Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-17 11:34:51

The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide, and is growing so fast, that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself.

Two policy changes come to mind to fix it.

The first is simple, stop taxing wages, bump up certain capital gains taxes. Not selling a house, but taking dividend payments for example. The rich pay more, the middle class gets a break.

For a more elaborate and unorthodox approach, just if we're feeling like throwing the whole system into disarray, tie the currency to a commodity index and reverse interest. When someone sticks money in a bank instead of gaining interest it loses value, call it a fee for storage of the goods that back it. Like the ancient Egyptians did with grain, only of course it's got a fair degree of bulldung in the "storage cost" this time.

It then encourages those with the most wealth to put it back into the economy rather than pull more out. Open more businesses, buy another house, buy a giant mound of gold, it's all better for the ecenomy as a whole. Keep it cycling through, employing people. Want to save money, put it into something. Invest in a business, buy something tradeable.

Of course that idea is riddled with all sorts of pitfalls and having just thrown it off the top of my head I'm not inclined to defend it too much.

clark · 2005-06-17 12:40:28

Want to save money, put it into something. Invest in a business, buy something tradeable.

Vegas baby! Slots and whores!

Dook · 2005-06-17 21:24:31

When someone sticks money in a bank instead of gaining interest it loses value, call it a fee for storage of the goods that back it. Like the ancient Egyptians did with grain, only of course it's got a fair degree of bulldung in the "storage cost" this time.

Stop taxing wages? And replace it with what?

The rich already have a higher income tax bracket and they pay more in purchase taxes because they buy more expensive goods and services.

Lose value for money in banks? Well then everyone would keep huge stores of cash in their own personal safe and home invasion crimes would increase dramatically. Most people need to save for expensive things.

An easier way would be just to limit the amount a person can have in a savings account, maybe cap it at $10,000 or so. Although I completely disagree with the idea and it would probably be overturned by the Supreme Court anyway.

Believe it or not the rich fulfill a need in our system. They waste huge amounts of money on expensive dinners, hotel rooms, clothes, jewelry, cars, airplanes, homes, big screen plasma TV's, pools...

The poor buy food, hand me down clothes, they pay the rent and once in a while they go to a movie.

Palomar · 2005-06-18 05:03:20

The rich already have a higher income tax bracket and they pay more in purchase taxes because they buy more expensive goods and services.
Believe it or not the rich fulfill a need in our system. They waste huge amounts of money on expensive dinners, hotel rooms, clothes, jewelry, cars, airplanes, homes, big screen plasma TV's, pools...

*What a sweet deal. Pay taxes only when the whim (spending sprees) hits you, at your convenience and entirely to your own personal benefit/pleasure. Choice.

Other folks, on the other hand, are made to pay taxes regardless. Compulsion.

The poor buy food, hand me down clothes, they pay the rent and once in a while they go to a movie.

Maybe the poor could buy new clothing at Wal-Mart, put a downpayment on a humble home and build up a private DVD movie collection if they weren't paid slave wages. Pizza Hut comes to mind: Somehow they've finnagled a deal with the powers that be wherein they only have to pay their employees $2.10 per hour. The tips from patrons will make up the Minimum Wage requirement. If tips received that day don't make up the difference, then -- and only then -- does Pizza Hut Corporation have to dip into its big fat pockets and pay the piddly difference. Obviously Pizza Hut employees could spend more if they were paid Minimum Wage by the corporation -and- allowed to keep their tips as bonus earnings.

And if Pizza Hut ever screws up royally (for whatever reason), the middle-class taxpayer's spine will be tromped on to bail them out, like the Savings & Loan debacle of the early 1980s.

Speaking of spines, they're encased within vertebrae. Vertebrae are bone and cartilage (mostly bone). Bones require calcium to keep them strong and healthy. The middle class is the backbone which is having the calcium constantly sucked out of it. It's only a matter of time before the backbone breaks.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050618/ap_ … 31]Justice is served.

"I just was not thinking when I signed my tax return that I had a $25 million loan forgiveness," Kozlowski said. "Year in and year out at Tyco, my tax returns for the most part had been correct. I didn't pick up on it."

Oh sure. Hand me a shovel, someone.

Prosecutors called Kozlowski's explanation for this omission and for other actions by him and Swartz "ludicrous," and "despicable."

That sums (pardon the pun) it up, I'd say.

dicktice · 2005-06-18 11:55:07

Re. "Stop taxing wages? And replace it with what?"

That's obvious: Income tax payments--but not deducted--only paid annually when they become due!

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-18 16:38:47

Stop taxing wages? And replace it with what?

It's not often that I get to argue from the Left of someone, but here goes:

I'm not saying we replace it in a strict sense. Keep taxing income that isn't derived from labor and is entirely dependent on the apparatus of society for its existence.

If civilization collapses tomorrow people will still trade a medium of exchange for labor. No one will pay dividends on 10,000 shares of Boeing. Totally different forms of acquiring the medium of exchange.

When the middle class, working class, whatever one chooses to call them has more money, they'll buy more goods. Some of them will start business which will be easier to fund at first and more profitable as they operate, making it more attractive all around. They in turn employ people, furthering the cycle. Being that the economy is not a zero-sum thing, revenues to the national treasury may keep pace with current levels almost by themselves under such a scheme.

If not? The government can do what everyone else in America has to do when they can't afford everything they want. Cut something. We can even vote on it. Power to the people and all that good stuff.

Lose value for money in banks? Well then everyone would keep huge stores of cash in their own personal safe and home invasion crimes would increase dramatically. Most people need to save for expensive things.

Then progressivley devalue the currency itself. Print new-design billls every five years, a year after they enter circulation the old ones depreciate 10% or something. Forbid banks from exchanging old for new and we're set.

Sure it's a hairbrained scheme, but no more so than our current system.

An easier way would be just to limit the amount a person can have in a savings account, maybe cap it at $10,000 or so. Although I completely disagree with the idea and it would probably be overturned by the Supreme Court anyway.

You mean like the income tax? :laugh:

Still, it's refreshing to see that someone still gives a rat's ass about the Constitution. So rare these days.

Believe it or not the rich fulfill a need in our system. They waste huge amounts of money on expensive dinners, hotel rooms, clothes, jewelry, cars, airplanes, homes, big screen plasma TV's, pools...

Which is why I favor policies that create more rich people. I want middle class folks to become rich and buy big new cars and mansions. Buy those plasma screens, travel around the country, spend that new money. That's the kind of redistribution of wealth I want to see.

But as long as we tax a man's wages for the work he does we're moving counter to that. By taking a portion of those wages we're also compelling people to work without compensation for that percentage of time. A sort of part-time slavery that should really piss people off more than it does.

But these aren't the same Americans that fought for independence either. <shrug>

Re. "Stop taxing wages? And replace it with what?"
That's obvious: Income tax payments, but only paid when they become due!

This would be a good start. Just watch the demand for dropping those rates when working stiffs around the country get that bill. Get some of that old revolutionary spirit back, no more good little sheep.

Dook · 2005-06-18 18:29:52

You say to keep taxing income that is not from labor. I'm not sure what you mean but the only things left are goods and services-both are business that are dependant on customers, customers who would pay more so use less, thus economy slows.

The US now is probably the most business friendly country there is. Investors shy away from giving money to business upstarts in third world countries and those countries do not have the grants and small business administrations or level of education that we have here. And not everyone can own there own business. We do actually need people to work in those businesses.

Devalue the currency? You mean like China is doing now? Okay, that can be good. It makes foreign products more expensive so Americans and foreigners buy more US goods. Reprint new currency every ten years? Why? What a waste.

As far as what could replace income taxes I thought you were going to say the flat rate tax. Initially I was against it since it is a regressive tax (affects the poor much more than the wealthy) however after further research I would now support it as long as unprepared food and medicine were not taxed. One of the benefits of the flat tax is that illegal aliens and foreign visitors would provide income to our federal government by staying here and purchasing goods and services.

Either way the government is going to get it's money from you because it has to. Also the government hasn't been taking in enough to pay for what it funds for a very long time so you've been getting a break. Enjoy it now because in 20 years the government will have no choice but to raise taxes a huge amount to begin paying down the national debt. What you should be arguing for is a more efficient government.

Here's the problem with everyone being rich: Nobody wants to do the work! The US government could easily give $1 million to each and every American but we would be flooded with foreigners who would have to do the work keeping our country running. Inflation would skyrocket and you would still have a richer, middle class, and poorer class.

By the standards of most other countries the poor people in the USA are rich.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-19 01:16:04

You say to keep taxing income that is not from labor. I'm not sure what you mean but the only things left are goods and services-both are business that are dependant on customers, customers who would pay more so use less, thus economy slows.

I'm not advocating raising taxes elsewhere to compensate for the income tax cut. The economy is not a zero-sum game. If government revenue falls short, they need to cut spending and become more efficient.

As far as what could replace income taxes I thought you were going to say the flat rate tax. Initially I was against it since it is a regressive tax (affects the poor much more than the wealthy) however after further research I would now support it as long as unprepared food and medicine were not taxed. One of the benefits of the flat tax is that illegal aliens and foreign visitors would provide income to our federal government by staying here and purchasing goods and services.

How would illegals and foreigners pay into a flat tax? Or did you mean a sales tax? Which was an I idea I once supported but have since moved away from for a number of reasons.

Either way the government is going to get it's money from you because it has to. Also the government hasn't been taking in enough to pay for what it funds for a very long time so you've been getting a break. Enjoy it now because in 20 years the government will have no choice but to raise taxes a huge amount to begin paying down the national debt. What you should be arguing for is a more efficient government.

I have repeatedly argued for smaller, more efficient government.

As for raising taxes to pay down the debt, not necessarily. They may keep drawing it out almost indefinately, they may devalue the currency so much (intentionally or otherwise) that it reduces the actual debt in real terms. The idea that the US government is going to suddenly say "guess what, time to pay our debts. We're jacking your taxes up to 65%" is absurd fantasy. If nothing else, those pesky voters won't allow it.

Here's the problem with everyone being rich: Nobody wants to do the work! The US government could easily give $1 million to each and every American but we would be flooded with foreigners who would have to do the work keeping our country running. Inflation would skyrocket and you would still have a richer, middle class, and poorer class.

Who's talking about everyone being rich? I'm talking about creating greater economic freedom and opportunity, not a magical wealth-generating everyone's-a-millionaire handout. Allowing people to keep the fruits of their labor rather than confiscating a portion is not going to make everyone slothfully rich and destroy the economy.

Dook · 2005-06-19 07:21:33

Yes, I meant sales/use tax.

The only way the government could draw out the national debt indefinately is if they balance the budget or almost balance it. Currently 14% of your federal taxes go to paying interest and this is averaging a growth of 1.5% a year.

The smart thing to do would be to raise income taxes 4% across the board, implement efficiency programs for every government department and the military, veto every damn spending bill that congress approves, and put all of that money into balancing and then paying down the national debt.

But that won't happen until the situation is desperate (probably when 40-50% of our income taxes are going to interest) because American's won't elect someone who is going to raise their taxes. We don't see it as OUR problem, it's the government's.

It amazes me that this is not even an issue. Someone is going to have to pay down the debt and year after year we just continue to pass it off to our children.

reddragon · 2005-06-19 13:20:39

Although some tax increases are probably inevitable, the most important thing in dealing with the national debt is to cut spending to within our means. The problem is that politicians are unlikely to cut spending even if they promise in their campaigns to do so. Once someone has access to the power and money of the government, they don't want to just let it sit there. They want, often from altruistic purposes, to use that money for programs that they beleive are necessary. I think that if most people had the ability, they would like to institute programs to make the country a better place. I know I would. Thus each politician has his or her goals, which to him or her are absolutely necessary and worthy of spending government money on. Other things are of course less important, and we can make the cuts there. But there are other politicians and citizen groups who want the cuts anywhere but there. Thus it's a hard fight to cut something, and it always brings enemies. Adding new programs is easier and more rewarding. What politician wants his/her term marked by fighting various programs that are beneficial to someone or by trying to do less. Everyone wants to be able to point to some accomplishments in which he/she has given something beneficial to the people of the nation. There is essentially a natural law of politics which states that spending will increase. This is something that is very hard to reverse.

Dook · 2005-06-19 15:13:08

Unfortunately the politicians aren't concerned with doing what is right for the country. They do what is right for themselves.

Take a look at the Citizens Against Government Waste website:
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer]htt … PageServer

$160,000 for seafood waste research? $3.6 million for the Appalachian Fruit Laboratory? $250,000 for asparagus technology and production? $6.2 for wood utilization research? Almost $500,000 for the Wild Turkey Federation. $335,000 for berry disease. $300,000 for Wool research. And much, much, more.

Congress is out of control. They are competing and conspiring (I'll vote for your's if you vote for mine) with each other to bring money into their communities but these programs are not about real improvement.

I believe that there should be a constitutional amendment to cap the amount of money that congress is allowed to appropriatte each year, like only $50 million dollars.

Rxke · 2005-06-19 15:36:22

Except for maybe the Wild Turkey I don't see why one should have problems with that, this stuff is R&D, which might easily pay off in time, economically speaking. If you don't do R&D, you get behind in the economics rat-race.

Rxke · 2005-06-19 15:40:01

And why didn't you link this one: http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=New … le&id=8992

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today criticized plans to move forward with missions to the moon and Mars with an impending record deficit, chronic management problems at NASA, and unresolved questions about the missions’ cost and feasibility....
...“A manned mission to Mars is of questionable scientific value and could cost up to $1 trillion,” CAGW President Tom Schatz said.

the one trillion guys again. Nice going. Great site.

Dook · 2005-06-19 16:44:11

And why didn't you link this one: http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=New … le&id=8992
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today criticized plans to move forward with missions to the moon and Mars with an impending record deficit, chronic management problems at NASA, and unresolved questions about the missions’ cost and feasibility....
...“A manned mission to Mars is of questionable scientific value and could cost up to $1 trillion,” CAGW President Tom Schatz said.

the one trillion guys again. Nice going. Great site.

Pay off? Don't be ridiculous. These incredibly wasteful abuses of power are repeated year after year. They research berry disease today and cattle dung the next.

One senator spent millions on building a jungle in Ohio.

I don't agree with every complaint that the CAGW have but they are the only ones trying to do something to help us have a better future. Can't hope for congress to do that. They're only concerned with their own future.

Rxke · 2005-06-20 01:47:45

I did a quick googly-woogly, and some stuff definitely will pay off. (I sought the stuff that sounded not too obvious)

Appalachian Fruit Research Station: http://afrsweb.usda.gov/Research.htm]ht … search.htm
Hmmm... Quite interesting stuff, IMHO.

Seafood waste management: http://www.seafish.org/land/sustainabil … sp?p=fj414
Hmmm... Compositing the stuff... Interesting, again.

Berry disease: factsheet: http://www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/factsh … berry.html
Yup, action needed, might otherwize cause serious production loss.

etc etc.

Oh, and of course I Googled Wild Turkey, and found this at the top of the list: http://www.wildturkey.be/]http://www.wildturkey.be/

A Belgian Punkrock band! Great, the U.S.A. donating money to a bunch of unwashed fellow countrymen I actually saw live, on a free gig. Judging by their sound, they need it that money NOW! :;):

er, no. Wild Turkey Federation (WTF? ) http://www.nwtf.org/]http://www.nwtf.org/
hmmm... "conserving the wild turkey and preserving our national hunting hritage" WTF indeed...

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-20 06:15:25

I believe that there should be a constitutional amendment to cap the amount of money that congress is allowed to appropriatte each year, like only $50 million dollars.

At this point I could actually support something like this. Not so much because I think a spending cap on Congress will itself solve anything, but it will starve so much of government that when the appendages die off we can start over and do it right. Drastic measures to be sure, but I suppose it beats another armed uprising.

As for the national debt, why is it that everyone talks about it as though it's a single giant debt owed to some unspecified creditor? It isn't as though the Earth Mortgage Comapny is going to foreclose on North America.

First off, the ideal level of debt for this nation is not zero. It's a damn sight lower than our current level, but it isn't zero. For one thing, some of that debt is in the form of various prvately-held government securities. Do you own US savings bonds? Treasury bills? Congratulations, you are the proud owner of a fraction of the national debt. Some of that taxpayer-funded interest goes to you.

If government uses the money from the purchase of those bonds for something with a greater long-term return than the interest they pay to the holder, everyone wins. So at least that fraction of the debt is a problem not of overspending but of inefficiency. Taking the money and putting into something with little or no return wastes it. For those not so good at picking up on subtlety, government handouts have an abyssmal return on the investment.

Another factor, our fiat currency. The steady decline of the US dollar (inevitable for any baseless currency) in the short term has a de facto debt-reducing effect by making $1 of debt less when the dollar you pay is of less value than the dollar you borrowed, but it also drives up interest, making the debt appear to grow even if in fact it hasn't.

A big chunk of debt is internal, one government agency to another. Social security for example, on paper it has however many billions of dollars the accounting wizards project today. In reality it has bonds, which will be paid by taxpayers via the Treasury Department. Rather than people investing their own money for retirement, it's been passed through several layers of government and disappears. This is a case of increased tax revenue actually increasing government debt! :laugh:

Which isn't unusual at all for the simple reason that government doesn't produce anything. Government can never pay off the debts it accrues because it generates no wealth. Therefore, the only sound spending programs are those that one way or another aid those that do produce and tax policy should not hinder the creation of wealth.

Say you're a bank and two people come in applying for $100,000 loans. One is going to use the money to start a business, he's got market research and while there's risk, it looks like it could be profitable in a few years. The other guy is planning to live off that money until it runs out, then he'll go back to work. Who do you loan the money to? Who's more likely to be able to pay it back?

So what type of government spending is good, even if it results in temporary debt? Research and development. New technologies invariably find applications in the private sector, thereby generating more wealth and providing greater long-term returns than what went in. Space exploration could fit in if done with an approach toward permanent settlement. Expanding the realm of economic activity will expand economic activity and again, higher returns than were invested.

Does this mean we should scrap all the programs designed to help the poor? No, only that we should reform them to not be debt creators. Instead of paying people not to work, pay them to work. Pay them in infrastructure projects, use whatever skills they possess, building, digging, fixing machinery, clerical work and whatnot. If they have no skills, pay them to paint over graffitti or pick up trash. This not only provides those in need with money to get by but it improves the basic infrastructure of our country and avoids the pull that most people feel when receiving payment for not working. Why go look for a job today when that government check comes regardless? This way is good for the economy and it's good for us as a people.

If we reform not only the amount of government spending but how it spends it, we can pay off our debt with little trouble and no tax increases. Some of it is owed to US citizens, the very people called on to pay it. Some of it is within government and can be erased by decree. Some of it is owed to foreigners holding US securities, which like their US counterparts will not all suddenly come due one day.

Unless the ChiComs get a little squirrely. ???

This debt is not something that we have to scramble to pay off immediately or in its entirety and enacting policies like tax increases that hinder economic growth are entirely counterproductive.

It's way too early in the morning to be talking about economics.

Dook · 2005-06-20 07:03:51

Most of this debt is owed to our own lending institutions, 37% to foreign governments. But this doesn't mean it's a good idea. If 14% of your annual income is going to your brother to pay off an old debt it still takes away from what you could be using that money for. Just think of what the government could do with that money. It could go towards education, NASA, the government could reduce income taxes, fix social security, provide health care to all.

Also with social security set to run out of money in 2018 it either dissolves, greatly reduces the funds it provides to people, or we continue to just charge it to the national debt which by that time will be about $26 trillion.

The debt is something we need to scramble to pay off because now we can do it gently, a small 4% across the board increase in income taxes and government efficiency programs. The longer we wait, the more it's going to hurt.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-20 07:19:49

Most of this debt is owed to our own lending institutions, 37% to foreign governments. But this doesn't mean it's a good idea. If 14% of your annual income is going to your brother to pay off an old debt it still takes away from what you could be using that money for.

But whether it's a net loss or a net gain depends on how the borrowed money was spent. If you and your brother start a business with a profit margin above the interest on the loan, you come out ahead. If (as our government currently does) you blow it all on a new car for yourself and a giant barbecue for all your neighbors, you've lost.

Debt isn't inherently bad, it's a question of how much you owe versus your capacity to pay it. Scrambling to cut down the amount we owe at the expense of increasing the nation's capacity to pay (by hindering economic growth through increased taxation) misses the point.

The debt is something we need to scramble to pay off because now we can do it gently, a small 4% across the board increase in income taxes and government efficiency programs. The longer we wait, the more it's going to hurt.

We agree on the fact that the US national debt is grossly excessive and measures need to be taken to reduce it in as painless a manner as possible. I'm simply stating that instead of taxing the people more we cut spending more and what we do spend be spent on things that offer a return, even if over the long-term. We already pay too much in taxes as it is.

Who ends up richer, the guy who borrows a large sum of money to start what becomes a profitable business or the guy that never spends beyond his means? There's a balance that needs to be reached, our country is too far to one side, what you advocate is too far to the other.

clark · 2005-06-20 08:11:36

I for one applaude CC's proposed economic reforms related to those without jobs.

Of course it is rather unoriginal. You can see it now on every street corner with a barrio full of illegal immigrants. You know, the ones who are undermining our society from within. :laugh:

For those who don't understand:

Unemployed men wake at the crack of dawn to wait on street corners or in parking lots. Trucks pull up, unemployed men get in. Unemployed men find day labor doing manual work like painting, gardening, or construction- anything really.

For some reason, I never see any unemployed americans with them...

Palomar · 2005-06-20 08:14:48

Unfortunately the politicians aren't concerned with doing what is right for the country. They do what is right for themselves.

*Yep, that's it in a nutshell. The "freedom fries" politician is backing away from his previous support for the Iraq war. Because of all the casualities? Because of all the cost?

No, because public opinion is at its lowest point ever regarding Iraq and he's worried about his re-election chances in the wash of overwhelming disapproval.

Time to roast a goat.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-06-20 08:37:18

Unfortunately the politicians aren't concerned with doing what is right for the country. They do what is right for themselves.
*Yep, that's it in a nutshell. The "freedom fries" politician is backing away from his previous support for the Iraq war. Because of all the casualities? Because of all the cost?
No, because public opinion is at its lowest point ever regarding Iraq and he's worried about his re-election chances in the wash of overwhelming disapproval.
Time to roast a goat.
--Cindy

Bzzzzzt!

Wrong!

Its because Representative Jones decided he was LIED to by the Administration about Saddam's WMD program.

Walter Jones remains deeply conservative and has joined in the Dick Durbin bash-fest, for example.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-20 08:49:53

Unemployed men wake at the crack of dawn to wait on street corners or in parking lots. Trucks pull up, unemployed men get in. Unemployed men find day labor doing manual work like painting, gardening, or construction- anything really.
For some reason, I never see any unemployed americans with them...

Try getting Americans who complain when two cars are in front of them at a drive-thru to get up with the sun, cram by the dozen into the back of a 1986 Ford Ranger to work for low wages when the government will give them a check for doing nothing. :;):

Some day labor stuff isn't too bad, actually. I spent a little time picking weeds with Mexicans. Manual labor in moderation is good for a person. Beats a steady job in some of the smaller, poorly maintained factories anyway.

Its because Representative Jones decided he was LIED to by the Administration about Saddam's WMD program.

Lies! Lies! LIIIEEEEES!!!!! :laugh:

Here's a thought. While Bush should have been less forceful with the WMD arguments, the Dems should maybe tone down their "we' were lied to" rhetoric. Fact is, Saddam used have some real nasty weapons of the type we went in after and we haven't been able to account for them. Pointing out that Bush was wrong and building on that is sound political strategy.

But if anything more than a few sarin shells (which themselves qualify) turns up in the coming years they'll be nailed with it hard. The "lies" accusation could turn sharply on a moment's notice. It seems a most unwise bit of political maneuvering given the uncertainty of where the weapons we know were once there have gone. Imagine if by 2008 we've found hard evidence of something serious and the Republicans can run whomever they choose on a "Bush was right, and I'll follow the course" platform. The Dem stratgey is betting it all on an unfounded assumption, even moreso than the war in Iraq was.

But then no one is accusing the Dems of being rational these days either.

BWhite · 2005-06-20 08:51:37

Walter Jones is a Republican.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_B._Jones]Article - - he is very pro-military:

On March 17, 2005, he sponsored a bill endorsing the conduct of controversial USMC Lieutenant Ilario Pantano, who shot two unarmed Iraqi civilians on April 15, 2004.

Edited By BWhite on 1119279304

clark · 2005-06-20 08:55:51

And considering that the team in charge of looking for WMD's has been practically dismantled... with the caviet, "they may be in Syria," I think the Dems and the rational Right are making a rather good assumption here.

Prior to invasion, most knew that the WMD claim was questionable. But they went with the claim because the President said the intelligence (which was classified by the way) supported their assertions.

Now we see that their own view of the intelligence at the time allowed them to understand that the case was not so clear cut.

We were lied to. Simple as that. What we do now, well, that is open for debate. You're on better ground by just looking forward. Engage with the Dems and the rational Right on this issue though, and you will lose.

Which is why the Bush Administration is not touching the British memo's with a ten foot pole.

BWhite · 2005-06-20 08:59:40

PS - - on Cindy's point, in 2004 Walter Jones won re-election with 71% of the vote. After the "freedom fries" business.

The idea that he is speaking out against the war for political expediency is ABSURD.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2005-06-17 11:34:51

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#127 2005-06-17 12:40:28

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#128 2005-06-17 21:24:31

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#129 2005-06-18 05:03:20

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#130 2005-06-18 11:55:07

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#131 2005-06-18 16:38:47

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#132 2005-06-18 18:29:52

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#133 2005-06-19 01:16:04

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#134 2005-06-19 07:21:33

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#135 2005-06-19 13:20:39

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#136 2005-06-19 15:13:08

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#137 2005-06-19 15:36:22

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#138 2005-06-19 15:40:01

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#139 2005-06-19 16:44:11

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#140 2005-06-20 01:47:45

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#141 2005-06-20 06:15:25

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#142 2005-06-20 07:03:51

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#143 2005-06-20 07:19:49

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#144 2005-06-20 08:11:36

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#145 2005-06-20 08:14:48

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#146 2005-06-20 08:37:18

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#147 2005-06-20 08:49:53

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#148 2005-06-20 08:51:37

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#149 2005-06-20 08:55:51

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#150 2005-06-20 08:59:40

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

Board footer