Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-20 09:01:03

Walter Jones is a Republican.

I know, but the Bush Lied meme is a Democrat creation. Bush was wrong, Bush was unclear, Bush was misled by bad intel, any of these could be rationally put forth and defended against almost any attack. But Bush lied is a creation put forth with so much force that it's almost accepted as fact now despite being only one of many possibilities and not the most effective from a political standpoint.

In the case of Representative Jones, no one (credible) ever said Republicans are immune to jumping to conclusions or manuevering with the winds of popular opinion.

Dook · 2005-06-20 09:01:31

If the politicians were smart they would say that they are funding programs now in the hope that a better future economy and larger US population will make it easier to pay down the debt. The problem is that none of them care about or take responsibility for the national debt. They are all appropriating funds which are truly NOT available, and for ridiculous reasons. Also when we have had a good economy the amount the government pays down is almost nothing. In good times the politicians waste even more.

Debt is not inherently bad for a business because you need to invest to grow. It's debatable whether it can be good for a government, maybe to fund a necessary war or solve some giant scientific problem that's holding us back.

Even if you adopt every recommendation that the Citizens Against Government Waste (I only approve of about half of their recommendations) want you still only save $217 billion. You can't reduce the debt by that alone. You can't even balance the budget by doing that. We would still be in the red about $130 billion a year.

Currently 14% of your income taxes goes towards no program, it's pure interest. Year after year after year it's wasted. Like it or not, if we don't do something now in the long run keeping the debt around is many times more expensive than my idea to increase taxes just 4% and begin paying it down now.

For example: Say you earn $50,000 a year, then you pay $9,853 in federal income tax. In 2005 $1,379 of that goes purely to interest on the national debt. If you earn the same next year and the government does not change the tax for your bracket then the next year $1,527 goes purely to pay interest on the debt because the debt is rising. Then $1,675 in 2007. $1,822 in 2008. And on, and on, and on.

Now with my 4% increase the government will get approximately $400 billion more a year and if they adopt half of the CAGW recommendations then we have a surplus of about $270 billion that should all go toward the debt. You would pay an extra $2,000 a year for the first three years then I would reduce the tax 1%, then a few years down the road I would again reduce the increase by 1%.

BWhite · 2005-06-20 09:03:23

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

I saw somewhere the suggestion that the Downing Street memos are being deliberately leaked by a highly placed British source perhaps with the tacit approval of Tony Blair, possibly to undermine efforts to stir up a war with Iran.

Has anyone seen the reports of Iranian mortar fire being claimed against Iraqi border posts?

clark · 2005-06-20 09:08:24

That is a funny conspiracy.

Why would Blair give approval to information that requires hime to lie more?

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-20 09:20:48

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.

I'm just offering political advice, not trying to argue for WMDs. Just as it would have been prudent for the Adminstration to allow for the possibility of not finding anything, the opposition would do well to allow for the possibility of something turning up.

And again, saying something that isn't true isn't necessarily lying. If you believe it and it's false, it's a mistake. Taking a "Bush is icompentent, misread the intel" approach has all the benefits of "Bush lied" while not making those brandishing it look as bad if it turns out to be inaccurate. With that approach, even if a big Iraqi nuke turns up in one of Saddam's basements they could spin the "Bush is incompetent" from not finding anything to not finding the stuff fast enough, we could do better. <shrug> But a crack-up fit on the Left suits me just fine too.

Currently 14% of your income taxes goes towards no program, it's pure interest. Year after year after year it's wasted. Like it or not, if we don't do something now in the long run keeping the debt around is many times more expensive than my idea to increase taxes just 4% and begin paying it down now.

Or, as you proposed earlier, an exceedingly low budget cap. Don't raise taxes, just gut the budget until the debt can be paid off in a reasonable timeframe. When everything is balanced, start over again with better checks in place but not an ironclad, never-exceedable-under-any-circumstances budget cap.

Politics without the pork. Would be something to see.

clark · 2005-06-20 09:22:30

Politics without the pork.

Like Isreal?

BWhite · 2005-06-20 09:22:45

That is a funny conspiracy.
Why would Blair give approval to information that requires hime to lie more?

The thought is that new Downing Street memos seem to pop up every Sunday in the London Times. (A Murdoch paper, by the way) Why?

Maybe so Tony can spin it that he sought to be a restraining influence on Bush and sinec nothing short of open confrontation with Washington (unacceptable for the UK) was going to stop regime change Tony sought to "play" George as best he could with a weak hand.

This minimizes the political damage to Blair if Iraq continues to get worse and allows him to blame a despicable "Deep Throat" leaker when chatting with Dubya.

clark · 2005-06-20 09:32:39

The thought is that new Downing Street memos seem to pop up every Sunday in the London Times. (A Murdoch paper, by the way) Why?

Advertisement. Sunday papers are the big money for newspapers, thus, they print the planned big ticket items. Parlaying the series over several weeks allow for an increase in readership to further affect future sales. Nothing special here, just the bottom line (and Murdoch likes money).

Maybe so Tony can spin it that he sought to be a restraining influence on Bush and sinec nothing short of open confrontation with Washington (unacceptable for the UK) was going to stop regime change Tony sought to "play" George as best he could with a weak hand.

British soldiers died so Tony could help restrain Bush after invading Iraq? Sorry Bill, I can’t buy that. Tony Blair steadfast support enabled Bush to invade and gave the action the result of legitimacy, as well as adding credibility to the WMD claims. This has the potential to really damage the standing of Blair, but I’m sure it could be spun as you suggest.

As for Iran… the US army ain’t going anywhere, for a very very long time. Invading Iran would have the net effect of destabilizing the entire Gulf, and decimating our military capability for decades. We just can’t do it without losing Iraq and the rest of the region.

BWhite · 2005-06-20 10:14:53

Maybe so Tony can spin it that he sought to be a restraining influence on Bush and sinec nothing short of open confrontation with Washington (unacceptable for the UK) was going to stop regime change Tony sought to "play" George as best he could with a weak hand.
British soldiers died so Tony could help restrain Bush after invading Iraq? Sorry Bill, I can’t buy that. Tony Blair steadfast support enabled Bush to invade and gave the action the result of legitimacy, as well as adding credibility to the WMD claims. This has the potential to really damage the standing of Blair, but I’m sure it could be spun as you suggest.
As for Iran… the US army ain’t going anywhere, for a very very long time. Invading Iran would have the net effect of destabilizing the entire Gulf, and decimating our military capability for decades. We just can’t do it without losing Iraq and the rest of the region.

I didn't say it wasn't revisionary history.

Palomar · 2005-06-20 10:17:20

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.

*And that was last year.

--Cindy

P.S.: Bill Clinton speaking up, saying Guantanamo must be closed or cleaned up.

Grypd · 2005-06-20 11:00:56

All good stuff for who he hopes to be the next president.

Another Clinton in the white house good for the budget but bad for us the space enthusiast

BWhite · 2005-06-20 11:05:08

Can Hillary Clinton run for President with Bill as Veep?

Amendment XXII - Presidential term limits. Ratified 2/27/1951. History
1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-20 11:10:18

Another Clinton in the white house good for the budget but bad for us the space enthusiast

But good for the space enthusiasts is the fact that <drum roll>. . . it isn't gonna happen..

clark · 2005-06-20 11:16:03

Because she is a woman, of because she is a Clinton, or simply because she is a democrat?

Or all three?

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-20 11:21:43

Because she is a woman, of because she is a Clinton, or simply because she is a democrat?
Or all three?

Number two, then one. Three depends largely on what the Party does in the year preceeding the election. Just calling it like I see it.

I have forseen it.

BWhite · 2005-06-20 11:22:04

Such much outrage at Senator Durbin linking Gitmo to Nazi-ism.

So little outrage at Grover Norquist linking the estate tax with the Holocaust:

White House confidante Grover Norquist, known for his blistering attacks on U.S. taxes, likened the estate tax to the "morality of the Holocaust" in October 2003.
"The argument that some who play to the politics of hate and envy and class division will say is, 'Well, that's only 2 percent -- or, as people get richer, 5 percent, in the near future -- of Americans likely to have to pay [the estate tax]," he told NPR. "I mean, that's the morality of the Holocaust: 'Oh, it's only a small percentage. It's not you; it's somebody else.'"

Heh!

C M Edwards · 2005-06-20 11:22:22

Currently 14% of your income taxes goes towards no program, it's pure interest. Year after year after year it's wasted.

Gee, that's a lot of cash to disappear without a trace.

Hmm... Do you think they're burning it? Loading it into the space shuttle SRB's, perhaps? Or perhaps it's being ground up for mulch? Pet litter? Wall paper, perhaps?

Perhaps - since it isn't actually being paid to any banks, bondholders, or any other entities that might someday spend it back into the economy - we could intercept a little of that money. After all, who would miss it?

BWhite · 2005-06-20 11:25:18

More http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/w … tm]Clinton news:

Here's Why Jeb Bush Won't Run
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has for months sternly rejected running to replace his brother in the White House, but only now are we finding out why. Friends say it's his wife, Columba, who closed the door. "His wife has just said no," a close Bush Florida political pal tells us.
Will Barbara Bush Tuck Bubba In?
Republican mutterings over former President george H. W. Bush 's budding friendship with one-time archrival Bill Clinton are growing. What started when President Bush put the two foes on the tsunami relief parade has some GOP-ers worried that the old man and wife Barbara have fallen for Bubba. And now this: Clinton's staying at Bush's Kennebunkport, Maine, summer home during a book tour this month. Why care? Republicans fret that the ties might prompt the Bushes to pull punches against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs in 2008.

clark · 2005-06-20 11:28:50

Number two, then one. Three depends largely on what the Party does in the year preceeding the election. Just calling it like I see it.

Because she is a Clinton and a woman? :laugh:

Did your mother raise you stupid, or do you just take after your dad? :laugh:

Palomar · 2005-06-20 11:33:54

Such much outrage at Senator Durbin linking Gitmo to Nazi-ism.
So little outrage at Grover Norquist linking the estate tax with the Holocaust:

*Something truly outrageous IMO: All our troops killed or injured, and the media focuses so much attention on one missing teenager on an island or Michael Jackson or some dingbat who ran off prior to the nuptials.

I think of all the servicepeople who have died, who are maimed and otherwise injured as a result of the war. They're not getting the respect and honor they deserve, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the war. Very sad.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-20 11:34:38

Because she is a Clinton and a woman?

Many people won't vote for her simply because she's Hillary Clinton and quite a few people in this country, men and women, will require extra convincing to vote a woman into the Presidency. She won't be able to pull it off, too much negative baggage.

A woman can most certainly become President, possibly even in 2008. But it won't be her.

Again, I'm just calling what I see. Don't blame the messenger.

Palomar · 2005-06-20 11:39:13

Because she is a Clinton and a woman?
Many people won't vote for her simply because she's Hillary Clinton and quite a few people in this country, men and women, will require extra convincing to vote a woman into the Presidency. She won't be able to pull it off, too much negative baggage.
A woman can most certainly become President, possibly even in 2008. But it won't be her.
Again, I'm just calling what I see. Don't blame the messenger.

*I always vote for the best person for the job, regardless of gender or race, etc.

I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton. I'd rather see Elizabeth Dole as our first female President. But if her opponent was the better candidate IMO, I'd vote for him. If C. Rice weren't such a Yes Person, I'd consider voting for her...but then she's too much of a Republican as well.

2008 is going to be an especially interesting election year, especially if Arnold S. pushes to allow naturalized citizens to run for the Presidency. Of course his ratings as a governor aren't so great right now...which of course could change.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-06-20 11:39:14

I think people will need convincing because she isn't a fundamentalist Christian, not because she is a woman, or even a Clinton.

Clinton was elected twice, and Gore lost because he wasn't Clinton. She will have a harder time of it because she lacks Clinton's natural charisma.

I don't see any other woman being able to run in 2008 (you're either a govenor, a senator, or rich).

clark · 2005-06-20 11:42:26

*I always vote for the best person for the job, regardless of gender or race, etc.
I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton.

So you always vote for the best person for the job, but automatically determine that Hillary Clinton is not the best person for the job prior to her actually running, or in comparison to her competition? :laugh:

Women, apparently, do have a long way to go.

Grypd · 2005-06-20 12:47:06

What Hilary Clinto does have going for her is that her husband is Bill Clinton.

From my observations of the USA there is a desire to return to what life was like before 9/11 and the war on terror. Then the USA had a budget surplus, it had no apparent enemies and the economy was booming.

Interesting is the opinion that most elections are decided by what are the free voters the undecided ones. Hilary will pick up a lot of support for being a woman but also loose it from the diehard anti feminists.

Yes she has a chance of being the next president and trust me having a women premier is not that bad. Look at what ours did for Britain and if you want ask the French who discovered her handbag had bricks in it

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2005-06-20 09:01:03

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

#152 2005-06-20 09:01:31

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

#153 2005-06-20 09:03:23

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

#154 2005-06-20 09:08:24

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

#155 2005-06-20 09:20:48

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

#156 2005-06-20 09:22:30

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

#157 2005-06-20 09:22:45

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

#158 2005-06-20 09:32:39

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

#159 2005-06-20 10:14:53

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

#160 2005-06-20 10:17:20

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

#161 2005-06-20 11:00:56

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

#162 2005-06-20 11:05:08

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

#163 2005-06-20 11:10:18

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

#164 2005-06-20 11:16:03

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

#165 2005-06-20 11:21:43

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

#166 2005-06-20 11:22:04

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

#167 2005-06-20 11:22:22

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

#168 2005-06-20 11:25:18

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

#169 2005-06-20 11:28:50

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

#170 2005-06-20 11:33:54

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

#171 2005-06-20 11:34:38

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

#172 2005-06-20 11:39:13

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

#173 2005-06-20 11:39:14

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

#174 2005-06-20 11:42:26

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

#175 2005-06-20 12:47:06

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

Board footer