Champion of Liberty & Freedom?

[patriot]

From today's news:

1. The Pentagon reported on Wednesday two new suicide attempts by prisoners held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, expressing fresh concern as the total number of suicide tries reached 27.

2. Amnesty International said Wednesday the U.S.-led war against terrorism is sowing fear and danger in the name of security across the globe and denying basic rights to those who have been arrested.

[Black Jack]

Yeah...and so what...prisoners in jail try to off themselves all the time.

[rogue]

Geldof back in Ethiopia
'You'll think I'm off my trolley, but Bush has the most positive approach to Africa since Kennedy' : Geldof, back in Ethiopia, praises Bush

Rory Carroll in Addis Ababa
Wednesday May 28, 2003
The Guardian

Bob Geldof astonished the aid community yesterday by using a return visit to Ethiopia to praise the Bush administration as one of Africa's best friends in its fight against hunger and Aids.

The musician-turned activist said Washington was providing major assistance, in contrast to the European Union's "pathetic and appalling" response to the continent's humanitarian crises.

"You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical - in a positive sense - in its approach to Africa since Kennedy," Geldof told the Guardian.

The neo-conservatives and religious rightwingers who surrounded President George Bush were proving unexpectedly receptive to appeals for help, he said. "You can get the weirdest politicians on your side."

Former president Bill Clinton had not helped Africa much, despite his high-profile visits and apparent empathy with the downtrodden, the organiser of Live Aid, claimed. "Clinton was a good guy, but he did **** all."

His comments, made on the first day of a week-long visit intended to put Africa on the agenda of the G8 summit in France at the weekend, caught off-guard some aid organisations that have accused Washington of using its food aid as a covert subsidy for American farmers.

They had also tempered praise for a recent US pledge of $15bn (£9bn) to fight HIV and Aids in poor countries with criticism that too much was tied to campaigns promoting sexual abstinence - in deference to Christian lobbyists who oppose the use of condoms.

The US has also been accused of planning to bury a radical French plan that would help some of the world's poorest farmers by ending the dumping of subsidised western food in Africa.

Geldof, however, lauded the US and Britain for supplying the bulk of the 1.15m tonnes of food aid that has been pledged to Ethiopia to plug a food shortage that threatens 15 million people.

But another 365,000 tonnes of food aid are needed, said the World Food Programme.

Lord Alli, the aid activist who is accompanying Geldof on the trip organised by the UN children's aid agency Unicef, echoed his praise of the Bush administration.

"Clinton talked the talk and did diddly squat, whereas Bush doesn't talk, but does deliver," Lord Alli said.

This is the Irish musician's first visit to Ethiopia since the 1985 Live Aid concert that raised $60m for famine victims. With his compatriot Bono, of the rock group U2, Geldof has become a leading figure in the campaigns for debt relief and trade reform.

He and Bono met Tony Blair in Downing Street last week to ask the prime minister to put Africa's Aids pandemic on the agenda of the G8 summit.

The non-governmental organisation, ActionAid, expressed surprise at Geldof's comments. "Bush's increased aid comes with harmful loan conditions," its USA policy officer, Rick Rowden, said.

"The US treasury's role in the IMF and the World Bank imposes high interest charges, privatisation and cuts in domestic subsidies which ruin third world companies."

Justin Forsyth, Oxfam's director of campaigns and policy, said Geldof's remarks "shouldn't be taken out of context ... Bob Geldof rightly highlighted that the Bush administration deserve credit for dramatically increasing US aid for HIV programmes in Africa.

However, Bob is also cam paigning to reform the international trade rules where the US administration remains a major impediment to reform. These trade rules disadvantage poor countries by much larger amounts than the US will ever offer in aid."

Salih Booker, executive director of Africa Action, a Washington-based NGO, said Mr Clinton's Africa rhetoric was often hollow, but that he deserved credit for pushing through an African Growth and Opportunity Act, which is supposed to give certain countries access to US markets.

"Clinton began the long overdue process of helping Ameri cans rediscover Africa. He visited twice and was the first to declare HIV/Aids a threat to national security", Mr Booker said.

But Geldof was adamant that the EU was the greater villain for delivering just a small fraction of Ethiopia's staple needs and refusing, unlike the US and Britain, to supply any supplementary foods, such as oil, which give a balanced diet.

"The EU have been pathetic and appalling, and I thought we had dealt with that 20 years ago when the electorate of our countries said never again," he said. Warning that the "horror of the 80s" could return, he added: "The last time I spoke to the EU's aid people, they didn't even know where their own ships were. The food is there, get it here."

The head of Unicef in Ethiopia, Bjorn Ljungqvist, declined to be drawn, saying only that funding and shipments came in cycles.

A swelling population, drought, flooding and a collapse in prices have made millions more Ethiopians dependent on food aid than 1984, but this time a sophisticated relief effort has averted mass starvation. Unicef does not yet use the word famine, but 3.5 million people do risk starving, said Mr Ljungqvist.

After a closed-door meeting from which occasional laughter could be heard, Ethiopia's prime minister, Meles Zenawi, gave a rare press conference alongside Geldof. Mr Meles accepted that his government bore some responsibility for the hunger, but declined to specify policy failures.

Geldof, dressed in a white linen suit and desert boots, said the new government was a vast improvement on the "communist-terror" regime it ousted in 1991.

Noting that Addis Ababa had shed its heavy security and North Korean ambience, he called for a Marshall-style plan for Africa. In return, African leaders should be less corrupt. "I'm not a bleeding heart, I'm not an optimist. I'm a pragmatist, this is doable," he said. "So let's do it."

Compassion fatigue was a problem. "Even I'm sick of myself, of looking at this mournful, lugubrious face in the mirror. I'm that quarter-page Oxfam [advertisement] in the Guardian, always asking for money."

To see the link between HIV and hunger and poverty, Geldof visited children orphaned by Aids in the Zenbe wak suburb of Addis Ababa. In a dark hut of mud and sticks, he traded jokes with Sha****u Fikadu, 10, and her brother, Assefa, 13, who respectively want to become a doctor and a mechanic.

"I'm going to come back on my motorbike and you're going to fix it so it'll go very fast, then I'll fall off and you'll fix me," he told them.


Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003

[Shuul Vis]

What the hell does this have to do with kung fu? I dont come here to listen to people rant about politics, unless its kung fu politics. Especially heartless people like black jack.

[jun_erh]

That's a great article.

[Black Jack]

I save my caring for people I give a flying crap about.

[MasterKiller]

I save my caring for people I give a flying crap about.

Like those poor Iraqi's you were so concerned about before the war, huh?

[Black Jack]

You got it beatnick. Your agenda smells to high heaven buddy, go take a bath, your side lost, get over it.

btw- Their is a big difference between Iraqi serfs molested under Saddam's thumb and our prisoners of war.

[patriot]

Those mistreated in Guantanamo Bay are "illegal combatants" - a term made up by the US government so that the humanitarian and legal rights of Prisoner of War under the Geneva Convention can be bypassed.

[rogue]

Did al Queda and the Taliban sign the Geneva convention?:confused:

[patriot]

Did the USA sign the Geneva Convention?

[Water Dragon]

patriot,
After almost every major war, foreign combatants always talk about how well they were treated by the US as POW's. Many times, it was the POW's saying this after they were returned to their countries. The German's after WWII are the 1st that come to mind.

I don't think they should be released either. This may sound selfish to you, but I have two very good reasons they should remain in captivity. One of those reasons is 7 years old, the other is 2.

[Kuen]

your side lost, get over it.

Ah, the facsist supporter Black Jack reveals his true feelings. To Black Jack, just like many extreme right wing reactionaries this illegal war had more to do with the real "enemies" here at home. Those "enemies" like MasterKiller who value life, reason and debate over power, profit and death. Yes, progressives are the true enemy of every fundementalist. Be they an extreme right winger like BJ or the extreme right wing Islamists like bin Laden. There is nothing these people fear more than a free secular society in which all people are truly created equal & in which descions are based on morality not conveniece or power. He thinks his "side" won but what is his "side"? Is it the "side" that's doomed 100's of thousands of Iraqi's to cancer and poverty? Or the one which is leaving our children with the hatred of the world, a $44 trillion deficet, nuclear proliferation and a wrecked environment? So it seems that we have those on the side of humanity and those on BJ's side. I'll take the side which concerns it self with everyone before any group's that soley exist for the accumulation of wealth and power.


"beatnik"-can't believe anyone still uses that term!

[David Jamieson]

Is it just me or is everyone else getting the sense that the neocon monster at the end of W's leash is starting to freak him out a bit? :D

Wolfowitz has gotta go imo.

As for Al Quaeda and their ilk, well, they gotta go. Plain and simple. Their solutions are not solutions at all. Essentially, the ends to their agenda is to send the world back into the 6th century.

I can't and I won't sympathize with that group or any other like it in any way shape or form. Particulalry when it goes beyond vocal activism and working within and moves into killing for the sake of the agenda.

I also do not agree with the attack on Iraq and it has so many holes in it's ideal, it really isn't a laughing matter. You can't free a people by murdering them and occupying their country. No country has any right to impose it's will on another country in the fashion that this has been carried out. Regardless of membership in this international club or that international club.

It is gonna cost each american and briton a bundle to drag that situation into any shape of normalcy by todays standard. (good thing they control the oil eh?) hmmmmn.

What has this all got to do with Kung Fu? A lot believe it or not. Personal Kungfu is expressed through actions. Deeds of the Kungfu practitioner are the most important showing of humanity they can offer.

To defeat another in battle is strength, to defeat that within yourself which keeps you from the correct path is power.

Power is only temporary when it is gained at the end of a gun.
Power is long term when it is gained through education of an ideal.

cheers

[Christopher M]

So long as we're being silly:

Typical liberal strategy: patently ignore any arguments put forth by conservatives and then try to drown them out proclaiming how morally superior you are.

Somewhat less silly: I find it really hard to take any of these extreme leftist posts seriously when excellent arguments against their position are posted all over this board and completely unanswered. Vitriol is no substitute for debate.

[Budokan]

"Vitriol is no substitute for debate."

Try telling that to the narrow-minded intolerant right wing hate-mongers who spew their own vitriol like pig vomit. You can hear it on "talk radio" practically every day.

Rush Limbaugh to a black man: "Get the bone out of your nose."

But I'm sure he didn't really mean to say that...

:rolleyes:

[Christopher M]

I have, and will continue to do so.

[Black Jack]

What Chris M stated in his top paragraph.

I have basically given up dealing with libs as they seem prone to debate. To take a tip from Mike Savage I honestly think some of them have a mental illness. They can not get over the fact that Bush is the president and it is not the war that they have a problem with, they did not seem to speak up and protest when mister cigar who liked to stick them in smelly and warm places was sending missles everywhere but their mom's house, its that he is the pres.

The last democratic president was the biggest piece of sh!t I have ever seen. The guy lied, lied, lied and was almost impeached. For funny info check out how he left the white house, dog **** everywhere, stuff stolen, a total clown.

GET OVER IT LOSERS!!!!!!!! MR. ROBOTRON GORE FAILED!!!!!!!

btw- I am NOT a right-wing conservative. I am a independent.

I bet you some of you liberals think palastine is the good guy:rolleyes:

[shaolin kungfu]

I bet you some of you liberals think palastine is the good guy

Sad thing is, this is probably true. People only ever like to look at one side of things. Same thing could be said for conservatives and Israel.

[GLW]

"Did the USA sign the Geneva Convention?"

Maybe not...but I bet GW went to all of the hospitality suites and the mixers...not to mention getting all the freebie pens and samples.

[ewallace]

Maybe not...but I bet GW went to all of the hospitality suites and the mixers...not to mention getting all the freebie pens and samples.
Uhh...he was three years old then.

[GLW]

Black Jack...

at least get it right...

Clinton WAS impeached.

Impeachment - to charge a public official with a crime or misdimeanor before a tribunal (in this case CONGRESS).

Impeachment is the charge and the trial.

The result of impeachment can be nothing (as has been the case in BOTH instances of impeachment ever used in the history of the US Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton), censure, and all the way to removal from office.

After removal from office, it is unclear what can happen because technically, a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime but can be impeached, tried, and removed from office.

After a removal, it has never been fully clear if criminal charges can be brought against the person or if the impeachment trial and conviction is the trial and that to do anything more would be double jeopardy.

As for your attituded on the other parts, the world is not and never has been black and white. Classifying a group of people and their ideas as Liberal or Conservative is a very nice an easy way to invalidate what they say and has never done anything to get a true dialog and meeting of minds to occur.

Minds only work when they open.

While the removal of a dictator is not a bad thing, there are many other things going on here and to ignore them is to be short sighted. I can guarantee that there are people in this world with very long memories that will not ignore these issues...and they will come back to haunt us all - regardless of which side you think is right or wrong.

[tsunami surfer]

A committed islamic freedom fighter attempting suicide??? I thought these guys (and some women) were committed to martyrdom and taking out as many infidels as possible. Its easy to be brave when your holding all the cards and whipping tail on unarmed people but as soon as the going gets tough these clowns fold like cards.

[David]

BlackJack, and all your CIA buddies - I hope you choke on each other's ****s.

-David

[Mr Punch]

That was just...

Sweeeet!



A classic style of argument, straight from the George W Bush Diplomatic Foreign Policy ABD.

:D

[GLW]

ewallace ---that was a joke...Conventions - as in corporate ones - typically have tons of vendors (lobbyists) hospitality suites, tons of booze, etc....and lots of freebies like pens, buttons, bags, ...

[tsunami surfer]

GLW that is really not true anymore at least with the major gun manufacturers. I have attended a few recently and have noticed that they are getting cheaper and cheaper with their givaways. Used to walk out of those things stuffed, drunk and a bag of goodies but now just walk out shaking my head.

[David Jamieson]

Do you feel "safer" as an American?

Or do you see your civil liberties being eroded in the name of the "war on terror"?

This is the trade off you are being given in the USA. It is an attempt at the creation of a police state all the while trying to get the populace to belive that it is a good thing for them.

So, when the terror passes, do you think that the deinstallation of the warning levels will go away or will they be used in a different way? Do you think the laws that give police organizations unprecedented powers will be drawn back?

Rights and civil liberties are being squashed by the laws being passed under the current administration. Confusion and fear will be replaced by apathy. IE "oh, it's a yellow alert day...who cares I'm going shopping".

People will become complacent in their new refurbished "homeland".

et voila! Orwell had it right all along.

You know, the last one to see the error in something is usually the person who has commited it.

cheers

[Black Jack]

I have yet to see any of my personal rights erode from the war on terror. Unless you count having to take my shoes off at the airport for about oh.....8 seconds if asked.

Certain sectors of America have been trying to take away the other sides rights for a long time. It's nothing new and the step by step battle for personal freedom is one that happens everyday in a free country.

To bad Canada, England, and the Aussies lost one of those battles already and you are now seeing the results of that loss and its not lower crime!

When I think of police states I think of places where their are camera's on very fricken corner, you have no right to defend yourself and when you do you go to jail, ummmm....who could I be writting about.:rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

los angeles?

[ZIM]

When I think of police states I think of places where their are camera's on very fricken corner, you have no right to defend yourself and when you do you go to jail, ummmm....who could I be writting about Yeah, it would really suck to be living in the Soviet Union.

Except...

Jay Walker, the guy who founded the Priceline online bargain site, has a new idea. He wants to set up Web cams around the nation's 47,000 power plants, airports and other critical infrastructure facilities. Then everyday Americans, paid $10 an hour, would monitor the cameras and report suspicious activities to the government. He calls his idea USHomeGuard and envisions a "Citizen Corps... composed of ordinary citizens who serve their countryworking from home over any Internet connection." Skeptics abound, and many are snickering loudly. But Walker's already stated signing up volunteers on his Web site.

story (http://www.detnews.com/2003/technology/0305/25/technology-173478.htm)

his web site (http://www.ushomeguard.org/)

anyone ever notice that whenever the US defeats some other nation, we always tend to become them, in the sense of adopting some of their characteristics? why the heck is that?
:confused:

[Chang Style Novice]

Movie about Bush on 9-11-01 in production. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030528.ufilm0528/BNPrint/International/)

"A copy of the script obtained by The Globe and Mail reveals a prime-time drama starring a nearly infallible, heroic president with little or no dissension in his ranks and a penchant for delivering articulate, stirring, off-the-cuff addresses to colleagues."

Apparently it's going to be science fiction.

[MasterKiller]

But, at least we have a tax-cut... (http://www.theonion.com/onion3920/infograph_3920.html)

[@PLUGO]

DAyum... GW's looking pretty burnt out in that pict.... must be those late nights up with a calculator...

[Black Jack]

I was thinking more along the lines of London.

[Christopher M]

For sake of discussion... do you guys disagree with the tax cut? Just due to current circumstances, or disagree in principle?

For my share, I can agree to some extent that the timing is a little off. I say "to some extent" here for two reasons:

Firstly, I seem to be more comfortable with deficit spending, in general, than most people. I find this a little ironic though, as I'm actually not, by principle, in favor of deficit spending at all. I do, however, recognize that there are models which suggest sporadic deficit spending can boost the economy; and while I may feel disagreement with them, I don't feel anywhere near competent enough in my economics ability to argue reasonably against them. I say this is ironic because these models are generally more respected by leftist economist than rightist ones, but it's now mainly leftists criticising it; and I consider myself a rightist, yet I'm sort-of defending it!

The other reason is that I recognize the "special case" of deficit spending for wartime; one of the few cases where, ideally speaking, I don't have a problem with it. On the other hand, I'm also dubious of this line of thinking as I believe there are factions, particularly within the neocons, which espouse maintaining this state almost indefinitely, such that it's no longer a "special case." Of course, this spells trouble for a wide variety of reasons. So long as Shrub seems to be acting according to conservatist agenda, and not neoconservatist, my stance here remains dubious and attentive rather than in disagreement and opposition, for obvious reasons.

Aside from the timing of the taxcut; I am, speaking in principle, strongly in favor of it. This has two main components:

Firstly, I don't believe, again in principle, in big government. So I tend to look favorably on any movement against it. A corrolary of this is that a government who says "I'm willing to make myself less rich and powerful for sake of principles" is a good step towards dispelling my natural dubiousness about politicians.

Secondly, I do believe in equality among citizens. This is something which, it seems to me, gets an awful lot of lip service, but is actually very widely opposed. Not that there's anything wrong with that, per se; I just wish people would call a spade a spade. Specifically what I mean here is that I don't see any reason why people should be taxed more or less depending on their socioeconomic status; barring, of course, "special cases" covered by welfare programs (which is a whole other topic! but suffice to say that for now).

Anyway... trying to spark some discussion of the topic, which strikes me as more constructive than the usual approach to it. Dunno if it'll work, but am looking forward to hearing anyone's positions on it.

[MasterKiller]

The other reason is that I recognize the "special case" of deficit spending for wartime; one of the few cases where, ideally speaking, I don't have a problem with it.

What's with the wartime excuse? The war in Iraq lasted 3 weeks. Are we supposed to assume that if it had lasted, say 1 year, America would be bankrupt because the cost of fighting a war is so expensive?

Of course, there's the 2 year 'war on terror' excuse, too. But really, does the limited amount of action justify the amount of money the govenment claims it has to spend, especially when states are required to bolster their own defenses with limited Federal funding?

I'm no economist, but the breadth of the deficit is what has me worried. The last estimate I read said we would hit the new deficit ceiling in just a few months because of the tax cut, in which case it will be raised once again.

[Rockwood]

http://truthout.org/docs_03/053003A.shtml

I'm not in favor of tax cuts for the rich. -Jess O

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
What's with the wartime excuse?

Pretty simple: assume you normally want a balanced budget. Then add on an additional cost of a couple hundred billion dollars. One would then expect there to be a deficit.


Originally posted by Rockwood
I'm not in favor of tax cuts for the rich.

Care to expound? Are you content to reject the idea of equality?

[MasterKiller]

CM,

Care to expound on this portion of my question?


The war in Iraq lasted 3 weeks. Are we supposed to assume that if it had lasted, say 1 year, America would be bankrupt because the cost of fighting a war is so expensive?

I'm all for tax cuts, but the timing here makes this just seem more like a re-election bid than anything else.

And if the plan to oust Saddam was well in place months or years in advance of our actually deploying troops in order to stabilize the region, why not plan for it?

[Merryprankster]

He wants to set up Web cams around the nation's 47,000 power plants, airports and other critical infrastructure facilities. Then everyday Americans, paid $10 an hour, would monitor the cameras and report suspicious activities to the government.

I realize you never made reference to this, but I feel compelled to say it anyway. Setting up security cameras in public places does NOT violate anybody's rights. The right to privacy is valid only when there is a reasonable expectation of privcay. There is no privacy, by definition, in a public place.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
The war in Iraq lasted 3 weeks.

$200B, for example, spent over 3 weeks is the same amount of money as $200B spent, for example, over a year, right?

So I'm not sure what your point is.


Are we supposed to assume that if it had lasted, say 1 year, America would be bankrupt because the cost of fighting a war is so expensive?

If you're running a deficit, you're allready beyond "bankrupt", right? If you spent more money, you've got a bigger deficit, right?

So, again, I'm not sure what your point is.


And if the plan to oust Saddam was well in place months or years in advance..why not plan for it?

The Shrub admin's ability to plan financially for the war years in advance was wildly impaired by the Clinton admin being the people who were in power those years ago, surely.

[MasterKiller]

$200B, for example, spent over 3 weeks is the same amount of money as $200B spent, for example, over a year, right?

Are you saying that a 12-month campaign is just as cost-effective as a 3-week campaign? That's delusional.


If you're running a deficit, you're allready beyond "bankrupt", right? If you spent more money, you've got a bigger deficit, right?

So, again, I'm not sure what your point is.

Sort of like what my brother says: "I'm not out of money, I still have checks left."
:rolleyes:

Isn't there a limit to the amount of debt we should put ourselves in?


The Shrub admin's ability to plan financially for the war years in advance was wildly impaired by the Clinton administration being the people who were in power those years ago, surely.

So Bill is repsonsible for the 400 trillion deficit?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Masterkiller
Are you saying that a 12-month campaign is just as cost-effective as a 3-week campaign?

No. I'm saying that the war cost what it cost, and that arguing over how long it was doesn't change what it cost.


Isn't there a limit to the amount of debt we should put ourselves in?

I certainly believe so, although there are those who don't. However, it seems to me this goes without saying; and is, indeed, the whole point of a "budget" to begin with: budgeting what you're doing to spend.

So, what's your point?


So Bill is repsonsible for the 400 trillion deficit?

I didn't say that. I said that the Shrub admin couldn't prepare financially for the war when they weren't in power, as per your suggestion.

[MasterKiller]

No. I'm saying that the war cost what it cost, and that arguing over how long it was doesn't change what it cost.

So $200B is the sticker price of a war these days, regardless of the time it takes to win?

Don't you think a 12-month war would have cost more? A lot more than 200B?


Yes. What's your point?

Well, I guess my point is that since we already have a HUGE deficit, why exacerbate the problem?


indeed, the whole point of a "budget" to begin with: budgeting what you're doing to spend.

So how do you balance a 400 trillion deficit, exactly, without incoming revenue from taxes?


I didn't say that. I said that the Shrub admin couldn't prepare financially for the war when they weren't in power, as per your suggestion.

He had 2 years to plan for it. He could have used the money from the first tax-cuts to partially fund the war, if he knew he was going to be doing it. especially if he knew the sticker price was going to be $200B, regardless of the length or outcome.

[Rockwood]

http://www.craigslist.org/sfc/pol/11646432.html

I liked the way Mr. Ultrarich put it, since he earns a vast majority of his cash in stock investments, why shouldn't he pay taxes like us slobs that work for a living?

-Jess O

[Black Jack]

Don't forget to add in the odd billion a week we spend to maintain our forces in Iraq. The bill did not just shut down once we won.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
So $200B is the sticker price of a war these days, regardless of the time it takes to win?

No. I was using a loose median of various estimates as to this specific war's cost. I didn't feel like putting in the effort to get a more specific and/or accurate estimate, as I felt whatever I said would be disagreed with. I encourage you to put forth your own figure though.


Don't you think a 12-month war would have cost more? A lot more than 200B?

It's quite possible, although obviously depends radically upon the specifics. I'm really entirely unsure as to what your point is with this line of reasoning.


Well, I guess my point is that since we already have a HUGE deficit, why exacerbate the problem?

With what, the war? The tax cut?


So how do you balance a 400 trillion deficit, exactly, without incoming revenue from taxes?

You don't balance a deficit. You balance a budget. If you're budget isn't balanced, you run a deficit. You balance a budget by increasing revenue and/or decreasing spending. Isn't this all elementary?


He had 2 years to plan for it.

If you review his budget during that time, I think you'll find there was ostensibly some preparation that occurred.


He could have used the money from the first tax-cuts to partially fund the war, if he knew he was going to be doing it.

His budget was altered to account for increased military spending, and one of the things that was decreased was the tax cuts. It seems like what you're advocating here is exactly what happened.

[MasterKiller]

Don't forget to add in the odd billion a week we spend to maintain our forces in Iraqi. The bill did not just shut down once we won.

The occupation money will be recouped through oil sales, I'm sure.


No. I was using a loose median of various estimates as to this specific war's cost. I didn't feel like putting in the effort to get a more specific and/or accurate estimate, as I felt whatever I said would be disagreed with. I encourage you to put forth your own figure though.

All I'm asking is if a 3-week war costs so much to win and put us in such a monetary pickle, what would a 12-month, or even 2-year war do to us? Using the war as an excuse just doesn't fly, especially when it was so short. Even if it cost $200B, we are talking about a 400+ trillion deficit. $200B is a drop in the bucket.



With what, the war? The tax cut?
The tax-cut. I'm for less taxes, but not right now.



You don't balance a deficit. You balance a budget. If you're budget isn't balanced, you run a deficit. You balance a budget by increasing revenue and/or decreasing spending. Isn't this all elementary?

So how do we increase revenue by cutting taxes? Especially since we can't decrease spending because of 'the war'?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Rockwood
I liked the way Mr. Ultrarich put it, since he earns a vast majority of his cash in stock investments, why shouldn't he pay taxes like us slobs that work for a living?

I understand, as per your previous post, that you're in favor of taxing people inequally based upon their socioeconomic class.

What I'm interested in is your reasoning behind this position.

It seems to me that discarding equality of citizens is a serious enough endeavor that it should at least have some reasoning behind it. Do you disagree?

BTW, capital gains are taxed. Are you suggesting they are not? Even beyond the capital gains tax, the income one uses to obtain capital has been taxed in the first place.

[Black Jack]

I hope the U.S. government is paid back some of that money through oil and work contracts. Who better to get those contracts and sales then those countries who spent blood freeing the Iraqi people.

[MasterKiller]

I agree with that, BJ. If it is such a noble cause, we should be compensated by not only Iraq, but also by other countries as well.

[Rockwood]

http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302003.html

Chris, it's simple, I just want the rich to pay their fair share. As Warren Buffet said, he makes most of his money on stock dividends, so why shouldn't he pay taxes on that just like idiots like me who actually work for my money.

As the article by Freeman above demonstrates, taxing the poor devestates the economy while taxing the rich causes it to boom. Of course this is a different question than of "what's fair". But I thought that it's worth pointing out while we're on the topic of tax cuts.


-Jess O

[ewallace]

why shouldn't he pay taxes like us slobs that work for a living?
Do some research on how income tax started in this country.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
All I'm asking is if a 3-week war costs so much to win and put us in such a monetary pickle, what would a 12-month, or even 2-year war do to us?

It depends radically on the specifics, of course.


Using the war as an excuse just doesn't fly...

Again: assume a balance budget. Add on an additional expense. Now you have a deficit. This strikes me as extremely elementary; I haven't the faintest clue as to what disagreement one could have with it.


...especially when it was so short.

Of course, spending money at the same rate for longer would result in more money spent; and the inverse is also true. Again, this strikes me as so elementary, I'm utterly confused as to why it's being called into question.


The tax-cut. I'm for less taxes, but not right now.

My very first remark was that I had no problem with this perspective. :confused:

I don't happen to agree with it though, as the proposed taxcut is to occur over a matter of years, not all of a sudden. So post-poning it for a year is really trivial.


So how do we increase revenue by cutting taxes?

You don't.


we can't decrease spending because of 'the war'?

Sure you can. The government does an awful lot more than just the war.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Rockwood
I just want the rich to pay their fair share.

Me too. They currently pay more. This would suggest we both support tax cuts. Yet you don't; so I'm confused as to your position.


As Warren Buffet said, he makes most of his money on stock dividends, so why shouldn't he pay taxes on that

He does. Would you like some references that discuss capital gains tax?


taxing the poor devestates the economy while taxing the rich causes it to boom.

Whether or not this is true:

Hold on, you said a few lines above that you "just want the rich to pay their fair share." Which is it?

[patriot]

" Last Updated: Friday, 30 May, 2003, 14:28 GMT 15:28 UK

Halliburton Iraq contract queried
Halliburton, the oil services and construction group once led by US vice president **** Cheney, is in the spotlight once again over its role in the reconstruction of Iraq. "

Someone is surely making lots of money from the war. No wonder Cheney is so keen on invading Iraq.

The adminstration is now backtracking on the WMD excuse:

"European critics of the Iraq war expressed shock Friday at published remarks by a senior U.S. official seen as playing down the importance of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as a reason for going to war. In an interview in the next issue of Vanity Fair magazine, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz cited bureaucratic reasons for focusing on Saddam Hussein's alleged arsenal"

[David Jamieson]

I don't think the war is over yet.

There are still groups that are fighting using guerilla tactics, suicide tactics etc etc. 5 US soldiers died just the other day from one of these actions. Many more Iraqi citizens stand to be killed by US forces as time passes.

Not to mention the fact that there are still plenty of Bathist sympathizers and party members in the country and it is likely there will be some permutation of an underground soon.

Try to think of it this way.
Quite a few nations in the middle east regard America as "The Great Satan".
If they could do it, they would send their troops here to destroy the Great Satan.
Now, given that scenario, would you stand for these soldiers parading through your streets and making war on you?

It's just a matter of putting the shoe on the other foot.
The paradigm there is not what it is here. The way of life, the core belief systems et al are 180 degrees from any western mindset.
A democratic nation forged in the image of the USA just will not go over there. It doesn't work when the human factor is equated in. To think otherwise is myopic, to try and force a new way of thinking on an entire nation is ludicrous to begin with.

It is not going to work, it is going to continue to be a dirty dirty thing and in the end, Iraq will remain occupied by wesyern forces for a long time to come.

The imagery and the words we all get on the situation back here are a hairwidth from total fabrication.

Had the route of UN sanctioned police action been taken, I think there would have been a whole different perspective from the west and a viable "out" for those who condoned and signed off on an out and out attack by one sovereign nation on another based on the speculation and conjecture that they possessed wmds.

You think Saddam is the only one in Middle east who tortures and kills his own people? Is he the only one who seeks to annex his neighbours in this world? He's peanuts in this area compared to some of the totalitarians in africa. Never mind what some of the royals in the middle east are known to have done.

As for american installations of power in non american countries?

well, think Shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos of the Fillipines, and well Saddam himself plus many many more. The puppet masters cannot continue to play this game. The world can only be a more terrible place because of these actions.

Prove me wrong.

cheers

[MasterKiller]

It depends radically on the specifics, of course.


Nice dodge.


Again: assume a balance budget. Add on an additional expense. Now you have a deficit. This strikes me as extremely elementary; I haven't the faintest clue as to what disagreement one could have with it.

My math may be shaky, but exactly how does a $200B war cause a $400 trillion deficit?


Of course, spending money at the same rate for longer would result in more money spent; and the inverse is also true. Again, this strikes me as so elementary, I'm utterly confused as to why it's being called into question.

So, you're saying that Bush fully expected a 3-week war, and spent accordingly? And that if he thought was going to last 6 weeks, he would have only spent half as much per week? Somehow, I find this rational flawed.


I don't happen to agree with it though, as the proposed taxcut is to occur over a matter of years, not all of a sudden. So post-poning it for a year is really trivial.

I think not passing it at all would have been the better solution.


Sure you can. The government does an awful lot more than just the war.

Sure, like provide health care, food, and shelter to the poor. Cut that out, and we canafford to make all the low-level nuclear weapons we want.

Doesn't it make sense to increase revenue without decreasing services for the people you claim are benefiting the most from the tax cuts?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Nice dodge.

What am I dodging? :confused: I have no idea why you want me to speculate on the cost of hypothetical wars.


My math may be shaky, but exactly how does a $200B war cause a $400 trillion deficit?

a) Where did I say it did?

b) If we're going to be asking questions like this, we're going to need non-hypothetical numbers.


So, you're saying that Bush fully expected a 3-week war, and spent accordingly? And that if he thought was going to last 6 weeks, he would have only spent 3B a week? Somehow, I find this rational flawed.

No. I am saying exactly, no less and no more than: the war cost what it cost.

You haven't suggested any reason that I need to say any more than that.


I think not passing it at all would have been the better solution.

But you said in your previous post you supported tax cuts. Which is it?


Sure, like provide health care, food, and shelter to the poor.

Yeah, and a wide variety of other things.


Doesn't it make sense to increase revenue without decreasing services for the people you claim are benefiting the most from the tax cuts?

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

[MasterKiller]

a) Where did I say it did?

b) If we're going to be asking questions like this, we're going to need non-hypothetical numbers.

A) You say that the increase in war spending resulted in a budget deficit because the budget was balanced before the war cost anything, correct? Elementary, right? I don't see how an increase in spending of $200B results in a $400 trillion deficit.

B) Which numbers are hypothetical? You're $200B, or the $400 trillion deficit?



No. I am saying exactly, no less and no more than: the war cost what it cost.

You haven't suggested any reason that I need to say any more than that.
So you can't speculate that a longer war would have resulted in more spending because you are so entrenched in keeping to the facts? Interesting view point.


But you said in your previous post you supported tax cuts. Which is it?
I believe in less taxes. However, I don't think this was the right time to lower them because of the increased need for revenue to keep the MASSIVE deficit in check. I don't think 1 year later would be the right time, either. I don't see any time in the foreseable future when a tax break of this magnitude would be warranted.

I like less taxes. I like having a strong country better.




Yeah, and a wide variety of other things.

Then what services do you propose the government cut back on?


I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.
If the tax cut is supposed to benefit poor people by giving them more to spend, isn't it counter productive to then reduce services these people were given for free, thereby making them spend their own money to compensate?

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
You say that the increase in war spending resulted in a budget deficit because the budget was balanced before the war cost anything, correct?

No I did not.


Which numbers are hypothetical? You're $200B, or the $400 trillion deficit?

Both.


So you can't speculate that a longer war would have resulted in more spending because you are so entrenched in keeping to the facts?

Sure I could. In fact I said specifically that allready: "spending money at the same rate for longer would result in more money spent."

I don't, however, see how it relates to the current discussion.


I believe in less taxes. However, I don't think this was the right time to lower them

When would be the right time?


I like less taxes. I like having a strong country better.

You're speaking as if it's established that these goals are contrary.


Then what services do you propose the government cut back on?

Personally? Beaurocracy spending would be a fabulous one, but might be alot to ask for. Since I don't believe in affirmative action to begin with, saving money by canning that would suit me just fine. We could go through government spending point by point and discuss how money could be saved, if you like. Although I'm not sure that's necessary to prove that you can save money without stopping the provision of "health care, food, and shelter."


If the tax cut is supposed to benefit poor people by giving them more to spend...

I never said that.


isn't it counter productive to then reduce services these people were given for free, thereby making them spend their own money to compensate?

Not necessarily. An obvious thing this depends on is the relation between how much more money they have and how much more money they need to spend on services. A more complicated point would be how increased privatization would effect the cost and quality of the services. Another complicated one would be how tax cuts, regardless of who they are aimed at, would effect the economy, and thus the value of their money and again the cost of services.

[MasterKiller]

No I did not.

Then what does this mean?

Again: assume a balance budget. Add on an additional expense. Now you have a deficit. This strikes me as extremely elementary; I haven't the faintest clue as to what disagreement one could have with it.

Balanced Budget, add an additional expense (war). Now you have a deficit. By that rational, if the war cost $200B, we should have a $200B deficit.


Both,
You supplied the 200B number. Are you know saying that is a hypothetical cost?

As for my number:

The Bush administration has shelved a report commissioned by the Treasury that shows the U.S. currently faces a future of chronic federal budget deficits totaling at least $44 trillion in current U.S. dollars.

I said $400 trillion. It's $44 trillion. my bad.


Sure I could. In fact I said specifically that allready: "spending money at the same rate for longer would result in more money spent."

I don't, however, see how it relates to the current discussion.
It relates because I don't see the logic in saying that a 200B war led to a $44 trillion deficit. The numbers don't crunch.


When would be the right time?
How about when we are not at war? If we need increased revenue to fund a war, it doesn't make sense to decrease incoming revenue.


And I know, the war is over....blah blah. We still have to pay for it, and ss BJ pointed out, it's still costing us a lot.

You're speaking as if it's established that these goals are contrary
Bush may prove me wrong. But I doubt it.


I never said that.
No. Shrub did.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by MasterKiller
Then what does this mean?

"Again: ASSUME a balance budget. Add on an additional expense. Now you have a deficit."

It's an explanation of how a war would contribute to a deficit, contrary your assertion that this reasoning "does not fly." Quite obviously, a wide variety of other things contribute to deficit spending as well. Nothing causes a deficit. You have a balanced budget or you don't.


You supplied the 200B number. Are you know saying that is a hypothetical cost?

Not only am I saying that now, but I said that a long time ago when you first asked me about the figure. See the top of page four. (And, for that matter, the first time I mentioned the figure when I described it as "for example".)


As for my number... I said $400 trillion. It's $44 trillion. my bad.

Only off by a magnitude, no worries. The first source (http://hindustantimes.com/news/181_263307,00020001.htm) google turns up on this issue lists the figure at $1 trillion, and it's dated this week. Now we're into a precision of two magnitudes. :eek: Yeah, I'd say that qualifies for "hypothetical."


It relates because I don't see the logic in saying that a 200B war led to a $44 trillion deficit.

You don't have to see that logic since, not only did no one suggest it, it's not even anything but a hypothetical to begin with.


How about when we are not at war?... And I know, the war is over....blah blah. We still have to pay for it, and ss BJ pointed out, it's still costing us a lot.

So by "how about when we are not at war" you mean 'how about when we have no foreign policy spending'? :confused:

If you believe in tax breaks, but don't believe it's ever the time for them: for all practical purposes, you don't believe in tax breaks. There will never be extra money around just waiting to be spent. Any spending is at the cost of other spending.


If we need increased revenue to fund a war, it doesn't make sense to decrease incoming revenue.

But we didn't increase revenue to fund the war. :confused:


Bush may prove me wrong. But I doubt it.

Bush may prove to you that tax cuts can fuel the economy? You know... there's an awful lot of data and discussion on this allready available that you could rely on, rather than just forming an arbitrary opinion, or trusting to fate.

[ZIM]

Just a response to MP-

Yeah, I get you...it just seems that the original comment [not made by you] also listed having a camera pointed at a public place as a bad thing. I dunno... i don't have anything against cameras per se, but its the legal enforcement of it and following prosecutions that irk me. I mean whos gonna take these $10 an hour jobs? That's right: former McDonald's employees...

But further weirdness is afoot!

OREGON'S SENATE Bill 742, section 19, chapter 666 (http://pub.das.state.or.us/LEG_BILLS/PDFs/SB742.pdf) defines the "unlawful labeling of a sound recording" as terrorism and would make it punishable by a minimum life sentence of 25 years in prison without parole.
After 25 years (if they're fortunate) the state might allow them to find "employment at a forest or work camp" or other similar "post prison supervision".

Other acts described as terrorism include (but are not limited to):

* Blocking traffic
* School walkouts
* Computer crime
* Accepting a bribe
* Theft and Burglary
* Unauthorized use of a vehicle
* Unlawful labeling of a videotape
* Unlawful recording of a live performance
* Negotiating a bad check
* Dogfighting
* Delivery of an imitation controlled substance
* Producing fake IDs
* Using another's driver's license
* Drunk driving
* Selling cigarettes to a minor

And the state only has to come up with two "witnesses". :eek:

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter. "
-From the book 'They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-45' excerpted (http://www.rense.com/general37/then.htm)

[@PLUGO]

Theft and Burglary is now Terrorism?

I always thought is was... you know, Theft and Burglary.