Osama, Saddam, WMD's and the 2004 election

Why do the top 50% pay 96.05% of taxes? Jobs shipped overseas, minimum wage that equals slave labor, too many service jobs with no future, no insurance coverage with many jobs available, these are some of the reasons.

The tax cuts would reach everyone if wages were more reasonable. CEO pay has skyrocketed, the minimum wage hasn't even kept pace with inflation. Is that progress?
 
I agree that minimum wage should be higher, more like 10 an hour. Like you said it hasn't followed the the curve of inflation and profit margins since the 70's. On balance, if minimum wage were higher, would everything be slightly more expensive? It's Deep, Too Deep. I'm not wise enough.
 
I'm not saying we should give massive tax breaks to anyone (or that we shouldn't), I'm saying Bush shouldn't have spent our surplus on the rich (and now our deficit) but he should have invested in programs that people need. Whose fault is it that someone doesn't make very much money? Usually its their own fault, even if circumstances do take a toll from time to time. I'm not saying we should compensate them with an undeserved tax break, I'm saying we should put money into public education, our future; hospitals and medicine, our pacemakers and respirators and the people who fix us; Social Security, our past. What will you do when you finally retire, and you ask for your SS check and they say, "Sorry, we have no more money."? Will you tell them how much you paid in to Social Security, only for the government to spend that money on weapons and giving back to the rich?

Bush should at least try to find a way to get a surplus again. We can only go so far into debt before we destroy ourselves. How far can you, as an individual, get into debt before creditors start coming after you? We will never pay off the National Debt in the near or even mid future, but we should at least try to keep it from increasing and halt deficit spending in its tracks.
 
Originally posted by arden
Bush should at least try to find a way to get a surplus again. We can only go so far into debt before we destroy ourselves. How far can you, as an individual, get into debt before creditors start coming after you? We will never pay off the National Debt in the near or even mid future, but we should at least try to keep it from increasing and halt deficit spending in its tracks.
Click to expand...

That is a very good point, and the people we owe money to are not Americans. The US has to borrow $1.5 billion every single day to pay for imports. That may not be significant in the larger scheme of things but it does mean that the US will only continue to invest here if their investment will pay off and if the US is viewed as a safe place. Should they decide that the above two conditions haven't been met then they will take their money elsewhere leaving the US with a mountain of debt it could never pay off. Fiscal conservatism is what this country needs, not the profligate spending and deficits and tax cuts that the Republicans demand.
 
Originally posted by arden
I'm saying we should put money into public education, our future; hospitals and medicine, our pacemakers and respirators and the people who fix us; Social Security, our past.
Click to expand...
Amen brother. In fact I want to make a retraction on a series of statements I made earlier on social security; I recently have thought extensively about the long term futue of America, and I now think social security - on a limited level - is a good thing, even though I, in particular as a neocon, reject the principals behind it.

I think that now is the time if GW wants to live. Now is the time for Bush to put all kinds of money into this social effort you talk about. I hate to hear myself say it, but if I want to be truthful, in the long run America really is doomed unless we start pumping cash into limted social programs and making peace with other countries and the like.

I think we should still go militarily after brutal SH-like regimes, wherever they hide. Why stop with SH? There's so much injustice out there to destroy.

I have always said in these forums that if no WMD's were found it would be a doomsday event for the GW admin. At any rate, and no matter how much it hurts, the rupublicans need to backpeddal a little, and get themselves into a different formation if they wish to fully recover.
 
Damned if they do, and damned if they don't. If we don't find WMD's in Iraq, it'll make Bush look like a complete fool in waging an unprecedented war. If we do find them, it will probably make us look like we planted them there, also dooming Bush.

I think Bush himself needs to watch his back for Tecumseh's curse. So far, the only president to escape said curse has been Reagan, and even he took a bullet through the chest.
Originally posted by habilis
I think we should still go militarily after brutal SH-like regimes, wherever they hide. Why stop with SH? There's so much injustice out there to destroy.
Click to expand...
Who actually told us it was our place, our duty to go after destructive regimes and keep them from killing their citizens? If we did that, do you think anyone would try to invade the U.S. for those reasons? We can claim it's for humanitarian reasons, but we have no real excuse.
 
It is the place of the man in charge, or should be in the future; if the man in charge denies the exsistance of these attrocities, or sweeps them under the rug, he is also commiting them.
 
That still doesn't give us the right to waltz right in and lay down the law.
Click to expand...

Depends who you call 'us'. Most people at White House will agree with you.

However, a few members of the Bush administration may tell you that yes, there are some cases where you have the right to "waltz right in and lay down the law". I am thinking of Paul Wolfowitz in particular, known for being a determined, decisionist straussian. Leo Strauss developed a theory, along with Carl Schmidt, which placed action over right: in a word, straussian philosphy allows action to trespass law in emergency cases such as Iraq. Of course this supposes Iraq was an emergency case, which we could debate further ;) :rolleyes:.
 
Some people view it like this: it's not out "Right" to walk in, it's our Responsibilty.

Let's say your sitting in the comfort of your nice apartment on the 4th floor of a high rise. You're relaxed, maybe listening to music, playin a game on your Mac or whatever. Now you hear screams from outside. You look out, and see a few injured people in an alley on the ground crying for help and an attacker near by that has apparantly assailed them. Are you going to just let it go, and not run down the 4 flights of stairs to help in some way? It's so much nicer in the comfort of your apartment, and you don't want to get involved because pain may come to you. But the right thing to do is help, and you know it.

 
Some people view it like this: it's not out "Right" to walk in, it's our Responsibilty.

Let's say your sitting in the comfort of your nice apartment on the 4th floor of a high rise. You're relaxed, maybe listening to music, playin a game on your Mac or whatever. Now you hear screams from outside. You look out, and see a few injured people in an alley on the ground crying for help and an attacker near by that has apparantly assailed them. Are you going to just let it go, and not run down the 4 flights of stairs to help in some way? It's so much nicer in the comfort of your apartment, and you don't want to get involved because pain may come to you. But the right thing to do is help, and you know it.

I know it's just an analogy but what is it anyway that makes you Neocons oversimplify things all the time? I mean, how can you seriously label the whole planet with either "good" or "bad" and other such things? You as a photographer should also know that a black and white photograph doesn't only consist of these two colors but of a rich variety of greys.
To return to your example: What are you going to do about the situation in that alley? I guess, following a hawk strategy you'd pull out your shotgun and kill the attacker, right? In that case, in any decent democracy you'd still have to answer a few questions or you'd even face a charge if you couldn't prove that the said attacker was attacking you. Whereas if you call the police and let them handle the situation things might turn out less bloody.
The hawk in my sequel of your story is the U.S. and the police would be an international organization like, let's say, the U.N. Nobody would seriously question the police's intervention in this case and if the hawk, as an individual would like to take a more proactive role in society, he/she still has the option to join the police forces and support security by participating in a body created also for this purpose.
Now, I kept things as simple as I could. Maybe you realize that I'm not so wrong about it or that simplifying things like this analogy just isn't adequate for a discussion on a topic as complex as the Middle East. You choose.
 
I wish I had time to fully respond. So, quick answers:

Originally posted by doemel
...what makes you Neocons oversimplify things all the time?
Click to expand...
Probably the same thing that causes progressives to over-intellectualize things in a world that is not intellectual.

Originally posted by doemel
...how can you seriously label the whole planet with either "good" or "bad" and other such things? You as a photographer should also know that a black and white photograph doesn't only consist of these two colors but of a rich variety of greys.
Click to expand...
Karl Marx saw grey. You don't think we actually believe that an empire is 'Evil', or 'Bad' do you? These labels are devisive, they serve a purpose. Although I'm not a fan of using any religious language in state oriented politics, it does help us to communicate important ideas to the proletariat that might not otherwise be heard.
Why black and white? In my mind there's no such thing as an African-American or a Lebanese-American or any other hyphen American. We're all just Americans. Why do liberals need to see color and race? What purpose does it serve besides dividing us and pitting us against each other. So what has over-complexifying gotten us besides more red tape?
 
Why black and white? In my mind there's no such thing as an African-American or a Lebanese-American or any other hyphen American. We're all just Americans. Why do liberals need to see color and race? What purpose does it serve besides dividing us and pitting us against each other.

Sorry, that wasn't clear enough, I guess. I don't think in skin color or "race", so the color example is purely to point out that there's more than two poles or extremes, but that the vast majority of things, peope, states.... are somewhere between the two extremes (represented by the colors black and white in my example). I don't give a flying *&%$ about your skin's color, I categorize people in different ways which relate more to their point of view, expression thereof, ability to tolerante others etc. In this sense I perceive you, habilis (just to give an example), as an open minded Neocon that tries to express his beliefs in a way that's constructive and leads to passionate and hopefully fruitful debate. I have also noticed that you are a good photographer which further enhances my opinion about you. This still doesn't keep me from trying to prove you wrong on points that I disagree about. I'd really enjoy a 1 on 1 conversation with you if I ever happened to be anywhere close to Cleveland :D


So what has over-complexifying gotten us besides more red tape?


I do agree with you that a government needs a certain degree of simplification when communicating complex matters to the public because the public (or at least the major part of it) just isn't informed enough to grasp the whole picture. From what I've perceived of the current U.S. gov't though, over-simplification doesn't cut it either! Why is it that a lot of people are making fun of GWB's speeches? Because they sound like a friggin' Sunday sermon, because they are repetitive, because they more often than not simplify matters to simple statements that anyone halfways informed just can't take serious. There's no need to treat the public as ignorant and/or stupid even though individual citizens might be just that.
In a debate between more-than-average informed individuals (OK, I'm generalizing here) like this discussion though, there's no need to argue in an over-simplified manner. If anyone doesn't get something they can always ask!
 
Some people view it like this: it's not out "Right" to walk in, it's our Responsibilty.

Let's say your sitting in the comfort of your nice apartment on the 4th floor of a high rise. You're relaxed, maybe listening to music, playin a game on your Mac or whatever. Now you hear screams from outside. You look out, and see a few injured people in an alley on the ground crying for help and an attacker near by that has apparantly assailed them. Are you going to just let it go, and not run down the 4 flights of stairs to help in some way? It's so much nicer in the comfort of your apartment, and you don't want to get involved because pain may come to you. But the right thing to do is help, and you know it.
Click to expand...

First thing, I make sure to memorize the description of the alleged attacker and the circumstances, then I call the police, and then I go down, making sure to assess the situation before acting rashly and smiting the alleged attacker. Maybe he was defending himself and just got the upper hand, who knows? If I hit him, I'll be accused of violence too.
Projecting on Iraq, the US should have layed down their case well, with details of what exactly they accuse Iraq of (the description), inform the UN, and then carefully assess the situation before intervening. Now indeed they are accused of violence and war..

Bush began with a big surplus and now has a big deficit. That's not good. Why? Because he has not invested in long-term future. Not in education, not in internal and international economy, not in social-security and healthcare. These are things the next government, whoever, must give attention to. There will be no money for this, so the tax cut will have to be compensated. How? It's a mistery! Bush is putting a heavy debt on america's future, I cannot see how anyone could vote for him ever again for any public function...
 
sorry I have to be quick again, strapped for time.

Originally posted by doemel
I'd really enjoy a 1 on 1 conversation with you if I ever happened to be anywhere close to Cleveland :D
Click to expand...
The Feeling is mutual. Thanks for the respects.
Originally posted by Cat Bush began with a big surplus and now has a big deficit. That's not good. Why? Because he has not invested in long-term future. Not in education, not in internal and international economy, not in social-security and healthcare.
Click to expand...
I can't buy all that. I think that if Gore was in office right now, or any democrat for that matter, he would also be running a deficit. The only difference would be the bill for the war & supporting efforts. At any rate, the bursting of the tech bubble and post 9/11 jitters are more responsible for the current state of our economy. You're correct about the long-term investing in the future though; his plan is to secure our present, to ensure a prosperous future. Security is #1 right now. As soon as the democrats realize that, and capitalize on it, they can win. [shhhhhh]
 
I don't think, if Gore were in office, he would keep giving massive tax breaks to the upper crust and spending billions on national defense, which is already better than any other country's.
 
Gore has a brain, Bush has personality combined, maybe we would have had a decent president. 9-11 transformed Bush, who knows how it would have affected Gore.
 
Remember Frankenstein is only the creator in Shelley's novel... Plus, it's an uncontrollable creature... :p

This thread is a nice trace of thoughts, opinions, reactions, to what happened those last months, by the way. Reading it again is instructive :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top