton did ride the net bubble for what is was worth, plus did not have to deal with things like 9/11 during his administration. I think given what he is up against he is doing a hell of a job. We should turn Iraq into a glass desert, then follow up by kicking the crap out of NK! The UN (which would be helpless without the US I might add) is useless if they don't back up what they do, and NK is trying to make this BS they are spouting personal with the US. Oh yeah, I do love my country! Maybe he is not doing better than some could have in the economy, but at least he is trying. I don't agree with everything he is doing, but do agree with alot of it!

xeos

01-31-2003, 06:16 PM

I have just one thing to say:

http://www.home.no/xeos/pea.jpg
(Made for b3ta greenpeace competition)

Is oil worth breaking the world for?

DYT

01-31-2003, 06:45 PM

I'm an independent. I don't like Bush or Clinton. I think some people loved Clinton so much that they turn a blind eye on the things he did.....the same thing is happening with Bush, they think that he could do no wrong and whoever questions his action is a leftist communist. That's just plain wrong.

"Maybe he is not doing better than some could have in the economy, but at least he is trying"

I'm sorry, but Bush is doing jack about the economy, he's using it as an excuse to push his own agendas, which is lower tax for the rich.

"We should turn Iraq into a glass desert, then follow up by kicking the crap out of NK!"

Yeah, after that, we can take out the damn French and Germans too! Since they are not with us they must be aganist us.

Spinner

01-31-2003, 06:59 PM

First they came for the Hummers, because they were too big. Then they came for the big SUVs since they burn too much gas. Then they came for the sportscars, as they used too much fuel and were a social excess. When they came for my civic, no one was left to stop them.
Do you want a Rotary? Do you!?!?

DYT

01-31-2003, 07:17 PM

Ah, a classic slippery slope fallacy.

Perfect login name btw, Spinner :)

Digisan

01-31-2003, 07:19 PM

"I'm an independent. I don't like Bush or Clinton. I think some people loved Clinton so much that they turn a blind eye on the things he did.....the same thing is happening with Bush, they think that he could do no wrong and whoever questions his action is a leftist communist. That's just plain wrong.

"Maybe he is not doing better than some could have in the economy, but at least he is trying"

I'm sorry, but Bush is doing jack about the economy, he's using it as an excuse to push his own agendas, which is lower tax for the rich.

-No it's not a lower tax for the rich, instead of mouthing off you should read. Social engineering with tax cuts is ridiculous. The tax relief benifits the poor more then the rich so why are you complaining? And yes, the rich should get tax relief. Do you want Bush to create an economy for you?

"We should turn Iraq into a glass desert, then follow up by kicking the crap out of NK!"

Yeah, after that, we can take out the damn French and Germans too! Since they are not with us they must be aganist us.

-The French, I agree, the Germans, maybe.

-Rob

bwayout

01-31-2003, 07:28 PM

Since this is the Lounge, I'd thought I'd add this link ...

http://MoveOn.org/

Anyway, the scary thing for me is that Bush is nothing like his public image - He's very smart and quick to anger ... not dumb and good natured ...

But hey, media is reality!

Edit: PRES. BUSH: STATE OF THE UNION TRANSCRIPT

I didn't hear THIS version!

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2003/012803-SOTU.asp

;)

Digisan

01-31-2003, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by wakeech
still, as a Canadian i wanna bitch about what a stupid president you guys have, or at least his "administration's" (read: people that do the work for him) ignorance to fundamental economic theory, and flat-out ignoring developping economic treaties.
this issue, of course, probably doesn't see much media attention in the States 'cause you unfortuneate people have a war-monger on your hands, but that's okay, it's his perogative. what get's my goat is today it was rumoured that the Soft-Wood Lumber Tariff (that's right, Americans putting an import tax on cheap Canadian lumber to make it more expensive and thus less competitive against American lumber) might go as high as 49%... now, obviously his "administration" isn't THAT f'ked in the head that they'd do it so blatently the WTO would come in and kick their ass, but it's already there and could get even higher...

intrest rates are at all-time lows for you guys, and Greenspan isn't going to budge them for a while... this is good for long-term purchases like houses and cars... in fact, this would really encourage high demand for housing, but because supply doesn't simply skyrocket (they take months and months to build, right??) prices might creep up... for those who contract building houses, or even venture to build their own, now you poor Americans have little to choose from now that cheap Canadian lumber is so bloody expensive: either expensive American lumber, or really rediculously expensive Canadain lumber. why would this happen?? what sense does it make??? his protectionist bullshit ("we can't continue to rely on foreign oil") is just that, bullshit, and is spilling over to even the strongest trading partner both we Canadians and you Americans have: each other. remember NAFTA?? that stood for North American Free Trade Agreement... where the hell is the free trade in 49% tariffs on my province's largest industry from our largest importer, eh?? AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! :mad:

*scream of anger trails off as my face gets less red, and steps off soapbox*

"
After a yearlong investigation, the Commerce Department determined that Canada subsidizes its industry by charging low fees to log public forests and allows its industry to illegally "dump" lumber in the United States at artificially low prices." -AP

Now you know why

-Rob

MWG

01-31-2003, 07:39 PM

you bush haters you get you head out of your a$$ and use the brain God gave you dont have to follow the script put out by the left wing news networks. The founders didnt want a state religion that mean they goverment saying you need to be this religion. It is freedom of religion and not freedom from religion. Also it we wanted the oil we could of all ready got it all in the Gulf war. Roe Vs Wade will never get over turned but I still think it is killing because if you left it alone it would become a baby could be given up for adoption. I cant go out and take my neighor out. why should a women be able to kill there children. And right to bear arms is so we the people can protect ourselfs from a goverment that trys to take away our rights and becomes too powerful. And do you people remember 9/11? that is why are ecom is so bad. And other thing is all gore would know to do is to tax all the people who made something of themselfs to death and after death. To support a lot of people who arent doing anything to make themselfs better.

bwayout

01-31-2003, 07:44 PM

DYT

01-31-2003, 07:48 PM

" instead of mouthing off you should read"

:eek:

Hostile aren't we? Don't worry I'll go read now, I need to pass my GED.

MWG

01-31-2003, 07:54 PM

one other thing the vote for president has the electoral college to make sure a buch of morons in one area dont trump the other people you allways think of cal as democratic but the only reason it goes that way is because of LA and the Bay area. that means mostly everyelse in the state doesnt matter. This is what I learned from living there the last few years. The president office is not a popularity contest.

Digisan

01-31-2003, 07:55 PM

How do you figure that I am hostile?

You mean insensitive? Sorry about that, I will try to be warm and fuzzy :) J/K. Anyway, I was just getting at the fact that your statement is blatently false. Any thoughts on that?

Rob

wakeech

01-31-2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by Digisan

"
After a yearlong investigation, the Commerce Department determined that Canada subsidizes its industry by charging low fees to log public forests and allows its industry to illegally "dump" lumber in the United States at artificially low prices." -AP

Now you know why

-Rob

ahahahahaa!! what a load of rhetorical bullshit from the genocidal maniac (mr. kill all iraqi's and communist koreans)... i know you're just excited, and a right-wing extremist clearly upset with any and all critism coming toward Mr. Bush. that's okay...

here's where you're wrong though: protectionist economics do nothing but hurt your economy. why make things more expensive for yourselves?? to say that WE subsidize ANY industry you can think of next to you is completely insane... submitted for your consideration: your wheat subsidy. DIRECT subsidy is given to your national, corporate farmers in the BILLIONS of American dollars, only to (in your own Commerce Department's words) "illegally dump" wheat across your norther boarder into Canada in the form of raw grain, and bread products.

now, the difference between a direct kick-back type subsidy and our "low" stumpage fees in Canada is that we are only charging based on very very basic economics. we have these "low" stumpage fees for one reason: we have shitloads of trees. these trees are easily accessible, and we've got tons of them. to charge a higher stumpage fee would be retarded, because that would create a larger incentive for companies to log illegally, which would mean we'd have to start policing the tree cutting (imagine how difficult that would be) and that would generate a negative revenue... doesn't make much sense, does it?? thus, we charge a fee which is what the market determines. if that happens to be lower than cutting costs in your country, that's not our fault, is it?? this is how free trade is suppost to benefit both countries involved in it: MINIMIZING COST.... it is the fundamental way in which we move our economies forward... repeat after me, MINIMIZE cost.
the best way to do that is to get things where they are the cheapest. our trees and your trees, assuming they're exactly the same (there ARE slight differences, but that's of little concern) because ours are cheaper, it is IN YOUR BEST INTEREST to get those cheaper trees rather than be idiots and pay more than you have to. in return, we would buy your (heavily directly subsidized out of the government's pocket) wheat and bread products... we give you our cheaper, cleaner power, you give us your cheap cars... we give you our water, you give us, uhhhhh, money. whatever, it's the way it's suppost to work.

bush is a moron because he doesn't see this, and is ignoring the issue while he is not only doing damage to his own (goliath of an) economy, but also to this province of mine, which relies on forestry as it's economic foundation. between your government taxing our exports and heavily contributing to fishing-out the pacific salmon stock here, we're kinda running out of options.

let me remind you again before you say "i don't care", it's NOT in your best intrest to tax these cheaper imports.

Toadman

01-31-2003, 08:54 PM

Play it cool, guys. Carry on.. :)

chenpin

01-31-2003, 09:22 PM

Remember: politics is about acting. Bad acting = losing elections.

Ex. Trent Lott. look what happened to him and what is going to happen.

This goes for 99% (number i made up :D) of all politicians both dem and gop. Unless we can read minds, we will never know what their true convictions are.

ilovepotatos

01-31-2003, 09:39 PM

Amen brother!
Me and Wakeech speak quite similarily. Probably because we've been constantly talking for a good 1/2 year and we live in the same region, approx.
The deal that canada and the US have going on, is quite similar to what the British had going on with it's colonies.
The Americans give us plenty finished goods, and we supply them with the materials. We both give them for moderate prices, and the world is happy.
Both our economies were rising and we as citizens were becoming more and more similar to Utopians.
What happened?
September 11th. It's true. It really started to crack after that. Instead of the States having a Super Incredulous Juggernaught of an Economy, they have a Huge Powerful Juggernaught of an economy. Still better than the rest of the world.
What does Bush do? He tries to make it like old times. He decides to pick on the little guy Economicly speaking.
He raises the Tariff to 26.765% on softwood lumber, the timber Keech speaks of. (By the way, to be a jerk his name is William Andrew Keech :D)
Now this is great for you Yanks, but further down the road, this could be catastrophic.
They take away our softwood, we take away their cars.
They take away our power (most likely not, but for an example), we take away their grain.
Its like a Nuclear war. If someone strikes at you, you don't just sit there and let them push you around.
Now I wonder, would Cretian fight back? Probably not. He's sat on his ass for 10 years...why would he start now?
When we get Paul Martin in parliament, things could possibly be different.
Only problem with this possibility is that US is 90% of Canada's trade.
Canada is only about 30% of US'.
Things are certainly going to change. When have they ever not?
Bush is being what Americans have been for quite a while. Selfish bums (aka assholes). My father told me once, many years ago that people from the states are really nice people, as individuals. Put them all together, and they're jerks.

Pheew, I think I'm going to be spending my friday on this thread, and not doing something more productive like going out with friends :(

Puppy1

01-31-2003, 09:47 PM

This all sounds a lot like the "Praise Mazda, Nuke Nissan" BS we hear everywhere else in the forum.

All I can say is THANK GOD BUSH WAS THE PRESIDENT ON 9/11.

ilovepotatos

01-31-2003, 10:04 PM

I love Nissan. Moreso than Mazda. They have better build quality, though more quality in the wallet :(.
(Why can't everyone be like Toyota and deliver quality and price?)

revhappy

01-31-2003, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by wakeech

ahahahahaa!! what a load of rhetorical bullshit from the genocidal maniac (mr. kill all iraqi's and communist koreans)... i know you're just excited, and a right-wing extremist clearly upset with any and all critism coming toward Mr. Bush. that's okay...

here's where you're wrong though: protectionist economics do nothing but hurt your economy. why make things more expensive for yourselves?? to say that WE subsidize ANY industry you can think of next to you is completely insane... submitted for your consideration: your wheat subsidy. DIRECT subsidy is given to your national, corporate farmers in the BILLIONS of American dollars, only to (in your own Commerce Department's words) "illegally dump" wheat across your norther boarder into Canada in the form of raw grain, and bread products.

now, the difference between a direct kick-back type subsidy and our "low" stumpage fees in Canada is that we are only charging based on very very basic economics. we have these "low" stumpage fees for one reason: we have shitloads of trees. these trees are easily accessible, and we've got tons of them. to charge a higher stumpage fee would be retarded, because that would create a larger incentive for companies to log illegally, which would mean we'd have to start policing the tree cutting (imagine how difficult that would be) and that would generate a negative revenue... doesn't make much sense, does it?? thus, we charge a fee which is what the market determines. if that happens to be lower than cutting costs in your country, that's not our fault, is it?? this is how free trade is suppost to benefit both countries involved in it: MINIMIZING COST.... it is the fundamental way in which we move our economies forward... repeat after me, MINIMIZE cost.
the best way to do that is to get things where they are the cheapest. our trees and your trees, assuming they're exactly the same (there ARE slight differences, but that's of little concern) because ours are cheaper, it is IN YOUR BEST INTEREST to get those cheaper trees rather than be idiots and pay more than you have to. in return, we would buy your (heavily directly subsidized out of the government's pocket) wheat and bread products... we give you our cheaper, cleaner power, you give us your cheap cars... we give you our water, you give us, uhhhhh, money. whatever, it's the way it's suppost to work.

bush is a moron because he doesn't see this, and is ignoring the issue while he is not only doing damage to his own (goliath of an) economy, but also to this province of mine, which relies on forestry as it's economic foundation. between your government taxing our exports and heavily contributing to fishing-out the pacific salmon stock here, we're kinda running out of options.

let me remind you again before you say "i don't care", it's NOT in your best intrest to tax these cheaper imports.

Wakeech,

You make some excellent points. Tarriffs are no different than taxes, at least to the consumer. Its a redistribution of funds from consumers to selected industries/geographic regions that usually results in a net loss to the country imposing the tarriffs. Imagine the US car market if tarriffs were in place that made selling foreign cars cost-prohibitive in the USA for the last 30 years? :eek:

Subsidies are basically a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to selected industries to make their products more competitive (cheaper) than foreign competition. Unfortunately, IMHO opinion its often a poor investment since the gains from the supposedly cheaper products do not outweigh the investment (increased taxes), retaliatory tactics by the other countries and lower future competition (why would a foregn company try to sell in a market that never lets it succeed). Note subsidies for technolgies not yet economically feasable is a different animal.

Now, I'm not too familiar with British Columbia's forestry policies and political landscape, but if its anything like the US, low stumpage fees are much more a political phenomenon than a purely "market-based" decision. In the western states, it is well known that fees charged by the gov't are usually never sufficient to cover the related costs (i.e. below market, where a market exists) for a variety of physical industries. In addition, there are numerous additional subsidies (tax advantages, road-building, etc). The reason these exist is political....the gain in votes from these states outweighs the protest from the taxpayers that don't benefit. In addition, the industries that benefit tend to be big campaign contributors as well.

Its funny how a president (and a party) who worships the free market and economic theory can just forget about it when it is politically advantageous (i.e. steel, wood tariffs) to do so (hmm..what states did that red cover on campaign night?).

ilovepotatos

01-31-2003, 10:18 PM

You think it's bad in the states?
Cretian does not care AT ALL about BC. Why? We're only 3.2 million people. The majority of Canadians are in Ontario and Quebec, so that's all he cares about.
Politicians don't care about their country, they care about votes.
It's interesting how you'd think the most honourable position in the entire western world is the one that is the most DIShonourable.

Digisan

01-31-2003, 11:12 PM

Digisan

01-31-2003, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by ilovepotatos
Amen brother!
Me and Wakeech speak quite similarily. Probably because we've been constantly talking for a good 1/2 year and we live in the same region, approx.
The deal that canada and the US have going on, is quite similar to what the British had going on with it's colonies.
The Americans give us plenty finished goods, and we supply them with the materials. We both give them for moderate prices, and the world is happy.
Both our economies were rising and we as citizens were becoming more and more similar to Utopians.
What happened?
September 11th. It's true. It really started to crack after that. Instead of the States having a Super Incredulous Juggernaught of an Economy, they have a Huge Powerful Juggernaught of an economy. Still better than the rest of the world.
What does Bush do? He tries to make it like old times. He decides to pick on the little guy Economicly speaking.
He raises the Tariff to 26.765% on softwood lumber, the timber Keech speaks of. (By the way, to be a jerk his name is William Andrew Keech :D)
Now this is great for you Yanks, but further down the road, this could be catastrophic.
They take away our softwood, we take away their cars.
They take away our power (most likely not, but for an example), we take away their grain.
Its like a Nuclear war. If someone strikes at you, you don't just sit there and let them push you around.
Now I wonder, would Cretian fight back? Probably not. He's sat on his ass for 10 years...why would he start now?
When we get Paul Martin in parliament, things could possibly be different.
Only problem with this possibility is that US is 90% of Canada's trade.
Canada is only about 30% of US'.
Things are certainly going to change. When have they ever not?
Bush is being what Americans have been for quite a while. Selfish bums (aka assholes). My father told me once, many years ago that people from the states are really nice people, as individuals. Put them all together, and they're jerks.

Pheew, I think I'm going to be spending my friday on this thread, and not doing something more productive like going out with friends :(

Ahhh, Canadian rhetoric, I love it! Such easy prey...

Funny that the US contributes more to global aid then all of the other countries combined. I would hardly consider that selfish. And of course we are one of the few countries to take world issues head on.

Rob

Hercules

02-01-2003, 12:42 AM

Originally posted by fritts
This post is completely useless as anyone can find something they disagree with politically. Sorry herc but to me this is trolling type of post. Everyone has an opinion and it becomes a flame war. If you think a kills section is bad let this thread get out of hand and it will be just as bad or worse than any kills section could get. It is a JOKE. If you don't get it, or you don't like it, you're free to not read it. I did put a little warning in top, but I did find it entertaining.

If you didn't that's too bad. You have no sense of humor.

Hercules

02-01-2003, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by Puppy1
This all sounds a lot like the "Praise Mazda, Nuke Nissan" BS we hear everywhere else in the forum.

All I can say is THANK GOD BUSH WAS THE PRESIDENT ON 9/11. I'll comment on this one..

While I didn't vote for Bush, or Gore, and don't like EITHER... I fail to see what Bush did that Gore would not do after 9/11. Retaliation would be #1 on the agenda and Gore would have done so just the same because the public would want blood.

So give me a break that Bush did something so 'wonderous' that Gore wouldn't do. Again I hate them both, but I fail to see what Bush has done in his time in office that as far as the war on terrorism is concerned, that Gore would not have done initially. It was demanded by the Senate, House, and the Public. No President who wants to stay in office would ignore that.

Digisan

02-01-2003, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by Hercules
I'll comment on this one..

While I didn't vote for Bush, or Gore, and don't like EITHER... I fail to see what Bush did that Gore would not do after 9/11. Retaliation would be #1 on the agenda and Gore would have done so just the same because the public would want blood.

So give me a break that Bush did something so 'wonderous' that Gore wouldn't do. Again I hate them both, but I fail to see what Bush has done in his time in office that as far as the war on terrorism is concerned, that Gore would not have done initially. It was demanded by the Senate, House, and the Public. No President who wants to stay in office would ignore that.

I guess you have forgotten about the Cliton years already...

Rob

Puppy1

02-01-2003, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by ilovepotatos
Why can't everyone be like Toyota and deliver quality and price?) I'm a Honda man.

Why can't Honda go out a limb and design a car that doesn't look like it was styled by accountants for accountants?

ilovepotatos

02-01-2003, 01:28 AM

Digisan, where are you from?
I couldn't help but notice your blind patriotism.
You truely think that the States is doing the world a favour by trying to get everyone off of nuclear weapons, except themselves?
Honestly.
When you think of George W. Bush with nuclear weapons, the North Korean Dictator doesn't seem so crazy after all...

Hercules

02-01-2003, 03:03 AM

Originally posted by Digisan

I guess you have forgotten about the Cliton years already...

Rob Remind me when we got attacked on our own soil please.

The embassy bombings don't count. It's not until Americans feel the wrath of the attack that they care, and after 9/11 EVERYBODY cared. Regardless of President the House/Senate would have voted to go to war without his approval.

I hated Clinton too, but it seems Republicans always want to lay the blame on Clinton for the economy and such like it's in now and while I think he took a lot of credit for stuff he didn't do, had shady pardons and more, I don't think Bush is the end-all-be-all of Presidents, actually FAR from it.

Any man with common sense and a smart staff would go to war, and I don't think Gore is any different in that case. Clinton would also have gone to war. So would almost any man in the world.

So don't even try to make that kind of stupid arguement, like Democrats are pacificts and Republicans are the only ones capable of going to war -- it's simply not true, and especially when we were attacked first, our Commander in Chief will retaliate, and retaliate hard.

compaddict

02-01-2003, 10:47 AM

Uhg. I think it is un-American to go to war for anything that is not clear-cut and has UN support. If we are staging to put pressure on SH that's fine and good. If we start a war with Iraq at the same time that it appears that SH is doing the right thing is an act that I would not be proud of.
Vince
Gun-toting Democrat

ggreen29

02-01-2003, 11:20 AM

from max_stirling: "You forget to mention that Gore actually got 500,000 more votes than Bush."

But Bush won more counties, and more square miles. "So what" you say? Exactly. It's all about electoral votes and they both knew that. If Gore had won his own state he'd be Prez, but he couldn't even get his own state.

from max_stirling: "He wants to spend billions to save Africa from AIDS, but would not spend a penny on condums."

Bush's proposal includes condoms for Africa. A dumb idea, but he gave a bone to your concerns.

from cueball1029: "I don't mean to offend anyone, it is just I hate Bush."

This is the biggest problem the Dem. party has. They are so enraged about Bush that they've lost what little intellect they had. They are against Bush emotionally so their positions are fraught with contradictions and old ideas.

They are against an Iraq war but vote for it (Kerry, Daschle, Gephardt, & lawyerguy). They blame the economic problems on Bush's tax cuts but won't raise taxes and propose their own pseudo tax cuts. After they spent last year's Social Security surplus they complain about Bush spending this year's Social Security surplus, yet propose a FICA tax "holiday" that would have the same effect.

They're lost, and as long as they're enraged they'll continue to stay lost, and what's worse for them is that they are alienating their own party members.

When Bush has 60+% trust polling, that includes about half the registered Dems. The more the Dems try to ridicule Bush, the more they alienate those Dems that trust Bush. They're alienating white southern Dems with their incessant playing of the race card, and they're alienating blacks who see the Dems always talking about race, but anytime a black dem tries to to step forward he's put in the back of the bus. More blacks are realizing that the Dems are just using them. They won't necessarily go to the GOP, but they may stay home at the next election.

from Hercules: "Again I hate them both, but I fail to see what Bush has done in his time in office that as far as the war on terrorism is concerned, that Gore would not have done initially."

The US was attacked 5 times under Clinton and Clinton did nothing effective in response. The last two attacks killed 200 people, but even that wasn't enough bloodshed to get Clinton to do anything significant. Gore has said nothing to indicate that his policy would be different from Clinton's.

As for Wakeech's legitmate complaint about the tariffs, it's politics as usual. Any Prez would've done the same thing because of all the lumber-state Senators & Rep.s who want to protect their state citizens. The US has done the same thing with steel and sugar, and if the Prez hadn't initiated it then Congress would've mandated it.

And doesn't Canada still require Canadian content on their radio & tv broadcasts? Every nation protects their own while complaining about other countries' protections.

wakeech

02-01-2003, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Digisan

It's not in our best interest or yours?

http://money.cnn.com/2002/03/22/news/lumber_tariffs/

Rob

ahahahaha... thanks for the link, i wondered where you got that garbage.
in fact, it is in the best intrests of neither country. we're gettin' screwed out of revenue, and you're getting screwed with prices that are too high.

*cough* cnnisthegovtspropaganaagency *cough cough COUGH!!*
;) jk, i know it's trying to be objective, but it's nearly an impossible feat. even our beloved CBC can get a little too rhetorical, although it is relentless in its critisms of our government, world issues, even itself...

alright, if you're just going by what the article says, i can see why you'd think tarriffs are in your best intrest.
basically, the only reason that protectionist economics (the anti-competitive kind) can be argued to be good is that they "protect jobs" (which in reality are costs, which is something that you want to reduce) and "protect profits of domestic companies", which plainly states that you are giving them more monopoly power, which is exactly true... by artificially placing a "price floor" on the markets (not through relegating a price fix, but by taxing all imported goods to inflate thier prices) you discourage competition in your own market, allowing domestic companies to sell their product at these artificially high prices, which lets them make more money, and hits you in the pocket. this is exactly the wrong way to help your economy.
unless you yourself are employed in the American Forestry Industry, or the American Steel Industry, which according to this article are "being saved" from those "evil exporters" who are "pricing below fair market value", you're gettin' fisted where the sun-don't-shine, bud, paying a lot more than you have to for good associated with steel (like cars n'stuff) and wood (like, think of your own example :p)...
the thing this article regrets to include is, IF all this is true, that your government subsidizes your Farming Industry far, far more than both Europe and Canada's subsidies put together, and is thus just as "economically evil"... what was it?? in the hundreds of billions?? more?? regardless, they turn the blind eye...

now to get back to that fundamental economic theory which is the foundation of of our modern societies: reducing cost (to the point of potential growth) is good.
protecting jobs, to most observers unfamiliar or naive (like our good hyper-leftist friends), seems like a good thing. this is not necessarily so. jobs are good, 'cause we need people to use tools to make things, but having more people than you need making products which are too expensive to sell obviously isn't. so you say "what about those poor shmucks who lose their jobs? what then?", well i reply in saying that they find new jobs, in new industries or ones expanding fast enough to warrant job growth, thus allowing us to reduce cost through less work done to make a product, and have the same number of people making more cheaper stuff... uh, i'll try to say that again so it makes sense: when an industry has a technical revolution allowing it to cut jobs, thus reducing cost, it's a good thing as it allows that industry to produce as much or more goods at a lower price, while freeing up human resources to be used in other industries expanding enough to warrant job growth, or they move into new industries, thus allowing us to have cheaper goods, and the same number of people creating more goods for themselves. this is exactly how it's suppost to work.

now, the deal with your protectionist economics is that you are artificially protecting your Forestry and Steel industries from reducing to their potential (correct) size so he doesn't look bad when the unemployment numbers come in for the quarter... protecting these industries is silly: they have no unmeasureable benefit like the airlines and banks do, they just make cut wood and steel i-beams. it IS in fact in the best intrest of every single person in your country to have these cheaper base resources as it makes all products associated with those semi-processed goods cheaper, also for those who used to work in the steel and forestry indutries who've found other jobs. NAIRU isn't a total joke, and they would eventually find other jobs, although there is job market frictions like low-human capital of most people involved in those industries (just general labour experience), and they wouldn't be happy to have to join another union (yaaaay unions!! :p) maybe get retrained and take a pay cut, but that's the way the economic cookie crumbles. think about how many people are paying way too much, think about all that Dead Weight Loss in the taxing of the imports, all that lost economic activity just to keep a few thousand people employed when they shouldn't be. don't think i'm being only unsympathetic to American workers: if Canadian farmers cannot compete with American farmers (in a fair market), then Canadians should get out of farming, or find ways to reduce costs or improve yeilds to the point where they can compete. 'nuf sed, word.

all that said, i still disagree with these allegations that the Canadian government is not just allowing but also promoting dumping, that "this administration is the most free-trading in a long time", and that when the US and Canada come to an agreement in a new SoftWood Lumber Treaty that it will be fair, and free in trade.

MattFast

02-01-2003, 12:07 PM

Bush s*cks.....

wakeech

02-01-2003, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by ggreen29
from max_stirling: "He wants to spend billions to save Africa from AIDS, but would not spend a penny on condums."

Bush's proposal includes condoms for Africa. A dumb idea, but he gave a bone to your concerns.

what's wrong with sexual education (which is sorely needed in some areas of the continent), and providing not just contraception, but disease inhibiters?? it's cheap, they're simple, and can go a long long way to inhibiting the spread of AIDS throughout that continent.

also, if i may frankly comment on your electoral system, if the entire country is voting to elect just one person, why not just count each person's ballot as equal?? there isn't going to be any splitting of the presidential seat based on percentage of who voted for whom, as there's only three guys for one seat, right?? i think it is really stupid that your point system per-state-won allows discounting of some votes, and over-valuation of others (between the winners and losers of each state) as the points per state don't reflect population very well... that said, it is neat that you have a leader separate from the legislature as a third check of power, despite the fact he can still push his own agenda through a majority congress of the party he represents...

ilovepotatos

02-01-2003, 01:39 PM

Uhh....point is...Canadians are better than Americans, and theres nothing you can do about it.
Sorry, but thats just the way it is.
You should put your hands up, as the Beat Nuts say ;)

zoom44

02-01-2003, 03:17 PM

"also, if i may frankly comment on your electoral system, if the entire country is voting to elect just one person, why not just count each person's ballot as equal?? there isn't going to be any splitting of the presidential seat based on percentage of who voted for whom, as there's only three guys for one seat, right?? i think it is really stupid that your point system per-state-won allows discounting of some votes, and over-valuation of others (between the winners and losers of each state) as the points per state don't reflect population very well..."

but that is exactly why the electoral system is there. if it was just based on the straight vote count a candidate could win just the states with large populations and ignore the rest. this way a candidate has to win support not only in a state where the voters are predominately in his party but also must get the support of voters in states with small populations and in states where his party is in the minority. for instance with the population of california being majority democratic voters and with its huge population a democratic presidential candidate could could win in that state completely off setting his loss in several states with smaller populations and less percentage of voters in his party. in fact this is what happened in the last presidential election. while it seemed to come down to the vote in florida because of the timeline of the election, it was really about gore winning states with large populations and bush winning states with smaller populations. in fact as some mentioned earlier if gore had in fact won his home state florida would not have had such an impact. gore ignored some of the smaller rural states completly. had he taken the time to go to those states he may have generated a larger democratic voter turnout and then he would have won. his people failed to take into account that enough electorals from those small population states could overcome his huge win in states such as california and the close race in florida and that is why he lost

revhappy

02-01-2003, 03:32 PM

Yeah, that is true and I can see the logic in that argument regarding the electoral college. I think a state's electoral votes are determined based somewhat on the state's number of congress members (i.e. population based) and the number of senators (the same for each state).

Still, I think it gives more weight in general to rural voters than urban voters. That means their votes carry more weight in regards to the make-up of the senate, the presidency and indirectly to the supreme court.

In the end, "one man...one vote" is a more fair system IMHO. However, a splitting of electoral votes by percentage won (instead of winner take all) in states could be a fair compromise. I think some states do this (Maine??).

ilovepotatos

02-01-2003, 03:46 PM

Don't make me repeat myself...

compaddict

02-01-2003, 04:05 PM

Lets make it easy and blame Nader!
Vince

Zio

02-01-2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by ilovepotatos
Uhh....point is...Canadians are better than Americans, and theres nothing you can do about it.
Sorry, but thats just the way it is.
You should put your hands up, as the Beat Nuts say ;)

No need for the attitude there. A lot of stuff has happened while Bush has been in office, and he's been trying to do his best. Clinton just rode the .com boom and with every boom you have a recession. The first bush had a very high approval rating, but lost votes to perot when he ran again. Also 60% of Americans agree with how Bush is handling things.

zoom44

02-01-2003, 04:21 PM

hmmmm....... mashed potatos sound good right about now.

in dicover magazine last year there was an article about voting. the suggestion was to have people vote in order of preference. the person you want most gets 3 points the person you want second most gets two and your last preference gets 1. the logic seemed pretty good . i think splitting the electoral vote might be a good idea also.

wakeech

02-01-2003, 07:52 PM

hey, now that you say it that way Zoom, it does seem to make more sense...
but i'm not sure if confusing the ballot (which is simple enough in the first place, only 3 freakin' choices :p) even more would help with voters or increasing turn out.
:) cool beans zoomy.

ilovepotatos

02-01-2003, 10:06 PM

Yeah, it's great to think that he is doing a good job. When you really look at it, or perhaps look at it from a different perspective (i.e. mine) you tend not to be so gun ho and patriotic about you're so called economical ammenities such as the tariffs prove my point. Americans are nothing but bullies. You guys bully around Canada, Iran, Iraq, even the rest of the United Nations.

eccles

02-02-2003, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by max_stirling
He wants to take your civil rights away but is adament about protecting right to bare arms.Damn skippy we should protect the right to bare arms! Nobody's gonna tell ME I have to wear long sleeves - I want my T-shirt tan!.

ilovepotatos

02-02-2003, 12:26 AM

Yes. I'm baring my arms as we speak.

Digisan

02-02-2003, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by ilovepotatos
Yeah, it's great to think that he is doing a good job. When you really look at it, or perhaps look at it from a different perspective (i.e. mine) you tend not to be so gun ho and patriotic about you're so called economical ammenities such as the tariffs prove my point. Americans are nothing but bullies. You guys bully around Canada, Iran, Iraq, even the rest of the United Nations.

I staunchly disagree. While most countries filibuster about world issues the US takes action. How much does Canada contribute to world aid? When was the last time Canada took on a world issue? NEVER, all you do is follow. Bully Iraq and Iran, are you kidding? The concept of being passive and diplomatic rarely works with countries like those two, and yes, I am well aware of the US's history with the Middle East. Read up on your history books before you make unjustifiable comments. As far as the tariffs go, seems that you and wakeech agree. Why would the US want to destroy it's own lumber market for Canada? Especially considering the fact that Canadian lumber vendors are selling below market value, and the lumber is being subsidized by the Canadian gov't. Wakeech, you think my source is garbage, that is just the first link I found. Do a search with google, you will find many more the support the same viewpoint. And Max, no one has taken away your civil rights, it just gives the gov't power to investigate easier under the authority of a judge. If your not trying to overthrow the gov't I wouldn't worry about it.

LOL, I think some of you need to read something else besides SCC

Rob

ilovepotatos

02-02-2003, 11:18 AM

Digisan, you're unjustifiable. You think that we are selling timber at unjust prices?
What do you people do, you sell finished goods at lower prices, where other countries can't compete, like Canada. What do we have, Timber. You people are selfish, and perhaps the reason is that you never lived in an indigenous environment,

wakeech

02-02-2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Digisan
While most countries filibuster about world issues the US takes action. How much does Canada contribute to world aid? When was the last time Canada took on a world issue?

here's a good quote: "For example, USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GDP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world." The US and Foriegn Aid Assistance (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp)
also, note the numbers at the bottom... Canada, as a % of GDP (which means we're going to put it in REAL terms, as opposed to nominal) was between 0.23%-0.28% from 1999 to 2001, and the US didn't deviate much from 0.1% in that same span of time... so, for the record, Canada gives about twice as much aid as the US does, in terms of how much we give of the amount of money we make yearly.

Canada does in fact take on world issues, like the AIDS epidemic and the economic troubles the continent of Africa is seeing... simply because we are fairly passive, and try only to do humanitarian work (Eastern Europe through the early to mid 90's, in the Eastern Meditteranian, the Koreas, and other places i can't think of 'cause i just got up) and don't go around pressing the issue with things doesn't mean we do not regularly and consistently make a significant contribution to international affairs... that's why Europe likes anyone with a maple leaf on thier back pack, and why so many Americans wear them too when they go :p

Originally posted by Digisan
Bully Iraq and Iran, are you kidding? The concept of being passive and diplomatic rarely works with countries like those two, and yes, I am well aware of the US's history with the Middle East.

i suppose you're now some sort of expert on middle eastern politics then?? simply because the US has only used force, or the threat of it (they call that "coersion") in every recent encounter with major middle eastern powers doesn't mean it's the only thing to do, or the only thing that works. just thought i'd remind you.

Originally posted by Digisan
Especially considering the fact that Canadian lumber vendors are selling below market value, and the lumber is being subsidized by the Canadian gov't. Wakeech, you think my source is garbage, that is just the first link I found. Do a search with google, you will find many more the support the same viewpoint.

okay, if you read all of what i typed rather than just the top bit and ignore the rest because i used too many big words (which i was careful to explain) you'll see exactly why that "point of view" is unargueable rhetoric.
you can stonewall and be ignorant all you like, but the proof is in (the tasting of) the puddin'... read, and you'll see that this "arguement" or "point of view" is one which, if true, would throw the world economy into a state of hyper inflation nearly instantly. cost reduction is the only way. all these "other sources" that "support this alternative view" are all wrong: again, it's just rhetoric, not economic theory. one can't "just be right" becuase you believe that "trees are our superiours and shouldn't be cut down" or that "regressing into an anarchanistic and tribal society is the only way we can exist in peace with nature" is simply rhetoric, and is no more correct than saying "UFO's exist because you can't see them or have proof of them!! it's because they're so brilliant"... this is the "dazzling with bullshit" that so many non-brilliant people do (ie. Dubya)

Digisan

02-02-2003, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by wakeech

here's a good quote: "For example, USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GDP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world." The US and Foriegn Aid Assistance (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp)
also, note the numbers at the bottom... Canada, as a % of GDP (which means we're going to put it in REAL terms, as opposed to nominal) was between 0.23%-0.28% from 1999 to 2001, and the US didn't deviate much from 0.1% in that same span of time... so, for the record, Canada gives about twice as much aid as the US does, in terms of how much we give of the amount of money we make yearly.

Canada does in fact take on world issues, like the AIDS epidemic and the economic troubles the continent of Africa is seeing... simply because we are fairly passive, and try only to do humanitarian work (Eastern Europe through the early to mid 90's, in the Eastern Meditteranian, the Koreas, and other places i can't think of 'cause i just got up) and don't go around pressing the issue with things doesn't mean we do not regularly and consistently make a significant contribution to international affairs... that's why Europe likes anyone with a maple leaf on thier back pack, and why so many Americans wear them too when they go :p

i suppose you're now some sort of expert on middle eastern politics then?? simply because the US has only used force, or the threat of it (they call that "coersion") in every recent encounter with major middle eastern powers doesn't mean it's the only thing to do, or the only thing that works. just thought i'd remind you.

okay, if you read all of what i typed rather than just the top bit and ignore the rest because i used too many big words (which i was careful to explain) you'll see exactly why that "point of view" is unargueable rhetoric.
you can stonewall and be ignorant all you like, but the proof is in (the tasting of) the puddin'... read, and you'll see that this "arguement" or "point of view" is one which, if true, would throw the world economy into a state of hyper inflation nearly instantly. cost reduction is the only way. all these "other sources" that "support this alternative view" are all wrong: again, it's just rhetoric, not economic theory. one can't "just be right" becuase you believe that "trees are our superiours and shouldn't be cut down" or that "regressing into an anarchanistic and tribal society is the only way we can exist in peace with nature" is simply rhetoric, and is no more correct than saying "UFO's exist because you can't see them or have proof of them!! it's because they're so brilliant"... this is the "dazzling with bullshit" that so many non-brilliant people do (ie. Dubya) [/B]

Haha, like I said before, easy prey. Your world aid stats are seriously in error. They don't take into account the cost of the US military peace keeping operations which far surpass the _total_ world aid figures. Many countries owe the US more in interest then Canada spends every year on world aid. As far as the lumber industry goes, it seems you've glossed over this really long and involved sentence: "Why would the US want to destroy it's own lumber market for Canada?" LOL The US doesn't want to become dependent on the Canadian lumber market. Canada needed to have it's pee-pee slapped because of unfair trading practices, ie dumping, which is not the same as competitive lower pricing. I don't care if I have to spend $1500 more on a house so that the lumber market can be competitive.

Big words? LOL, your macroeconomics theory is horrid!

-Rob

wakeech

02-03-2003, 03:04 AM

peace keeping is not defined as a part of international aid. read the link. again, nominal numbers, like saying a rich guy giving away $100 bucks and a poor man giving away $5 dollars really doesn't mean so much until you know how rich or poor they are, which would then be in real terms.

whatever you wanna think bud. your statements have been refuted... it's not that important. i'll just repeat that tariffs are counter-competitive... everything else has already been said. by the way, it's not macro economics, it's micro (single market, rather than whole economy).

Digisan

02-03-2003, 04:44 AM

Peace keeping isn't international aid? By definition peace keeping is international aid. BTW, it's macroeconomics, not microeconomics. I wasn't refering to your love of the Canadian lumber industry, please review your macroeconomics theory again.

ilovepotatos

02-03-2003, 06:26 PM

Digisan, what you're doing right here, is the same as picking a fight with a bunch of guys, and trying to take them all on.
You'll lose, everytime.

zoom44

02-03-2003, 06:35 PM

not if they are canucks or potato heads:p ;) i just had some mashed potatoes for dinner:D

ilovepotatos

02-03-2003, 06:36 PM

You eat dinner at 4:30?
You're weird. More weird than me. That's scary!:D

chenpin

02-03-2003, 08:45 PM

lol, i had to say that as someone prob would have.

in the mean time lets also tackle world hunger and peace ;) lets not forget about the environment. we should all trash our cars and protest at washington!!!!!......um well, maybe not.

/end of pointless reply. wtf was i thinking....must finish midterms...
:o

Digisan

02-03-2003, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by zoom44
not if they are canucks or potato heads:p ;) i just had some mashed potatoes for dinner:D

I agree zoom44.

Originally posted by ilovepotatos
Digisan, what you're doing right here, is the same as picking a fight with a bunch of guys, and trying to take them all on.
You'll lose, everytime.

Normally I would agree with you, however, you need to examine who I'm dealing with. See above.

FamilyGuy

02-04-2003, 11:23 AM

I think the Electoral college, which had its uses when the states were joining together as a bunch of independent nations with very slow communication, has vastly outlived its usefulness. Even if you keep the system, it should go by proportion. If candidate X wins 35% of Kentucky's votes, he should get 35% of Kentucky's Electoral votes. Instead, X gets zip and the guy with 37% gets all of Kentucky's votes.

I think the US is stupid to spend our money on foreign aid. I do. We send food that gets turned down because it was genetically modified (Zimbabwe, I think, refused food despite mass starvation). Warlords hijack shipments and sell the supplies to buy weapons. We move the military into Somalia to help protect our aid and the locals whose butts we saved threw a party when our men were attacked. We loan billions of dollars to governments that waste the money, and then when a new government tries to fix the country they can't because all of their tax revenue goes towards loan paybacks.
As far as I'm concerned, there are two ways to deal with a relief area. Go in with a million troops, shoot anything that looks at you funny, distrubute aid and set up a government that your own people run... or stay the f**k home. Instead, we've been doing this halfway and getting burned all over the globe for it.

The entire US foreign policy should be 2 sentences long: "If you attack us, we will nuke you until you glow. Other than that, we don't give a damn what you do." This Iraq thing is a joke. Millions of people across the globe hate us and have access to dangerous weapons. What are we going to do, go after every single one? If that's the case, why don't we just declare ourselves the global dictator and be done with it? We should bring our troops and inspectors home and send Saddam a simple message:
"Dear Saddam,
We don't care how many WMDs you have. The first time you try to use one, everything within 250 miles of Baghdad will reach 40,000 degrees Celcius within half an hour. Have a nice day.
Love, the United States"

Strider

02-04-2003, 12:12 PM

First off I don't really keep up too much with politics and what is going on in the world. I read the paper for the comics, horoscope, and interesting pictures that draw me into the story. However I do have a few thoughts that will either bring humor to this forum or bring it to new levels of arguing:

1) Too many people in the world, thus Pro-Choice all the way. Think of it this way. We (human society) destroy the earth, use it's resources, and have even begun to litter space (via broken satellites and stuff). A vast majority of people are starving while only a very very small percentage of people in the world are living the high life, a lot of which live in the US (by chance). Which leads me to:

2) War. It may not be pretty but it's needed to both keep the world population down and shut people up. The stronger person wins. This doesn't mean that the US should just go around and blow people up for the fun of it, but it would be interesting (DID NOT SAY GOOD) to find out what happens.

Personally I tend to have an unbiased opinion about the US. I like to hear what other people from other countries have to say about us, much of which tends to make a lot of sense. I seems to me that most Americans are just too blind to see the light of day. That goes for most people about their home countries.

BTW, if I could have voted in the last election I would have voted Nader. Granted I don't really like him either, but it may have given him an actual chance to have a real election during the next round. ilovepotatos, thanks for also trying to bring light into this topic. Either that or you were just being an a$$, which is fine as well.

Just thought I'd see where this goes :D

Strider-

ggreen29

02-04-2003, 01:30 PM

from wakeech: what's wrong with sexual education (which is sorely needed in some areas of the continent), and providing not just contraception, but disease inhibiters?? it's cheap, they're simple, and can go a long long way to inhibiting the spread of AIDS throughout that continent.

A letter to the ed. in today's paper said it succinctly: "The poor and hungry are that way because of politics, not money." The lack of money in these economies is a symptom, not a cause. The real cause is inefficient economies due to corrupt or socialist practices. Money will only treat the symptoms, not the cause. Money will also make the donor feel better, which may be the real reason for this money.

later from wakeech: In the end, "one man...one vote" is a more fair system IMHO. However, a splitting of electoral votes by percentage won (instead of winner take all) in states could be a fair compromise. I think some states do this (Maine??).

The problem with one man/one vote is that you can get a tyranny of the majority. If three wolves are in a room with one lamb and they vote to eat the lamb, that's majority rule. Early US history regarding slavery is similar. Whites vote to enslave blacks, motion carried, everyone grabs a slave. Our current tax system is nearing majority rule, with the top half paying 97% of the taxes, and the bottom half voting in new programs that they don't have to pay for. Bush's new tax proposals skew that even more, with the top half paying more of the share. The current US congressional and electoral systems were designed to try to ensure majority rule WITH minority rights, thus keeping small states and small constituencies in play.

The personal preference I have against a proportional winning system that many parliamentary countries have is the cobbled-together fashion of many governments, and the constant threat of instability that exists if a coalition partner pulls out. It also reduces the potency of electoral mandates, which some may see as a good thing, but not me. I like those policy whipsaws as it allows bold ideas, keeps everyone awake and nearly half of the country complaining at any given time.

Pablo

02-05-2003, 07:08 PM

I have a hard time comprehending how any one people could ever vote for someone as utterly ignorant as Bush! It is so blatantly obvious that the only reason why the US is one step away from a war in Iraq is to have a safe, unhindered and preferably US controlled flow of oil in the Middle East. Just look at the top chairs surrounding Bush and see how many of these are filled by people from the oil industry.
Also, a fun little war in Iraq might just help Americans forget that the bombardments in Aghanistan didn't really smoke out Bin Laden... Do you think anyone has a count of how many US-hating Islamic fundamentalists were spawned because of the attack on Afghanistan? The comming war might also make Americans forget, albeit only for a short while, how poorly the American economy really is performing these days...

On a not-so-related note: why did Americans even care that Clinton fooled around with the various interns? Can anyone say JFK!!! How long would this American icon have lasted in the current "political" environment in the US?

Cheers

Eske

Hercules

02-05-2003, 07:17 PM

I'll say this much.. whether or not Bush wants to go to war, he needs to say so SOON... the economy is at a standstill because everybody is waiting for him to announce it, and then the markets will resume normal trading. Right now it's halted.

khoney

02-05-2003, 09:48 PM

TGFB

wakeech

02-06-2003, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by ggreen29
The problem with one man/one vote is that you can get a tyranny of the majority. If three wolves are in a room with one lamb and they vote to eat the lamb, that's majority rule. Early US history regarding slavery is similar. Whites vote to enslave blacks, motion carried, everyone grabs a slave. Our current tax system is nearing majority rule, with the top half paying 97% of the taxes, and the bottom half voting in new programs that they don't have to pay for. Bush's new tax proposals skew that even more, with the top half paying more of the share. The current US congressional and electoral systems were designed to try to ensure majority rule WITH minority rights, thus keeping small states and small constituencies in play.

you must be a fan of Ayn Rand, Ms."the-middle-class-is-the-most-persecuted" and other hyper-rightist rhetoric... ;) anyhoo, i appreciate what you're saying about this "tyranny of the majority", but i was talking specifically about the Presidential seat election, where there is only one (seat, that is), and you can't have a Democrat as president for 43.89% of the term, a Republican for 40.10%, and that tree-huggin' Independant for the remaining 16.01% of the term, you just have the guy that garners the majority of the votes winning the seat. i see this as a possible alternative to the college system, because you only really have two candidates with a chance, rather than five or six in hot competition, in which case that would be a rather terrible solution and the college vote system would easily be superior.

one other note: as an Econ major and knowing a whole lot of really really brilliant economists, i know that it is (slowly) being agreed throughout the field that progressive taxation (which means between some low and high bound at a certain rate of increase) the rich pay more tax per dollar than the poor... there are lots of different ways you can set these up, with advantages and disadvantages, but this type of taxation system hinders the economy from overproducing too far over the Long-Run Potential, which in turn softens the downturn in the business cycle, and also allows those with modest incomes to feed the market (as they do the most consuming) and the government to pay down debt during boom periods more easily, softening the impact of the defisit spending which would take place during the recessionary period... and blah blah blah, there are more benefits than drawbacks... and please, don't try a comeback with "if you overdo your progressive taxation it will remove all incentive for the rich to get richer (as they'd be getting poorer)", 'cause no one in the universe is retarded enough to collapse their economy that quickly... you don't have to have a progressive scheme to do something like that... and no matter how high taxes seem to get, people never cease to be greedy, power-hungry, or lustful. :)

Fëakhelek

02-06-2003, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by Hercules
I'll say this much.. whether or not Bush wants to go to war, he needs to say so SOON... the economy is at a standstill because everybody is waiting for him to announce it, and then the markets will resume normal trading. Right now it's halted.

Which really F's me up. Personally, I am sick of reading about "Investor Confidence". They let the silliest, most inconsequential factors influence their stock transactional decisions. Until recently I didn't realize how fickle and psychologically motivated stock trading is. Really it has nothing to do with the value of the companies traded and truely resembles casino gambling. It is sad that goofy fools with money to invest have so much influence on our economy regardless of whether their motivations are logical or not.

Fëakhelek

02-06-2003, 02:46 AM

Originally posted by wakeech

you must be a fan of Ayn Rand, Ms."the-middle-class-is-the-most-persecuted" and other hyper-rightist rhetoric... ;) anyhoo, i appreciate what you're saying about this "tyranny of the majority", but i was talking specifically about the Presidential seat election, where there is only one (seat, that is), and you can't have a Democrat as president for 43.89% of the term, a Republican for 40.10%, and that tree-huggin' Independant for the remaining 16.01% of the term, you just have the guy that garners the majority of the votes winning the seat. i see this as a possible alternative to the college system, because you only really have two candidates with a chance, rather than five or six in hot competition, in which case that would be a rather terrible solution and the college vote system would easily be superior.

one other note: as an Econ major and knowing a whole lot of really really brilliant economists, i know that it is (slowly) being agreed throughout the field that progressive taxation (which means between some low and high bound at a certain rate of increase) the rich pay more tax per dollar than the poor... there are lots of different ways you can set these up, with advantages and disadvantages, but this type of taxation system hinders the economy from overproducing too far over the Long-Run Potential, which in turn softens the downturn in the business cycle, and also allows those with modest incomes to feed the market (as they do the most consuming) and the government to pay down debt during boom periods more easily, softening the impact of the defisit spending which would take place during the recessionary period... and blah blah blah, there are more benefits than drawbacks... and please, don't try a comeback with "if you overdo your progressive taxation it will remove all incentive for the rich to get richer (as they'd be getting poorer)", 'cause no one in the universe is retarded enough to collapse their economy that quickly... you don't have to have a progressive scheme to do something like that... and no matter how high taxes seem to get, people never cease to be greedy, power-hungry, or lustful. :)

As someone familiar with Ayn Rand, you might find this humorous:

http://scalzi.com/w020326.htm

wakeech

02-06-2003, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Fëakhelek

Which really F's me up. Personally, I am sick of reading about "Investor Confidence". They let the silliest, most inconsequential factors influence their stock transactional decisions. Until recently I didn't realize how fickle and psychologically motivated stock trading is. Really it has nothing to do with the value of the companies traded and truely resembles casino gambling. It is sad that goofy fools with money to invest have so much influence on our economy regardless of whether their motivations are logical or not.

well, the thing with the stock market (or any super-efficient "money" market, as they call them) is that pricing reflects the expectations that the market has for the stock. if expectations are highly speculative, or very uncertain, then these investors would rather pool their assets into very tangible, very safe investments, which is why gold and oil have been seeing higher prices: these are commodities which are not only real (as opposed to "human capital" in companies, which isn't something one can "own") are also something for which demand is simply going to die for some unforseen reason...
also, what you might not see is that the stock market isn't the only choice that big-time investors have: bonds in their primary and secondary markets are far far safer than stocks... this is reflected in the high prices for bonds, which is why we see Greenspan stickin' the Prime Rate so low... and blah blah blah...

i know that it seems silly that investors are out of the stock market right now, but obviously there's still a lot of money in it as everything still has value: that lower value though is just what the market is willing to bear, it's just the way it works...
also, though, remember that like a five cent difference in unit price is enormous, and that Americans like boom markets (which aren't really a good thing in the long run as they tend to overproduce what the economy can really consume...)
anyways, long story short: it seems silly, but that's just how it's done.

Fëakhelek

02-06-2003, 10:25 AM

Wakeech, did you check out the Ayn Rand link?

ggreen29

02-11-2003, 10:34 AM

one other note: as an Econ major and knowing a whole lot of really really brilliant economists, i know that it is (slowly) being agreed throughout the field that progressive taxation (which means between some low and high
bound at a certain rate of increase) the rich pay more tax per dollar than the poor... there are lots of different ways you can set these up, with advantages and disadvantages, but this type of taxation system hinders the economy from overproducing too far over the Long-Run Potential, which in turn softens the downturn in the business cycle, etc etc etc
Could you explain that part more slowly?

'cause no one in the universe is retarded enough to collapse their economy that quickly...
...except Hugo Chavez (though he's not doing it through the tax system) and every other African leader.

wakeech

02-11-2003, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Fëakhelek
Wakeech, did you check out the Ayn Rand link?

sorry i missed that before!!! :D ahahahaa!! went back and checked... TRULY HISTERICALLY FUNNY!!! :D
... but one thing, i think i'd like Alan Greenspan as a babysitter from time to time ;) jk.

Originally posted by ggreen29
Could you explain that part more slowly?

i'll do my best ;)

the deal is that progressive taxation means that the more money you make the greater a chunk, on a per-dollar basis, you would owe the government in taxes; from a sociological point of view (those good ol' lefties), this is "more fair", as people who have money can more readily make it that people who do not, as economies of scale aren't linearly scaled, there are big, BIG steps between being able to start a lemonade stand and one's own small business. from an economist's point of view, this has the advantage of being able to reign in the upswing in a boom economy, so that the over-production cycle (the economy making so much stuff that in the long run it can't all be utilized efficiently) doesn't go absolutely crazy, and when the downswing occurs (the layoffs, restructuring, and downsizing of companies to readjust to the forseen level of necessary production) there isn't so much "slack resources" which are there to be absorbed (like cars on dealership lots, or office chairs in warehouses for example) into the economy so that production of new goods can continue, and new growth ensues. now, i'm no professor or anything, and that's not the whole picture, but a pretty good one, eh?? ;)

there are lots of ways to set up these progressive taxation systems, with certain incentive structures (like if you give x amount to charity, you'll get a 1.25x tax credit up to y amount), and models of how progressive the taxation is, whether the system is perfectly linear (most fair, but impossible to utilize) or multi-bracketed grouped rates of taxation, or however you want to do it with a combination of income and assets... the possibilities are numerous, and there isn't going to be a "right" solution in the real world, as they all have advantages and disadvantages outside the market, but which would still affect it (ie: cost of implementation, incentives to cheat)... :) this is why economists are still important, even though if you ask me a specific question i'll just say "it depends" ;)

Hercules

02-11-2003, 04:52 PM

As to the part about rich people paying more taxes, it's only partially true... Rich people also have tax free shelters in the Carribean, some members of boards make $1 as salary and set the rest up as stock, then their accountants play number games to pay less tax.

Just remember that 90%+ of the tax in this country comes from the middle class. They are the ones that if there's a tax break, need it moreso than the rich people who already circumvent the ways to pay it.

revhappy

02-11-2003, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Hercules
As to the part about rich people paying more taxes, it's only partially true... Rich people also have tax free shelters in the Carribean, some members of boards make $1 as salary and set the rest up as stock, then their accountants play number games to pay less tax.

Just remember that 90%+ of the tax in this country comes from the middle class. They are the ones that if there's a tax break, need it moreso than the rich people who already circumvent the ways to pay it.

I'm not a supply-side economics ideologue, but those facts are not consistent with reality. Please see the real distribution in the link below:

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/

The problem is a lot of wealthy people consider themselves "middle class."

ilovepotatos

02-11-2003, 06:35 PM

Just letting Keech know that I'm posting this while I'm supposed to be doing "homework" Only he'd know what this truely means.

wakeech

02-11-2003, 09:01 PM

well, remember though Herc that population-wise we middle class outnumber rich folks by factors of ten... ;)

ilovepotatos

02-11-2003, 09:27 PM

I have been ignored. No wonder that lesbo ran away. Keech, to let you know, my parents came back today. They came back with Shang hai noodles, sticky rice, hot wings, and chinese buns. Mmmm Chinese food. Almost as good as Japanese food...

wakeech

02-12-2003, 01:38 AM

nothing can touch chinese!! BLASPHEMER!! :D

anyhoo, we're still seein' each other (she really REALLY likes me a lot to risk losing her current bf ;)), so it's not like she ran away... yet... :p

i appreciate that you're not going to be around the forum for a while potatoes... don't sweat it, it's not like we could ever replace you!! :D you'll always have your place here...

FamilyGuy

02-12-2003, 06:19 AM

Wakeech and Hercules...

This is why I favor a graduated (progressive) tax with no deductions. All monetary sources - interest, dividends, capital gains, and salary - should count as income, and you can be taxed accordingly. Something like
0% tax on all income below $20,000/yr.
5% tax on income between $20,000/yr and $30,000/yr.
10% tax on income between $30K and $40K.
15% on $40K to $50K
.... until it maxes at like 30-35% of all income over 100K.

Your income tax return could fit onto an index card, and nobody could cheat... so the unethical rich would be forced into paying just as much as the ethical rich, or flat out leaving the country.

I appreciate the reduced taxes for dependents, interest on mortgages, and the half million other ways to save a few dollars... but it adds unnecessary complexity that people can exploit.

wakeech

02-12-2003, 09:28 AM

well, that IS one system, but you can't count capital holdings as income (not that you did, but just sayin'...), and capital gains are something else entirely and are usually taxed (??), not to mention that taxes on intrest, well, not always so healthy...
the deal with taxation is that it does create real world Dead Weight Loss, which is a social cost, and basically what it's from is market inefficiency: the social good from the market goods traded isn't at maximum because of the taxation, on whatever it might be, as it "artificially" raises the price... here's where classicists get you: they argue that taxes are "bad" because they create this DWL, and taxes should be minimal at worst. but in reality, the deal is that DWL is acceptable to a point where the marginal social "bad" of DWL equals the marginal social good of the money that's collected as taxes and used publically (roads, schools, etc)... this is all pretty airy-fairy stuff, and where all the grey comes in, but a big reason why taxation is so tricky.

to maximize market efficiency, you ideally want to tax things that have very very inelastic demand (things that people will pay a very high price for, if they have to) and/or very inelastic supply like food, land, water, electricity, "health" (don't get me started on "health" :D)... stuff like that. but, then there's the whole debate over how morally correct or not it is to tax a public resource (like water), or necessities (like food), 'cause it raises the cost of things which poorer people spend the most money on (by proportion), and rich people the least (by proportion). but taxing luxuries (due to their gross inelasticity, which means people will buy significantly less for a small increase in price) really hurts market efficiency, and the producers of luxury goods. erk, and THEN there's the question of non-market goods, like income (which is often a pretty simple model, like Family Guy's), and blah blah blah... this goes on and on. anything that has value can be taxed, and it's all a question of "in what combination would see the greatest social good for the least market impact", which is again minimizing cost ;)... that's why taxation is necessarily so complicated, to try and minimize the economic cost of raising public funds.

FamilyGuy

02-12-2003, 10:29 AM

That's the most intelligent explanation of the subject I've heard in a long time, wakeech.

I could joyfully get involved in a friendly political discussion here. That's your call as to how far we can carry this.

I know that my example taxation scheme is extremely simplistic and unfair to people who donate a lot to charity, have lots of kids in college, etc... etc... But I'm a firm believer in Keep It Simple, Stupid principals, especially as far as the government's concerned. The more they try to help out one particular group, the easier it is for someone to abuse the system.

Plus, I think unnecessarily obscure and complicated tax laws create a form of parasite jobs. If anyone with a fourth grade education in math could do their own taxes, thousands of accounts, tax lawyers, IRS agents, and financial advisors would be free to pursue jobs that actually benefit the economy. No offense to any board members who work in those areas. As long as there is a demand for that kind of expertise, I can't blame you for making a living off of it. If that was my skill, I'd do it too. I just think people shouldn't need that help.

wakeech

02-12-2003, 12:17 PM

:)

i have no definite opinion on what's needed, or think that there is indeed one perfect solution for any given real situation... (here comes the famous phrase) "It depends..."
i'd like to think i'm a centrist, having been back and forth between the extremes, exploring different political philosophies, sociological paradigms, and cultural dispositions... it's all left me a little more understanding of views differing from my own, and a lot more skeptical of rhetoric...
anyhoo, i was gettin' round to saying that "it depends" on a good many things what must be done, and there are no easy answers, but you do raise a few good points:

costs suck, and these are the sorts of things that have been, are being, and will be targetted when governments go into cost cutting mode: the beaureucrats (i can't freakin' spell that word!! the none of three ways i tried looked right :p)

it's true that simpler systems are easier to implement, but then we risk far far less public "profit" (tax gain) for a smaller and simpler taxation system which won't encourage the average consumer (the improtant people) to consume all that much more... what i'm trying to say is that the high cost, in time and work (money), that our modern taxation systems cost us may still be worth all the trouble because of the high returns this system gives us, while still being flexible enough to allow movement and choice for the individual, financially, allowing each one of us to reduce our own costs according to our own needs. of course, that doesn't mean the current system is perfect, or that it's imperfect, i really just don't know... i'd be surprised if anyone could say with a good chunk of certainty.

i'm for change, and by that i mean change for the better. there is always room for improvement, and on top of that we are never, for any instant, in the same world... i was about to get into a rant about "world changing events", but this convo is off topic enough :D ahahahaa..

so, uh ya, taxes suck. i like money... 'cause then i can buy sparkly things for nice girls and they can give me kisses... *drool as brain short-circuits*

revhappy

02-17-2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by wakeech
well, that IS one system, but you can't count capital holdings as income (not that you did, but just sayin'...), and capital gains are something else entirely and are usually taxed (??), not to mention that taxes on intrest, well, not always so healthy...
the deal with taxation is that it does create real world Dead Weight Loss, which is a social cost, and basically what it's from is market inefficiency: the social good from the market goods traded isn't at maximum because of the taxation, on whatever it might be, as it "artificially" raises the price... here's where classicists get you: they argue that taxes are "bad" because they create this DWL, and taxes should be minimal at worst. but in reality, the deal is that DWL is acceptable to a point where the marginal social "bad" of DWL equals the marginal social good of the money that's collected as taxes and used publically (roads, schools, etc)... this is all pretty airy-fairy stuff, and where all the grey comes in, but a big reason why taxation is so tricky.

to maximize market efficiency, you ideally want to tax things that have very very inelastic demand (things that people will pay a very high price for, if they have to) and/or very inelastic supply like food, land, water, electricity, "health" (don't get me started on "health" :D)... stuff like that. but, then there's the whole debate over how morally correct or not it is to tax a public resource (like water), or necessities (like food), 'cause it raises the cost of things which poorer people spend the most money on (by proportion), and rich people the least (by proportion). but taxing luxuries (due to their gross inelasticity, which means people will buy significantly less for a small increase in price) really hurts market efficiency, and the producers of luxury goods. erk, and THEN there's the question of non-market goods, like income (which is often a pretty simple model, like Family Guy's), and blah blah blah... this goes on and on. anything that has value can be taxed, and it's all a question of "in what combination would see the greatest social good for the least market impact", which is again minimizing cost ;)... that's why taxation is necessarily so complicated, to try and minimize the economic cost of raising public funds.

One thing, I'd like to add about taxes is that they also play a useful role outside of the social good they produce from collecting revenue. Specifically, I mean when you have achieved "market efficiency", but not "economic efficiency." An example is basically any industry that produces pollution.

If you live say in Ohio and are getting cheap electricity from a big, cheap and dirty coal-fired power plant in the state, you aren't paying the full social cost of that good. The people in the east who are receiving the pollution and paying higher medical bills, etc are bearing the cost, but not yielding any benefits from the good. Thus, the Ohio electricity customers are paying too little for their good, from a societal/broader economic point of view. A wise use of the tax policy would impose a sales tax (equal to the costs borne by the recipients of the pollution in the east) on the electricity consumed in Ohio, which would allow the economically efficient amount to be consumed. Whether actual demand would be reduced would depend on the amount of the tax and the elasticity of demand for Ohio electricity.

Of course, costs could be imposed on Ohio customers indirectly in other ways besides tax policy, through EPA penalties, regulations, etc, which is in fact the way it is currently done for the most part. In fact, I believe most, if not all the northeastern states are suing the EPA for their changes to the New Source Review Program.

Still, I agree with you, taxes should never exceed the benefits they produce. Then again, there are many ways this statement can be applied. Supply siders will bring up the lafer curve, but this is getting really on a tangent.

wakeech

02-17-2003, 12:37 PM

yes :D exactly.

miata2rx8

11-14-2003, 10:01 PM

Bush is still an idiot...

RussellP

11-14-2003, 10:33 PM

wow theres one of these debates on every board.

Im not gonna even bother reading past the first couple posts.

Bush is getting the job done.

compaddict

11-14-2003, 10:37 PM

Uhg.

klegg

11-14-2003, 10:41 PM

DEAN....DEAN....DEAN....DEAN....DEAN

khoney

11-14-2003, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by miata2rx8
Bush is still an idiot...

Spoken like your typical clueless Democrat.

ToRX-8orToZ

11-14-2003, 11:05 PM

Bush is getting the job done.

What exactly is the job again?

If you're refering to Iraq...

As politcaly incorrect (with both sides) as this is... here is the truth, put as simply as I can put it. Iraq is not about American domestic security. We are not in Iraq to ensure that terrorists don't make it a haven in which to launch future attacks against America and American interests. We are in Iraq because the U.S. (that's us folks) wants to ensure that it stays the sole super power for as long as it can.

This is where I may lose people, I know, so pay close attention.

Are you ready?

Iraq is not about Iraq. Iraq is about China.

Oil is still the lifeblood of economic development; and exports from the Gulf account for more then 80% of China's total oil imports.

Is Bush getting the job done? That depends; do you believe that America should sit idly by while global power strugles reduce our influence and position? Or do you believe that we should do what we can to ensure that our position is secure?

Yeah.... I'm a Political Economy major. :D

wakeech

11-15-2003, 12:14 AM

Iraq is about China?? wow, i really think you're giving everyone in your government, and those corrupt with power in China too, way the heck too much credit. i do agree that going into Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with WMD (a really really awful excuse, as we now see), and trying to rationalise it as some form of global benevolence in the face of dozens of other countries they're not liberating whom all suffer from equally tyranical dictators is absolutely preposterous.

i can't say what the reason the "go" was given really, but everything we've heard so far is just BS.

:D thanks for reviving ANOTHER of my threads (but this is one of my faves, eh Digi?? :p)

wakeech

11-15-2003, 12:26 AM

before i go out, just wanted to add that the WTO has found the US at fault in the trade agreement, when they were using faulty unit conversions between the Imperial Board-Feet measurement and the Metric Cubic Metre (which takes into account the taper that trees naturally have) ending up with massive volumetric errors in their gross over-estimations.

will post news article later, if i remember :)

ToRX-8orToZ

11-15-2003, 01:59 AM

Iraq is about China?? wow, i really think you're giving everyone in your government, and those corrupt with power in China too, way the heck too much credit.

It is called global politics. You know a little about economics; think mercantalism on a wider scale. I give a lot of people in my government A LOT of credit, if it were not for their efforts the world would be a VERY different place.

At this point in time, the U.S. has an opportunity to heavily influence and shape the future world order. The Economist recently had a special edition devoted to this fact; I highly recomend it to anyone who is interested in global politics.

Anyhow, to throw out some numbers:

The U.S. economy represents 33% of global GDP. The next largest economy is China's at 12%.

We currently spend the equivalent of 390 billion dollars ('94 dollars) a year on defense. The rest of the world COMBINED spends 396 billion.

People wonder why the French, once a stern ally on almost any issue, have clashed with us over Iraq. Does anyone actually believe they do so out of a concern for the well being of the Iraqi people? France does what it does because it seeks the return of a multipolar world, one in which the U.S. is not a dominating force in world affairs. Why? Because France is in a better position to weild influence in a multipolar world. In short, France does whats best for France, and we're doing whats best for us.

RussellP

11-15-2003, 04:37 AM

In 30 years when most of the middle east is a democracy with elected leaders and financial stability, IT WILL HAVE STARTED WITH BUSH.

LesPaul

11-15-2003, 08:27 AM

I'm not real fan of Bush. I fear is is trying to put his religious views into the laws of the land. He can believe what he wants, just don't force it on the rest of us.

But I don't understand this personal harted of him. It seems that no matter what he tries to do some people will say "bush is an idiot" and not even look at the facts.

By any measure the economy is not in the toilet. As alluded to here interests rates, inventories, the markets, every measure of the economy is stong. 6% unemployment used to be considered "full-employment". We are going through a transition from manufacturing to service, so buggy whip makers will be out of work, but that is part of macro economics. Not Bushes fault.

The tired bromide of "tax cuts for the rich" is so stupid and insulting. How can you give a tax cut to someone not paying taxes. Letting people that earn more money keep more of their own money is pure logic. Not "favoring his rich buddies". The top 5% of wage earners pay 56% of the tax burden. The top 50% of earners pay 96% of the burden. Giving these tax payers their money back only makes sense. You can't give a tax cut to the bottom 50% of earners who pay very little or no tax. The government wastes way too much. The examples are many. Let people keep their money, spend it to make jobs and, yes, "trickle down" to the rest of the economy. It worked for Reagan and we see today that it works now. Only blind-to-the-facts bush haters refuse to see this.

I do like the way Bush is protecting us. I never thought we'd go this long without another attack on US soil. While Clinton and Gore were asleep at the wheel, the sons of allah were building strength. 9/11 is Clinton's fault. (Spare me the clinton bashing accusations, the facts are out there about his malfeasance.)

Germany said under no circumstances would they support the war, yet some say we should have waited to get UN support. The UN is not like our representative government, its a club of dictators. Who cares what they think. They do not represent the world.

No WMD? Who cares. The culture of the Arabs and Islam has been a threat for years. I can't see how we can live together on this planet. They will not allow it. One of their head guys said on November 13, 2003 that Al-Qaida has further plans to cause misery that will "amaze the world and turn Al Qaida into an organization that horrifies the world until the law of Allah is implemented, actually implemented, and not just in words, on His land...You wait and see that the balance of power between Al Qaida and its rivals will change, all of a sudden, Allah willing." I want a tough President to deal with these vermin. Even if we want to , we cannot live in peace with them.

A free democratic Iraq can be the foundation of freedom for Arabs (they deserve freedom too) and a way to marginalize the hate-filled sons of Allah.

Dean is a fool to say cut and run. What would happen to the world then? Distruction by religious fools.

Yikes, I really didn't want to get into this.

compaddict

11-15-2003, 08:43 AM

Uhg again..

Thanks for the "Rush" view.

Uhg..

"Facts?" "club of dictators" "No WMD? Who cares" "hate-filled sons of Allah" "Who cares what they think. They do not represent the world" "While Clinton and Gore were asleep at the wheel" "The tired bromide of "tax cuts for the rich" is so stupid and insulting"

Don't try to disguise yourself, it's not working.

Please...

Vince

Habeeb

11-15-2003, 12:44 PM

Wow.. politics.. I gotta run my mouth a bit. Calling Bush stupid is childish. I didn't vote for the man but he is far from stupid. He may have a speech problem that makes him look, to the uneducated, less smart than he really is, but not stupid. Al Gore is not stupid. Please...Come on boys, raise the bar a bit. You might not like his policies, but he is far from stupid. Now, as to taxation. The most fair, IMO, is a national sales tax. You buy it, it's taxed. You want to save it it's not. You get to keep all your paycheck, period. ..To say one thing about his middle east policy. It's about oil, always was. And the fact that we need a strongholed in the middle east to fight our enemy. Islamic militants. Isreal can not do it for us anymore. It really sucks that our brave men and women are dying daily. We need to be there and we need to kick ass. Will it stop terrorism completely here.. no. Not with our Canadian and Mexican borders so open. It will be a hard long fight. We are up to the task. As to the economy, that will run in cycles, a President, administration, and monetary policy wonks can only do so much. It wasn't Clintons fault for the bubble, and isn't Bush's fault for the pop. Boys, open you eyes just a bit. And the comment about the country being founded on the right to or not to choose?? huh?? Power to the communities, then states, then nation, then Presdient. Done.

klegg

11-15-2003, 01:36 PM

I don't know Les, first religon, now politics..we are getting into all the fire storms now..perhaps we should start an abortion thread to finish it off..

I agree that Iraq was a threat, but it was not an immediate threat..we should have gone into yemen first, that is were al quida has the most pull now, and I for one have not forgoten the COLE.

Of course, we could have let Israel take care of him, a double tap to the head, and it is all over.

After all, the reason we are not in a atomic holocaust is because they took out iraqs ability to make a bomb in the 80's..everyone came down on them, but gee, I guess they were right.

My real problem with iraq stems from the fact that we armed them, and turned a blind eye when they were using gas on the kurds, and iran.

but, we do need to clean up our mess over there, I just wish we had not made it to start with.

Of course, I could go on about so many things ....but I am going out with my wife (our anniversary!).

I think the reason people tend to hate bush is

1) the man comes off like an idiot "I think humans and fish can co exist in peace"

2 )He lied to us about the WMD thing

3 )He is trying to get people killed who point out he lied (the CIA spy thing)

4) the fact that chaneys co is getting the lucrative contracts

5) f;orida

Now I know this kind of thing happens, R or D. My problem is the extant of this, and the feeling that the american people will sit by and just take it...the revolutionary spirt has been breed out of the US...other wise there would have been riots in the streets with the current situation..

I just think about the billions we are giving, not lending, an oil rich nation, and wonder about what good we could do with it here at home....cancer, the homeless, social security, ect.

maybe I should run..."a mazda in every driveway" sounds nice!

:D

RussellP

11-15-2003, 05:18 PM

good point about the israelis taking out the nukes. The wussy UN gave them hell, as always, but imagine if they didnt do it.....

revhappy

11-15-2003, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by LesPaul

By any measure the economy is not in the toilet. As alluded to here interests rates, inventories, the markets, every measure of the economy is stong. 6% unemployment used to be considered "full-employment". We are going through a transition from manufacturing to service, so buggy whip makers will be out of work, but that is part of macro economics. Not Bushes fault.

The tired bromide of "tax cuts for the rich" is so stupid and insulting. How can you give a tax cut to someone not paying taxes. Letting people that earn more money keep more of their own money is pure logic. Not "favoring his rich buddies". The top 5% of wage earners pay 56% of the tax burden. The top 50% of earners pay 96% of the burden. Giving these tax payers their money back only makes sense. You can't give a tax cut to the bottom 50% of earners who pay very little or no tax. The government wastes way too much. The examples are many. Let people keep their money, spend it to make jobs and, yes, "trickle down" to the rest of the economy. It worked for Reagan and we see today that it works now. Only blind-to-the-facts bush haters refuse to see this.

I was with you on the religeon debate, some of this, but not all of it. I agree that we are in a transformation to a full-blown service economy. You are correct in that 6% was considered to be full-employment (i.e. further levels of employment would result in higher wages to the point of causing a cascade of inflation) as that's what I was taught in school. However, during the Clinton years, higher levels of employment did not result in inflation, so perhaps the full employment number is now revised, but I'm not sure.

Supply-Side or Trickle-down economics takes the positon you do. However, there is much debate on whether a progressive, regressive or an even tax rate is best for the economy. In the current situation, the goverment basically insituted tax cuts (that on a dollar basis went mostly to upper income holders - which I bet include many forum members BTW) that in part caused the deficit. The deficit left less aid to the states, including unfunded mandates. As a result, states and municipalities went into debt (in addition to other factors) and issued bonds. These bonds are generally bought by wealthy individual with large amounts of wealth and with high marginal tax rates. This was intensified by the stock market delcine (partly caused by the accounting scandals, which of course were started off with Bush's buddy Ken Lay - CEO of Enron). So a big chunk of the tax cut helped cause goverment deficits and allowed the wealthy to take advantage of that by buying the goverment bonds. IMHO, the cost of those bonds exceeds the economy's benefits (i.e. increased GDP) as I think the after tax return of muni's is around 5%, which does not include early (and often more costly) calls.

IMHO, the tax structure that works best should be instituted (with exceptions for gross unfair structures - i.e. no tax for some..lots for others). Still, I think lower taxes should be a long-term solution for the economy, but due to the slowness in their actual effect (i.e. a year or years into the future when returns are filed) are not the ideal stimulus for an economic down-turn (i.e interest rate changes by the Fed are much more timely).

Also, why did Bush impose tarrifs on imported steel? (Swing States of West Virginia and Pensylvania maybe???) That is basically a tax that forces everyone to pay more for steel and the products that are made form it. Clinton was a better proponent of free trade than Bush.

QUOTE]Originally posted by LesPaul
I do like the way Bush is protecting us. I never thought we'd go this long without another attack on US soil. While Clinton and Gore were asleep at the wheel, the sons of allah were building strength. 9/11 is Clinton's fault. (Spare me the clinton bashing accusations, the facts are out there about his malfeasance.)

Germany said under no circumstances would they support the war, yet some say we should have waited to get UN support. The UN is not like our representative government, its a club of dictators. Who cares what they think. They do not represent the world.

No WMD? Who cares. The culture of the Arabs and Islam has been a threat for years. I can't see how we can live together on this planet. They will not allow it. One of their head guys said on November 13, 2003 that Al-Qaida has further plans to cause misery that will "amaze the world and turn Al Qaida into an organization that horrifies the world until the law of Allah is implemented, actually implemented, and not just in words, on His land...You wait and see that the balance of power between Al Qaida and its rivals will change, all of a sudden, Allah willing." I want a tough President to deal with these vermin. Even if we want to , we cannot live in peace with them.

A free democratic Iraq can be the foundation of freedom for Arabs (they deserve freedom too) and a way to marginalize the hate-filled sons of Allah.[/QUOTE]

Now, Bush was also "asleep at the wheel" for his inaction during the first nine months of his administration? If you really want to be harsh, you can say he had intelligence about the airplane threat one month before September 11th, but he did not act. In fact, his administration witheld much information from the indpendent/bipartisan (forget which it is) 9/11 Commission. Then of course, secrecy and and elitism are a major characteristic of this administration (Dick Cheney's Energy Task-Force - BTW did you see the Energy Bill passed by the House this week? Again, what are they trying to hide????)

I agree with you about the islamic threat. However, this would have gone much better IMHO, if we continued the march to Baghdad in the first gulf war - when Szwarzkorph got swindled at the peace treat by the Iraqi negotiators. I do think we could have received a much wider coaltion, if Bush acted differently, but he moved lock-step with his neo-con advisors, most of which never saw combat, and ingnored more diplomatic cabinet members, such as Colin Powell. Furthermore, if the WMD are never found, it may seem his judgement is poor or even worse that he lied (but of course lieing about oral sex is worse than lieing about going into a war - if true - or lieing about other policies - i.e. tax cuts would not cause deficits, "Clear Skies" relaxing air pollution regulations, "Healthy Forests" actually cutting much down, etc.)

That being said, pre-9/11 was a different world and I will not blame anyone for acting different before then, including President Bush. Now, that we are in Iraq we MUST win and if we pulled out, it would show we are weak (much like the Iran Hostage crisis where Jimmy Carter did not show much strength).

Originally posted by LesPaul
Dean is a fool to say cut and run. What would happen to the world then? Distruction by religious fools...

While Dean is not my choice for President, he has not taken that postion. He is for winning it, but with getting more support from other countries.

QUOTE]Originally posted by LesPaul
Yikes, I really didn't want to get into this. [/QUOTE]

I know, I feel the same way!!!

wakeech

11-16-2003, 04:20 AM

to all Bush apologists: no person is perfect, and mistakes can be made, but gimme a break, he IS actually quite a stupid, uninformed, ignorant person. he's bull-headed, closed-minded, but (obviously) easily manipulated by his advisors, and for that reason makes a terrific president: blinded by "conviction", and unapologetic. basically, a perfect public puppet for the most powerful nation on earth. a man who can be loved for those who he benefits, and a rather insigificant target for those who want to destroy the "real" power of America... :D ok, i'm reading too much into it, but honestly... where is the intelligence?? can someone please give me an example of how this guy can honestly be evaluated as clever?? has he ever come up with some stroke of genius all on his own?? i'm very willing to have an open mind, but from all i've seen and heard, he appears as dumb as a post.

and who cares about there being no WMD?? me, and every other law-abiding citizen of the planet, as that was the ENTIRE PREMISE going into the war: without that, how can the war be justified?? that the Islamic world is a potential maybe-someday-in-the-near-to-distant-future threat?? gimme a fuckin' break. how about pre-emptive action on EVERY state in the world?? how could you trust ANYONE that isn't yourself with a gun?? what about the children of your own country?? can't let them all have any opportunity to inflict criminal acts on you in the future, could you??
the slippery slope is obviously a fallacy/unreality, but please give it consideration in your effort to justify in your mind that your country isn't the "bad guy". but you know?? you aren't. the people you put in charge of the country aren't perfect/good/infallible people, but you aren't necessarily bad because of that. so please, stop trying to rationalize it.
also (i'll just repeat myself incase someone missed it) if you're going to try and say "Sadam was an evil man, and we freed the people of Iraq", there are plenty of evil dictators around the world, with people whom need liberation (dozens of countries), but who helped put them there in the first place?? hmmm... :p

ahhh... to rant endlessly for hours.

Originally posted by revhappy
pre-9/11 was a different world

this is one thing i have to single out: being ignorant i can excuse, but why does everyone believe that the whole entire world changed that day?? sure, it was bad, and was what, the first attack on American soil ever?? regardless, the world now is much the same as it was before, now with a simply less patient and more paranoid America coersing the rest of the world to conform to higher security standards. the world is far from more or less dangerous: in fact, i'm truely surprised it took that long for someone to do such a thing.

toRX-8ortoZ, i believe you if you say that Iraq is really about China, i just can't see who's doing the thinking behind it all, but yeah, in the big scheme of things, seems pretty correct to me. :)
what i'd REALLY be interested in hearing though is your personal opinion of the state-of-the-world, and what your achievably-Utopian fantasy world of the future would be like... :cool:

compaddict

11-16-2003, 06:50 AM

"(A) perfect public puppet "? How about a perfect corporate puppet.
And "and who cares about there being no WMD??"? The people of the United States were prodded into going to war over WMD and Iraq's immediate threat. When we found out that the sanctions really did work and Saddam was bluffing we say that WMD didn't matter after all and we removed an evil dictator and all is well.
What we really did is beat the living shit out of a country killing thousands of innocent people and doing billions of dollars worth of damage. Mind you the people we killed (including the military) didn't really have anything against the US (except for the trade sanctions) and Iraq was no threat to the US at all. As a matter of fact one of Iraq's only links to terrorism is that Saddam offered rewards to suicide bombers in Israel.
So you can stop with the bullshit excuses for the U.S. and what we did. We fucked up in a big way and it will cost us in money, lives and status for many years.

Vince

The Red One

11-16-2003, 07:32 AM

Oh boy ....

Habeeb

11-16-2003, 11:23 AM

The only thing really bad about reading your, actually quite well written, posts is having to look at your picture.

klegg

11-16-2003, 01:54 PM

WAKEECH, although I agree with some of your points, not everything is that cut and dried...

But, as to 9/11 The world did change for us in a fundamental way.

Remember, for all our faults, we are always the first and most generous with help for any place suffering from natural disaster.

We do tend to help; to a fault. and for the most part the american people have pretty big hearts..

Now however, that is changing. The loss of so many innocent lives, the women and children on the planes, are things burned into our national psyche..I guess in the same way pearl harbor was.

For some, a retreat from world involvement seems to be the thing to do, for others, an orgy of revenge, blood screaming for blood.

For all, a loss of innosence. I do not think you have been hit with anything like this up north, so I guess it is hard to understand.

Of course, I know people who lost family, although not well, and it breaks your heart to see them.

revhappy

11-16-2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by wakeech
this is one thing i have to single out: being ignorant i can excuse, but why does everyone believe that the whole entire world changed that day?? sure, it was bad, and was what, the first attack on American soil ever?? regardless, the world now is much the same as it was before, now with a simply less patient and more paranoid America coersing the rest of the world to conform to higher security standards. the world is far from more or less dangerous: in fact, i'm truely surprised it took that long for someone to do such a thing.

Thanks for singling my comment out. :) However, I think you are misinterpreting the context in which I said it. I said pre-9/11 was a differerent world when it came to US Presidents and their policy towards terrorism. That is a fact and Bush is planning on to run on the idea that his policy is the strongest against it. I do think we have perhaps been a bit overly dramatic with our talking about "9/11" constantly. Isreal has lost a larger percentage of their population from terrorism. That being said, the attacks on the US were not the first acts of terrororism or suicidal acts, but they sure got the message across that these are going to be used in the future.

I do not think the increased secrurity measures are a waste. The airline security was previously done by Mcdonalds-quality employees and was a complete joke. It has gotten better, but not perfect to say the least. There are plenty of terrorists willing to act and commercial airlines are a tremendous weapon (how would a crash into the Indian Point Power Plant in Westchester, New York be like?).

If you don't agree with increasing security, what would you do to reduce the terrorist threat? From your post it seems, you would do nothing because doing anything would not do any good? Perhaps, that line of thinking led to Canada's ridiculous policies of letting just about any "refugee" into their country (with easy access to ours).

CERAMICSEAL

11-16-2003, 06:07 PM

Les, I am truly impressed;we don't see eye to eye on all topics but you are a sharp cat.
Habeeb, I almost cried ;your posts were so simply brilliant.
BTW I shan't be sharing my political thoughts at this juncture.
Peace.

LesPaul

11-17-2003, 07:25 AM

Revhappy, nicely stated position. One point, however, is that according to the Federal Budget office, when marginal tax rates are cut, gross tax revenues increase. I'm not sure there is a direct relationship between decreased tax rates and the deficit. There are too many other factors at play.

Wakeech, of course I care about WMD, but that was not the main reason for the attach of Iraq. Bush NEVER said there was an imminent threat. I have been worried for the last 15 years as I read about the culture in the mideast (school that merely teach the recitiation of the Quoran and hatred of the West) and the teachings of Islam, which is very troubling. A book written by a warloard two thousand years ago that was mainly a call to war. Also, the several terrorist attacks by the sons of Allah that went unanswered or were answered by trivial attempts.

Look at Chechnya, India/Pakistan, Isreal, almost where ever there is war and terrorism, Islam can be found. That is my main concern. They will not let us live in peace. As long as the sons of allah are out and about, your very way of life is threatened.

Compaddict: "So you can stop with the bullshit excuses for the U.S." This isn't bullshit. How can you defend what Saddam and his Batthists did to the people of Iraq on a daily basis (check the Amnesty International reports)? That alone justified the war. Yes there are other bad guys out there, but Bush is starting with Iraq and hopefully a foundation of democracy that can be built upon. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/06/politics/06TEXT-BUSH.html Yes innocents died, but that's Saddams fault. Were you complaining as strongly before the war on behalf of the victims of Saddam?

Given the culture of hatred toward the west and believing that their god wants us all dead, we should all be very afraid. It's not over yet. They will do much more damage. I fear we are growing complacent and have gone back to our malls and TV and we are ignoring a threat that can destroy the world.

I admit, I do not have a satisfactory answer for the problem, but negotiation with dictators of the UN ain't it. We in the US have this huge tolerance for all religions. We lump them all together and assume they are kind and good. Islam, IMHO, does not deserve the kind and generous attitudes that most Americans share for all religions. Thus, before they kill all of us.....

LesPaul

11-17-2003, 07:43 AM

Wakeech: "can someone please give me an example of how this guy can honestly be evaluated as clever?? " 1) tax cuts and an economic policy that is causing the economy to be very strong and growing, 2) protecting the US from the very real and hugely dangerous Islamic threat, (I'm sure Bush would be catching hell if there were other attacks on US soil, yet he appears to get no credit for protecting us, 3) he has an excellent team of professionals around hijm that he relies on (that's good managment) and 4) he has a Harvard MBA (Gore flunked out of divinity school).

I do not like Bush (because of his religions position) but geez, I don't understand this hatred for him that blinds people to even good things he does.

brownchiro

11-17-2003, 08:01 AM

Rush comes back today. Now we will all get the real truth.?:D :D :D :D (as viewed by Rush):p

compaddict

11-17-2003, 08:12 AM

"(H)ugely dangerous Islamic threat" and "I do not like Bush (because of his religions position)" ?

That makes you sound like a bigoted atheist (or just a bigot because GWB isn't part of what you believe).

Being an atheist myself I don't see anything but good things in the top three basic beliefs.

So what type of bigot are you?

Vince

FamilyGuy

11-17-2003, 08:28 AM

Discussing politics is a waste of time, because people don't like to change their minds.

So mostly, I'm just spitting into the wind here. Anyway:
1. Bush most certainly did use the excuse that Saddam was an imminent threat to gain support for the war. He also explicitly justified the war by describing ties between Saddam and bin Laden, when there was (and is) exactly 0 instances of evidence that this happened.
2. From a financial standpoint, the $100,000,000,000+ spent on the war could have been better devoted to feeding the hungry, aiding the sick, and researching cures to disease. Saddam may have killed hundreds of his citizens per day, but 26,000 people starve to death around the world every minute. The money could have saved ten times more people used to aid places that need it. Even if we didn't care about other countries, the money could have paid down the deficit or been refunded to the taxpayers in order to stimulate the economy.
3. From a personnel standpoint, the war has cost us the lives of hundreds of US soldiers. More people have died since we 'won' than during the actual war.
4. From a political standpoint, we went to war for reasons that turned out to be flat wrong (again, immiment danger from weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al-Quida) in the face of opposition from the UN. Bush just tossed half of the US' political capital out the window.
5. From a corruption standpoint, Bush has really screwed up. The company which got most of the contracts to rebuild the Iraqi oil infrastructure is Haliburton - which has VP Cheney on the board of directors. How can that not look corrupt?
6. Islam is not inherently more violent than any other religion. The religion is not 2000 years old, it is less than 1200 years old. When Christianity was 1200 years old, Christian armies were invading Muslim cities and executing the entire populace. (That's what happened in some of the Crusades. Read about it.) 50 years ago, someone who thought he was doing what God wanted as a good Christian started a program to kill 7 million Jews. That doesn't mean all Christianity should be banned either.
7. The bad economy from the dot-bust is not Bush's fault, and neither is the initial economic problems after September 11 his fault. He couldn't control either. But similarly, he has nothing to do with the recovered economy. Many industries asked Bush to place import tariffs on foreign goods to protect domestic businesses. The only industry he protected was steel - and coincidentally, steel executives were major campaign contributors for Bush. It looks suspicious because it is suspicious. To make matters worse, the European Union is working on counter tariffs on US goods to compensate for US steel tariffs. Bush panders to US steel companies, and now it comes back to bite our entire export economy in the butt.
8. Bush was no better than Clinton about terrorists until after September 11th. He came to office right after the terrorist attack on the USS Cole outside Yemen, and didn't do a damn thing about it. Clinton would have been a major anti-terrorism president too, if September 11th had happened under his control.

And for the icing on the cake, the Bush administration had that outrageous ad campaign which stated that illegal drugs fund terrorists. That's flat out misleading and false on so many levels it isn't even funny.

LesPaul

11-17-2003, 08:36 AM

Bigot: "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices"

I don't think I fit that definition (but then what bigot does?). I think that most people don't know what Islam teaches and we assume the best. I've read the Quaran and find it's teaching very troubling so my opinion is based upon my understanding of the teachings of Islam, not on some blind prejudice. I prejudge a rose to smell sweet, that is not being bigoted.

Here are a few examples, from the Quoran:

Based upon a reading of the Koran (Qur-an), the holy book of Muslims, one can only conclude that it is a religion whose fundamental principals are fear, hatred and murder. It is not a beautiful literary work as some would have you believe.

The Qur-an argues that one should not stay at home and tend to family but rather it is better to leave home and fight the non-believers. All non-believers should be killed and if you die in the attempt you are an honored martyr. It is said that any religious text has segments that can be taken out of context or construed in a literal fashion to mislead. However, these ideals of murder and intolerance are not occasional utterances in the Qur-an but rather a major theme that permeates the document.

Some examples are shown below from an English version translated by a learned committee established by the king of Saudi Arabia. (Royal decree No. 12412, dated 10/27/1405 coordinated by the General Presidency of Departments of Islamic Researches, Ifta, Call and Guidance. King Fahd Holy Qur-an Printing Complex, Saudi Arabia) http://orst.edu/groups/msa/quran/quran/intro.html

1. But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they shall be companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein (2.39)
2. …fear none but me (2.40 and throughout)
3. …the curse of Allah is on those without Faith. (2.89)
4. And humiliating is the chastisement of those who reject Faith. (2.90)
5. Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith (2.98)
6. To those without Faith is a grievous punishment. (2.104)
7. Faith is “to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers.” (2.177)
8. Fight in the cause of Allah…(2.190)
9. And fight them on until there is no more persecution or oppression, and the religion becomes Allah’s. (2.193)
10. Fear Allah. (2.206 and throughout)
11. Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. (2.216)
12. Grant us victory over the unbelievers. (2.286)
13. Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. (3.28)
14. As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with severe agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help. (3.56)
15. Take not into your intimacy those outside your ranks. (3.118)
16. Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. (3.151)
17. Let not the strutting about of the unbelievers through the land deceive thee: Little is it for enjoyment: Their ultimate abode is Hell: what an evil bed (to lie on)! (3.196-197)
18. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient….As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them…For Allah is Most High, Great. (3.34)
19. Let those fight in the Cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. (3.74)
20. Why has Thou order us to fight?…Short is the enjoyment of this world: the Hereafter is the best for those who do right…(3.77)
21. Then fight in Allah’s Cause…and rouse the believers. (3.84)
22. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): So take not friends from their ranks…(3.89)
23. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). (3.95)
24. Those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honor they seek among them? Nay, -All honor is with Allah. (3.139)
25. Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers. (3.144)
26. …fear Allah: for Allah is strict in punishment (5.2)
27. ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends. (5.51)
28. Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger… (5.75)
29. Ask no questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble….Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith. (5.101-102)
30. But those who reject Our Signs, -them shall punishment touch. (6.49)

It should be noted that the Qu’ran was written by Mohammed when he was 40 years old until his death at 63. It is said that the angel Gabriel sat with Mohammed and said “Recite”. Over the years Mohammed recorded these various chapters which are arranged in the Qu’ran in order of length (longest to shortest). Therefore, there is no chronological or subject matter order. It was written during a time when Mohammed, as the head of a wealthy tribe, fought ongoing battles with those with whom he disagreed. Much of the text appears to be inspirational speeches to troops engaged in battle. This alone, presented in the modern world, is clearly out of context and imposes outrageously hostile guidance to people living almost two thousand years after the text was written.

The problem with all this is that true believers of Islam, must believe the basic tenants of the religion. This religion teaches to hate and kill anyone that does not share its beliefs. No amount of land, tolerance, negotiation, handouts, financial incentives or other reasonable methods of persuasion will change those whose life is committed to learning and reciting the hate filled language. To be a Muslim believer means to be at war with the rest of the world. (This is evident as Muslims fight Hindus in India, Muslims fight Jews in Isreal, Muslims fight others elsewhere.) They will have no peace until all nonbelievers are dead. How are we to share the planet with such people who only want to kill us because their god tells them to?

It is also troubling that this “holy” book encourages ignorance and blind obedience. As the quote above, and elsewhere in the book, admonishes: “Ask no questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble….Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith.” (5.101-102) Don’t ask questions, do not challenge, do not think or you may be one who lost their faith. Perhaps there is good reason that thinking people lose their faith in Islam.

Recently, the Arab Human Development Report 2002, commissioned by the United Nations, was issued. It warned of stagnation and declining productivity, nonexistent research and development and dormant science and technology among the Arab states. It noted that there is an environment of stagnation in intellectual growth. It is reasonable to assume that there is a direct relationship between the stranglehold the Muslim Mullahs have on education and public discourse and the stagnation that Arabs document about Arabs in the report.

All Americans would do well to read all or part of the Qur-an. It is important to understand the motivation of our enemies. Not that we selected to be the enemy of Islam: that was forced upon us by their “holy” book. Before we pursue “land for peace” deals, negotiations, aid or other reasonable avenues for peace, we must understand that at the heart of it all, the religion of many of these people teaches intolerance, ignorance, hate and fear. Their god tells them to kill until there are no more of us. Their god tells them to fight us and to enjoy being killed in the fight.

Understand this, readers who believe the Qur-an want to kill us all (Jews, Christians, Hindus, agnostics, atheists, anyone that is not Islam). That is the cold hard truth. It is us or them. We didn’t ask for this fight, but we should be bold enough to finish it.

I admit that I am not scholar of Islam and I may be misunderstanding all of this. I may be completely wrong. To anyone I offend, I offer my sincere apology, but I'm just trying to make sense of all of this.

revhappy

11-17-2003, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by LesPaul
Revhappy, nicely stated position. One point, however, is that according to the Federal Budget office, when marginal tax rates are cut, gross tax revenues increase. I'm not sure there is a direct relationship between decreased tax rates and the deficit. There are too many other factors at play.

Hi Les,
I think you are referring to the Laffer Curve. Basically, this is a bell-shaped curve that has tax rates as the X axis and tax receipts as the Y axis. The theory (which is part of supply-side theory) is that there is a certain tax rate (in the long-run)that will yield the greatest tax revenues, a rate that is lower than some other tax rates. As far as I know, no one has ever determined what that rate is. However, you can bet the bank on the fact that conservatives would push for lower tax rates, even if that means going past the peak on the Laffer Curve.

From what I hear, the current deficit (which was a surplus when Bush tok office) is about 50% caused by the lower tax rates of the Bush presidency. I'm not sure where I heard this, but I'm sure the goverment budgetary folks can ascertain the reasons as they do for GDP and us in the business world do for our own actual vs. budget variances.

compaddict

11-17-2003, 09:24 AM

Please.. You can pick apart and quote very scary things in any religion. Hatred and fear is your problem.

Vince

LesPaul

11-17-2003, 09:52 AM

FamilyGuy you will find no quotes from Bush that Iraq is an imminent threat. In fact he said we should not wait until they are an imminent threat.

Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization (secret police run by Qusay), The British newspaper the Guardian reported that Farouk Hijazi of Iraq's mukhabarat visited bin Laden in Afghanistan in December of 1998, etc, etc. There is evidence of a connection.

As for Halliburton, someone has to get the business. Should Halliburton be excluded from consideration? Daniel Drezner of Slate did a detailed report on this issue. And Steven Kelman worte in the Washington Post: "One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded--whether a career civil servant working on procurement or an independent academic expert--who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere bewteen highly improbable and utterly absurd".

There are some arguments that are becoming accepted as fact just because they are good sound bits that get repeated so many times that people start to accept them as being true.

klegg

11-17-2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by compaddict
Please.. You can pick apart and quote very scary things in any religion. Hatred and fear is your problem.

Vince

Wel, I think calling the man a bigot is going a bit far, and certainly I do not think we can use the word "hate".

I do think there is fear there, but I think we all fear the actions of religous zelots.

I personally do not feel that all islam is the enemy,( I have this need to see the good in everyone) BUT there are many who corrupt the teachings to their own end, and one must fear a culture which will use its children to clear land mines.

It comes down to error on the side of caution, I guess. How do we seperate the evil from the good?

In WWII we interned thousands of asians, but could you imagine the outcry if we did that today?

On the other hand, we are still open to attack...

revhappy

11-17-2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by LesPaul
Wakeech: "can someone please give me an example of how this guy can honestly be evaluated as clever?? " 1) tax cuts and an economic policy that is causing the economy to be very strong and growing, 2) protecting the US from the very real and hugely dangerous Islamic threat, (I'm sure Bush would be catching hell if there were other attacks on US soil, yet he appears to get no credit for protecting us, 3) he has an excellent team of professionals around hijm that he relies on (that's good managment) and 4) he has a Harvard MBA (Gore flunked out of divinity school).

I do not like Bush (because of his religions position) but geez, I don't understand this hatred for him that blinds people to even good things he does.

Hi Les,
I don't think there is much empircal evidence that shows the tax cuts are the cause of the economic news. BTW...this may only be a one-time event as the refinancing boom in the housing market enabled a lot of funds to be freed up and spent. Let's see how things go in the next few quarters. I don't lay the initial recession that started when he took office on him nor do I give him credit for the potential better economy as both seem more indicative of a business cycle. Much of the tax cuts are not in effect yet so their stimulatory impact has not occurred. Again, tax policy is not great for smoothing out business cycles due to their lack of timleness. I do think an administration's tax policy can have an effect on the length of a recession through consumer and producer confidence. The creation of large budgetary deficits will not increase that due to the fear of rising interest rates and eventually higher tax rates that will be likely be necessary to pa\y off just the interest on the national debt.

2) I agree with you about the effect Islam is having on the world. I don't know if it's an inherent in the religeon (I know there are many fairly secular muslims that are peaceful) or its just practiced that way by many. However, Bush has done nothing but increase the funding of radical Wahibism (SP??) by not doing anything substantial to improve the conservation of oil. Of course, there is nothing wrong with allowing OPEC to artificially allow higher prices for oil when you have many old buddies that sell their petroleum and related products for huge profits.

3) What happens when those great advisors disagree?? He has not leaned with Colin Powell often, but sided with the hawks. Again, the president needs good judgement and needs to think a bit more dynamically than his black and white simplistic view.

4) Al Gore has an undergraduate degree from Harvard and went to Law school after Divinity School. He may be dull, but most would agree he knows a lot about the issues and policies. Bush got into Yale and Harvard based on legacy. He was a mediocre student at best and many of his former classmates commented on his lack of interest in learning.

I think people dislike him because of his very conservative policies couple with his very narrow win in the election. Some of the other things people mentioned like secrecy and arrogance are contributing factors IMHO.

revhappy

11-17-2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by LesPaul
FamilyGuy you will find no quotes from Bush that Iraq is an imminent threat. In fact he said we should not wait until they are an imminent threat.

Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization (secret police run by Qusay), The British newspaper the Guardian reported that Farouk Hijazi of Iraq's mukhabarat visited bin Laden in Afghanistan in December of 1998, etc, etc. There is evidence of a connection.

There are clandestine meetings with these types of individuals all the time with even respected goverments. We had to do it to negotiate with the Serbians in Bosnia and Kosovo. In addition, I'm sure our intelligence folks have met with many similar people in the last few years. In fact, when we aided both Bin Laden and Sadam we must have had some important people meet with them/their subordinates.

The real question is what is the opportunity cost of spending all the time and resources in Iraq. Could we have used it to fight terrorists in other places? How much will their organizations grow as a result? How about all of the additional terrorists that will be created as a result of this visible occupation? These same concerns were written by our own Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

Why aren't we pushing the Saudi's to change these radical, violent and obscene madrasas??

Originally posted by LesPaul
As for Halliburton, someone has to get the business. Should Halliburton be excluded from consideration? Daniel Drezner of Slate did a detailed report on this issue. And Steven Kelman worte in the Washington Post: "One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded--whether a career civil servant working on procurement or an independent academic expert--who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere bewteen highly improbable and utterly absurd".

There are some arguments that are becoming accepted as fact just because they are good sound bits that get repeated so many times that people start to accept them as being true.

Many of these contracts were not open for bids. There are other companies, some from other countries, that perhaps could have done a better job for less money. Iraqi entities could have been used for some work, increasing the Iraqi support for the mission. I believe they are opening up some contracts for some more bidders so there must be some admission of guilt based on this action?

A major obstacle to the entrance of other countries is the lack of Bush to yield some control and power to other nations. It may not be factually the case, but it sure appears that this administration is doing this for hteir buddies. A few years back all hell broke loose in the republican ranks because of Bill Clinton's fail Whitewater real estate deal, but just imagine what would happen if he did this??

FamilyGuy

11-17-2003, 01:16 PM

Christianity:

Gospel According To Luke

-- 12:51-2 "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three."

-- 14:26 "If any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

-- 19:27 "But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

The Gospel According To Matthew

-- 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword."

-- 10:35-6 "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."

-- 15:4 Jesus reiterates the commandment to kill children for cursing their parents: "For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say,... [snip] ... Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition."

The Gospel According To John

-- 15:6 "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (This passage, a quote from Jesus, was used for centuries to justify burning our predecessors at the stake for refusing to believe.)

Exodus

-- 21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus

-- 12:1-8 Bible calls childbirth a sin

-- 15:29-30 Women must make sin offering for having menstrual periods

-- 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

-- 20:10 Adulterers shall be put to death

-- 20:13 Death decreed for homosexuals

-- 24:16 Death for pronouncing the name of the Yahweh

Numbers

-- 31:1-18 Captured virgins to be kept "for yourselves"; other captives are to be slain; 32 virgins

-- 31:1-18; 28-47 God commands genocide of Midianites

-- 31:40 Ritual Human Sacrifice performed by Moses and Eleazar: "And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was thirty and two persons."

Deuteronomy

-- 3:1-7 Kill all men, women, and children

-- 13:6-10 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
[7] Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
[8] Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
[9] But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
[10] And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

-- 22:13-21 A bride who is found not to be a virgin must be put to death

I Samuel

-- 15:3 God orders Saul to kill suckling babes

II Kings

-- 2:23-24 Children mock the Prophet Elisha for his baldness; Elisha "cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

Psalms

-- 137:9 "Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

You can do a google search, or check here http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/genress.html
or
http://www.religioustolerance.com/mor_dive2.htm

I am not too familiar with the Quran, but I highly doubt it is any more inflammatory and full of genocide than the Bible.