Political Potpourri III - The next round.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-16 06:58:09

Cindy:-

That's an increase of approximately 50%, correct? Australia currently has 950 troops in Iraq, last I read.

The last I heard, yes, that's about right. I feel like we should be doing more but it's not my call.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-16 08:17:41

I feel like we should be doing more but it's not my call.

I know the feeling.

BWhite · 2005-03-16 08:28:07

I feel like we should be doing more but it's not my call.
I know the feeling.

If Bush (rememebr Wolfowitz: "oil revenues will pay for it all") had told us the truth about the cost we could be doing more. Been prepared to do more.

Go back in the posts. More than a year ago I called for hundreds of thousands of MORE soldiers and to cancel the tax cut to fund genuine reconstruction efforts.

But no, Bush would rather reward his rich pals than get it right in Iraq.

= = =

Bush is fighting Iraq like the endless dieter who never loses weight and whines. . . but I'm trying. . .

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-16 08:37:52

Go back in the posts. More than a year ago I called for hundreds of thousands of MORE soldiers and to cancel the tax cut to fund genuine reconstruction efforts.

On the questions of soldiers, if we wanted to go in and seize the entire country then rebuild it from the top down (as I would have preferred) we should have gone in with more. We should have gone in to conquer. But we wanted a smaller footprint, an independent Iraq, democracy and all that good stuff. It seems to be working, though with problems and setbacks.

It's not how I would have done it, but if it works it's better.

On the "cancel the tax cut to pay for it" point, to be blunt I question the sincerity of that position. The Left has a habit of opposing any tax cut for any reason, including the Bush cut before the war. First it was pay more for education, or healthcare, or put it toward the debt, this that or the other thing, then the war came along. Yes, we need the money to pay for the war, give it. No, experience tells me that all these tax spasms are soemthing else.

A penny saved is a government oversight.

BWhite · 2005-03-16 08:46:13

Forget "the Left"

Before the Iraqi invasion I posted very plainly (here at NewMars) my view that regime change was "imprudent" even though Saddam was/is a MF bastard who deserved it.

I also posted that if we went in, we needed to go HEAVY, because going LIGHT would be a FUBAR.

I was right, going in light and wasting a year with Bremer's ham-handed Ameri-forming projects has turned what could have been a brilliant victory into a FUBAR-ed mess.

And this is pure revisionist history:

But we wanted a smaller footprint, an independent Iraq, democracy and all that good stuff. It seems to be working, though with problems and setbacks.

Paul Bremer intended a fundamental transformation of Iraqi society, which failed miserably. Too light, we went way too light while promising the American people we could have guns and butter.

No sacrifices, Iraqi oil revenue will pay for everything!

Edited By BWhite on 1110984540

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-16 09:02:03

Forget "the Left"

Believe me, I'm trying.

I was right, going in light and wasting a year with Bremer's ham-handed Ameri-forming projects has turned what could have been a brilliant victory into a FUBAR-ed mess.

I have agreed on several occasions that Bremer wasn't doing what needed to be done, but to classify the entire operation as "FUBAR-ed mess" indicates a total unwillingness to look at the positives. Iraq has had elections, the effects of that are being felt throughout the region. All that high-minded "spreading democracy" stuff that I dismissed as flowery excrement is working. There is a very real potential for this to change the entire dynamic of the region and in so doing cut out the foundation on which militant Islam rests.

No sacrifices, Iraqi oil revenue will pay for everything!

Ah, sacrifices. Why does that always mean "tax increases" I ask? Maybe some of these exorbidant and utterly ineffective government social programs should be sacrificed. There's enough money spent in waste, fraud, pork and utter stupidity to pay for the war in Iraq many times over, I think we've sacrificed enough on that altar.

Palomar · 2005-03-16 09:13:44

Cobra: All that high-minded "spreading democracy" stuff that I dismissed as flowery excrement is working. There is a very real potential for this to change the entire dynamic of the region and in so doing cut out the foundation on which militant Islam rests.

*On a related note, an interview of King Abdullah II of Jordan by Peter Jennings was aired last evening on ABC News. Apparently he's working with his Parliament on reforms within his own gov't; going from a hereditary monarchy to an elected monarch.

He also seemed optimistic about some changes (pro-democracy) in the Middle East. It didn't seem like "just diplomacy" on his part, either. I sure hope so, all things considered (lives, money spent, etc.).

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-03-16 09:19:56

Cobra: All that high-minded "spreading democracy" stuff that I dismissed as flowery excrement is working. There is a very real potential for this to change the entire dynamic of the region and in so doing cut out the foundation on which militant Islam rests.
*On a related note, an interview of King Abdullah II of Jordan by Peter Jennings was aired last evening on ABC News. Apparently he's working with his Parliament on reforms within his own gov't; going from a hereditary monarchy to an elected monarch.
He also seemed optimistic about some changes (pro-democracy) in the Middle East. It didn't seem like "just diplomacy" on his part, either. I sure hope so, all things considered (lives, money spent, etc.).
--Cindy

Jordan is our best hope for Arab democracy. Lack of oil may be a reason. :;):

BWhite · 2005-03-16 09:25:28

Forget "the Left"
Believe me, I'm trying.
I was right, going in light and wasting a year with Bremer's ham-handed Ameri-forming projects has turned what could have been a brilliant victory into a FUBAR-ed mess.
I have agreed on several occasions that Bremer wasn't doing what needed to be done, but to classify the entire operation as "FUBAR-ed mess" indicates a total unwillingness to look at the positives. Iraq has had elections, the effects of that are being felt throughout the region. All that high-minded "spreading democracy" stuff that I dismissed as flowery excrement is working. There is a very real potential for this to change the entire dynamic of the region and in so doing cut out the foundation on which militant Islam rests.

And I have agreed on several occasions that it all might work out well for exactly the opposite reasons the neo-cons thought it would.

Read riverbends blog on why Chalabi deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. Its sort of funny. And maybe they will go "democratic" to persuade all those nasty Americans to go away.

The price we are paying, however, is very much higher than it needed to be. The apparent desire to maintain a long term presence and influence over Iraq delays accomplishing worthy goals and increases our cost in blood and treasure.

And the key question - - how the three main factions in Iraq balance each other without partition - - remains unanswered.

BWhite · 2005-03-16 09:33:14

No sacrifices, Iraqi oil revenue will pay for everything!
Ah, sacrifices. Why does that always mean "tax increases" I ask? Maybe some of these exorbidant and utterly ineffective government social programs should be sacrificed. There's enough money spent in waste, fraud, pork and utter stupidity to pay for the war in Iraq many times over, I think we've sacrificed enough on that altar.

Looks like Bush intends to pay these bills by gutting social security benefits. :;):

Seize power, loot the pension plan. Heh! Classic corporate raider mentality. :;):

= = =

Another multi-front war. Lets see, fight Islamic-terror, neuter the UN, flip off the French AND start a pre-emptive class war all in the same Administration. Oh, and annoy Tony Blair (logging & Kyoto) while we are at it.

Well done!

Let's fight everybody and have a civil war at the same time.

And I forgot: withdraw from treaties so we can fry Mexicans without consulting their consulate, proliferate landmines, and "nuke" the Senate over anti-abortion judicial nominations.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-16 09:51:37

Trying to spin in too many directions there.

Looks like Bush intends to pay these bills by gutting social security benefits.

Of course, letting people put a small percentage in the market will loot SocSec (which has no money anyway) and allow Bush to pay for the war while spreading misery and death around the world.

Ooh look, a flying blue monkey taking a bite out of the moon.

Another multi-front war. Lets see, fight Islamic-terror,

Pretty much have to...

neuter the UN

Did that themselves...

flip off the French

What else is new?...

AND start a pre-emptive class war

Class war eh? And who is it that makes regular policy of turning poor against rich, black against white, etc.? Set aside partisan biases, unlearn what you have learn to see objectively.

Don't know why I bother, trying to reason through a shroud of doublethink is like trying to teach a dead dog judo.
:hm:

And I forgot: withdraw from treaties so we can fry Mexicans without consulting their consulate,

If they come over illegally and commit a capital crime, go for it.

proliferate landmines

:laugh: Asinine treaty to start with.

Oh, and annoy Tony Blair (logging & Kyoto) while we are at it.

Kyoto is another asinine treaty and there is always some bone of contention between even the strongest allies.

Are you really suggesting that we should sign on to treaties just because the "world" thinks we should?

and "nuke" the Senate over anti-abortion judicial nominations.

Yep, following to the Constitution is sure "nuking" 'em.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1110988361

Palomar · 2005-03-16 11:20:43

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … iraq_3]1st freely-elected parliament in 1/2 century

*...had its first open session today. Reports of at least half a dozen nearby explosions.

We've come this far. I surely hope the new Iraqi gov't remains democratic, does not become a theocracy and that women and ethnic "minorities" will retain/gain their status/rights in that society.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-03-16 11:26:47

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s … iraq_3]1st freely-elected parliament in 1/2 century
*...had its first open session today. Reports of at least half a dozen nearby explosions.
We've come this far. I surely hope the new Iraqi gov't remains democratic, does not become a theocracy and that women and ethnic "minorities" will retain/gain their status/rights in that society.
--Cindy

I agree 200%.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-16 11:28:34

Basking in the glow of agreement.

BWhite · 2005-03-16 11:30:23

Cooperation beats the living crap out of competition. :;):

BWhite · 2005-03-16 12:34:10

Bush: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … VA]Private accounts won't help save social security.

WASHINGTON — President Bush conceded Wednesday that private accounts do not address the projected problems with Social Security,
* * *
Bush is calling for action by Congress to shore up the system, which he says will go "bankrupt" in 2042 without changes. As part of the overhaul, he wants to let workers divert part of their Social Security payroll taxes into private accounts that could be invested in stocks.
But he said Wednesday he will not be pressed into outlining a more specific plan to deal with the projected shortfall. "I have not laid out a plan yet, intentionally," he said. "I stood up in front of the Congress and said, 'Bring your ideas forward.'"
The president emphasized he believed action is necessary now, even though the projected shortfall will not appear for decades. "The longer we wait, the more difficult it is to solve the problem," he said.

Memo to Harry Reid, the Stormin' Mormon - -> let Bush bid first. Show us your plan first, Mr. President, then we will show you ours.

:;):

Or maybe just say "No!"

Edited By BWhite on 1110998100

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-16 12:53:22

Memo to Harry Reid, the Stormin' Mormon - -> let Bush bid first. Show us your plan first, Mr. President, then we will show you ours.

That would be the standard procedure. Never offer any real policy, just bash what the opposition comes up with. If the minority party has an alternative they'd do well to put it on the table if for no other reason than credibility.

As for Social Security, private accounts alone won't "save" the program, but they do two important things to that end. They provide a greater return for each participant and they lock the money up so government can't steal it for other uses. There is no magic bullet fix and the problem is real. Do nothing and in a decade or two (not 2040 or whatever the "official" number is, bonds need to be redeemed for money which has to come from somewhere) the program will bust. Partially privatize some of it and a similar program might survive once the mess is cleaned up, otherwise it's dead.

But then I must confess a bias in this regard, something along the lines of Bush's "plan" is the only way I'll ever see any of that money I've been paying in all these years.

But hey, I'm just looking out for myself. Screw your kids over if it makes you feel better.

Palomar · 2005-03-16 13:14:19

Cobra: As for Social Security, private accounts alone won't "save" the program, but they do two important things to that end. They provide a greater return for each participant and they lock the money up so government can't steal it for other uses.

*Yeah, but they'd better ensure people cannot "dip into" their own private SS accounts. It'd better be a locked box. Otherwise some people will be dipping into and/or outright blowing their SS dollars, and you know some of them will cry "foul" when they're 65, high and dry, and want to be bailed out at the expense of other taxpayers who were more careful with their money and who still have it.

On that basis, I hope we stick with what we've got currently (though I don't say that happily at all). Besides, I have a hunch this is another situation where catastrophe will be diverted in ample time, and when retirement rolls around we'll have our SS checks.

It's like the produce situation where you hear about a terrible flood or drought in some part of the nation, uh-oh strawberries or peas or whatever will be scarce and prices will go through the roof...and you stroll into any grocery store, the bins are overflowing and the price is less than 5 cents higher per pound than it was a month ago.

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I've seen a zillion scare stories come to nothing. And this despite being just as concerned about the SocSec situation as anyone else.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-03-16 13:20:41

Memo to Harry Reid, the Stormin' Mormon - -> let Bush bid first. Show us your plan first, Mr. President, then we will show you ours.
That would be the standard procedure. Never offer any real policy, just bash what the opposition comes up with. If the minority party has an alternative they'd do well to put it on the table if for no other reason than credibility.

Bush has offered NO plan, remember. He said so himself today.

"I have not laid out a plan yet, intentionally," he said. "I stood up in front of the Congress and said, 'Bring your ideas forward.'"

It was all a trap to get the Democrats to trot out their plan first.

I am not bashing the Bush plan. He has no plan. Said so himself.

Edited By BWhite on 1111001024

BWhite · 2005-03-16 13:22:35

Cobra: As for Social Security, private accounts alone won't "save" the program, but they do two important things to that end. They provide a greater return for each participant and they lock the money up so government can't steal it for other uses.
*Yeah, but they'd better ensure people cannot "dip into" their own private SS accounts. It'd better be a locked box. Otherwise some people will be dipping into and/or outright blowing their SS dollars, and you know some of them will cry "foul" when they're 65, high and dry, and want to be bailed out at the expense of other taxpayers who were more careful with their money and who still have it.
On that basis, I hope we stick with what we've got currently (though I don't say that happily at all). Besides, I have a hunch this is another situation where catastrophe will be diverted in ample time, and when retirement rolls around we'll have our SS checks.
It's like the produce situation where you hear about a terrible flood or drought in some part of the nation, uh-oh strawberries or peas or whatever will be scarce and prices will go through the roof...and you stroll into any grocery store, the bins are overflowing and the price is less than 5 cents higher per pound than it was a month ago.
Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I've seen a zillion scare stories come to nothing. And this despite being just as concerned about the SocSec situation as anyone else.
--Cindy

Cindy, I agree with you.

Now, if we want to add additional IRA or 401(k) options on top of the existing program, well good. America does need to increase its savings rate.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-16 13:26:47

*Yeah, but they'd better ensure people cannot "dip into" their own private SS accounts. It'd better be a locked box.

Most likely it will be. The most probable scenario would have benefit payment set up essentially the way it is now except that the money paid in by an individual goes into an account specifically for them instead of being used to pay off benefits to others or simply get siphoned into the general fund.

If people can take the money out at any time then we might as well just dump the whole thing and let them keep the money in the first place.

Besides, I have a hunch this is another situation where catastrophe will be diverted in ample time, and when retirement rolls around we'll have our SS checks.

Sure, it's possible. The tax hike way would reach unsustainable, revolution-inspiring levels so it's out, but the whole thing could be defused right now by either cutting government spending in other areas to cover the expense or more likely, simply jacking up the retirement age to whatever level results in enough pre-payout deaths to balance the books. Which was in essence the original intent anyway.

BWhite · 2005-03-16 13:35:31

Britain tried this about 30 years ago. The reports I saw say dismal failure.

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-16 13:46:13

Britain tried this about 30 years ago. The reports I saw say dismal failure.

Regarding Britain's system, I've heard everything from disaster to brilliant success, I don't know much about that specific subject and can't really comment on it.

But in a general sense I can say this: Sticking SocSec money in any bank in a personal account, just sitting there, would yield a significantly better return than the current "trust Congress" approach. Investing some of that in the markets via conservative indexed funds would yield even higher barring some "Great Depression" type crash, in which case we're screwed regardless.

On the other hand, the current system will not keep running as it is, so something has to be. If we're going to be shuffling things around so much anyway it seems like a good time to implement a better system, one that isn't just a trough for COngress critters to drink from.

BWhite · 2005-03-16 13:49:47

On spending,

when Clinton left office we had a balanced budget, Since then about 90% of our spending increases have been in four areas:

Defense, homeland security, aid for New York (9/11) and airline bailouts (9/11)

Worthwhile spending, no argument. Buy WHY should we pay for that spending by cutting social programs that were in balance in 2000 while giving billionaires tax breaks?

Bush launched a pre-emptive class warfare attack. By stealth.

Reverse Robin Hood.

= = =

http://www.senate.gov/~budget/democrati … 1.pdf]Kent Conrad on the deficit.

Edited By BWhite on 1111003011

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-16 14:10:38

Worthwhile spending, no argument. Buy WHY should we pay for that spending by cutting social programs that were in balance in 2000 while giving billionaires tax breaks?

Because many of the social programs don't work and consume huge amounts of money in the process of not working. If you think the "War on Terror" is an endless mess let's not even think about the "War on Poverty" and what a failure that has been.

But I don't accept your "billionaire tax break" premise. When you cut income taxes then naturally the people that pay more get a bigger cut in real dollars. An across the board tax cut is "fair" but it gives ammunition for the sort of class division rhetoric we're getting now. The best they can come up with as an alternative is to tax the rich more and call it "middle class tax relief" or some other such nonsense.

If any Administration or Congressmen, Democrat or Republican wants to really cut taxes for the working peons without letting the rich cash in the answer is simple. Stop taxing wages. They aren't income, but an even exchange of a medium of trade for labor. Then justify taxing the wealthy by saying their money is from markets, investments and other things that depend on a functioning society and government imposed order. If civilization crashes in ruins next week there will still be people willing to trade food or gold for the performance of some task, but a big stack of stock certificates won't be good for much but starting a fire.

But that's not on the table as of yet, so a less than perfect tax cut is better than none. If it forces government to trim itself closer to its core duties, all the better.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2005-03-16 06:58:09

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#152 2005-03-16 08:17:41

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#153 2005-03-16 08:28:07

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#154 2005-03-16 08:37:52

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#155 2005-03-16 08:46:13

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#156 2005-03-16 09:02:03

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#157 2005-03-16 09:13:44

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#158 2005-03-16 09:19:56

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#159 2005-03-16 09:25:28

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#160 2005-03-16 09:33:14

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#161 2005-03-16 09:51:37

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#162 2005-03-16 11:20:43

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#163 2005-03-16 11:26:47

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#164 2005-03-16 11:28:34

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#165 2005-03-16 11:30:23

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#166 2005-03-16 12:34:10

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#167 2005-03-16 12:53:22

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#168 2005-03-16 13:14:19

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#169 2005-03-16 13:20:41

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#170 2005-03-16 13:22:35

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#171 2005-03-16 13:26:47

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#172 2005-03-16 13:35:31

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#173 2005-03-16 13:46:13

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#174 2005-03-16 13:49:47

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

#175 2005-03-16 14:10:38

Re: Political Potpourri III - The next round.

Board footer