|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 08/24/2001 : 02:25:53
|
I would like to be the first to congratulate the President on bringing this country back to deficit spending. He should be given an award for it and be required to place it in his office as a tribute to his disconnection with reality.
Many think that George W. Bush changed when he reached his 40's and is no longer the irresponsible dope head he once was but I think that actions speak louder than words. His irresponsible acts will need to be paid for and I am more than certain he will pay.
1. Reducing taxes based on estimates that were already coming down at the time of the cut. He lied about it helping Americans. The people that most needed the money got a big zero. It has not and will not help business investment. These were not tax cuts targeted to business investment. The only argument I saw for the tax cut reminded me of the failed economic philosophy known as "trickle down econimics." Any book on this should be in the fantasy section.
2. The ABM treaty will be reneged on. Why? So we can build a missle defense that doesn't work to guard against enemies we don't have and it's to be paid for with monet WE DON'T HAVE!! How stupid is that???
3. Backed out of the Kyoto Treaty. We've gone into that. Disagree if you want but Mr. Morality did make it a campaign promise.
4. The Stem Cell research non-decision. It's funny how we elect a guy( LOL, did I say elect? My bad. Anyway...he's there.) to lead a country and make decisions yet our current leader just passes the buck till a later date and lies to our faces about how his decision( LOL again) was non-political.
I am going to stop now because I am too mad, but I think I make a good argument. Can we impeach this guy for something. Is lying to us all enough? Ruining America and what little reputation we had? If not, I hope we can look back someday and just laugh about it all....
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
 Posted - 08/24/2001 : 04:28:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
2. The ABM treaty will be reneged on. Why? So we can build a missle defense that doesn't work to guard against enemies we don't have and it's to be paid for with monet WE DON'T HAVE!! How stupid is that???
@tomic,
Rumblings out of the Defense Department suggest that he is going to cut conventional weaponry as well to pay for the missle defence system. What I've heard is that a carrier task force and a couple army groups of unknown size (Divisions?) will be cut out. He has also pulled us out of the negotiations for non-proliferation of nuclear weaponry. Now, the rogue nations he says that we need to be wary of and have a missle defence for WILL be able to get the plutonium that they need.
Greg.
|
 |
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 07:19:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What I've heard is that a carrier task force and a couple army groups of unknown size (Divisions?) will be cut out.
NAVY:
The carriers Kitty Hawk (CV63) and Constellation (CV64) are both conventionally powered (oil not nuke) and 40 years old. Dubya could take either / or both out of service as a political move to save money. Meanwhile the new nuke carrier Ronald Reagan (CVN76) will be completed in about 2 years, just in time for re-election. Nice timing there, Dubya.
ARMY:
By their own admission, the Army is burdened with several heavy tank batallions / brigades that are a throw-back to the US vs. Ruskies tank battle scenarios of the cold war. Gen. Shinseki, Army Chief of Staff, has been instrumental in pushing for a lighter, more mobile force built around wheeled vehicles as opposed to tracked vehicles. The grumblings are coming from the armoured division commanders who don't want to see their precious behemoth Abrams tanks replaced with American Flyer wagons.
NUKES:
I'll need to do some more research on the non-proliferation thingy. I know he doesn't want anything that smacks of Clinton in it. He's putting a helluva lot of faith in Powell and Co. to help recast treaties in Dubya's image. Politics as usual.
Now, can he keep his cotton-pickin hands out of the Social Security general fund?
(:raig
|
|
|
|
Aodoi
New Member
USA
9 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 07:22:04 [Permalink]
|
Impeachment is for doing things that are illegal... not things that are stupid.
... and what do 3&4 have to do with the budget? 
Anyway, I'm under the impression that Congress spent the projected surplus before the tax cut even got made... so you can just spread the blame for that one all over DC. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 09:24:55 [Permalink]
|
They may have wanted to spend the surplus, but they didn't. Now it's not even there to spend because of the tax cut. So you could say it was spent in a way. Given to rich people in a reverse Robin hood scenario. Steal from the poor and give to the rich.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 10:17:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
He's putting a helluva lot of faith in Powell and Co.
Uh... Not Really.
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0134/ridgeway.php
quote:
Anyway, I'm under the impression that Congress spent the projected surplus before the tax cut even got made... so you can just spread the blame for that one all over DC.
It's funny how the Administration throws out statements about Congress spending the surplus without any proof of that. Like we're going to accept them at their word. What IS known is that the Treasury had to float additional bonds (read BORROW) to send out all of the tax “rebates”. The fact that the economy is in the tank right now doesn't help the deficit. The deficit however is a convenient excuse to raid Social Security.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 10:44:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
They may have wanted to spend the surplus, but they didn't.
Congress is the only body that can spend money (or dole out money to be spent on whatever whoever they give it to wants). The President can only recommend budgets, tax cuts, etc. It was Congress that gave it to us.
quote:
Now it's not even there to spend because of the tax cut. So you could say it was spent in a way. Given to rich people in a reverse Robin hood scenario. Steal from the poor and give to the rich.
Is this really how you look at it?! What is poor? What is rich? Everybody I know has gotten or is getting a check (money back that they themselves paid the previous year), and I don't know any rich people. Ladies I work with who are widowed, and work for $8.00 an hour, are so happy to get even $300, because it helps them so much. Who are these poor that have been stolen from? Are you saying taxation is theft? Did Bush and Co. take $600 from poor people, then turn around and give it to "rich" people?
This is such a misrepresentation of the whole tax cut situation, that I can't really believe you would say this!
------------
Ma gavte la nata!
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 08/24/2001 10:47:26 |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 10:48:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Uh... Not Really
DAMN!  Can Dubya really afford to lose Powell? Colin towers head and shoulders above George in stature and integrity.
Deficits and surpluses and have as much to do with faith in a stable administration and Congress as the real market place. The irony is that Wall Street loves a divided Capitol Hill. Time spent on squabbling and posturing means less time spent on punitive tax bills.
(:raig |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 11:17:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This is such a misrepresentation of the whole tax cut situation, that I can't really believe you would say this!
The pooerest people got zero. Go check. You'll find it's true because it's a fact. many of them are retired people or people making so little that they didn't pay much in the way of taxes in the first place.
The reverse Robin Hood thing is more complicated. If you consider the unfairness of a system that pays people too little to live on so that even if they work they need some sort of welfare to just survive then you get a situation where I make the statement I did.
I stand by it.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 12:25:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The pooerest people got zero.
Then your complaint is that instead of a big welfare handout, we got a tax rebate instead. In general, anyone who paid taxes, got a rebate. So you should be equally outraged at any past president who didn't advocate, and any past congress that didn't approve, sending out $300 and $600 checks to everyone who didn't pay taxes.
I would still like to hear your definition of what "rich" is.
------------
You shut your mouth, how can you say
I go about things the wrong way?
I am human, and I need to be loved, just like everybody else does. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 15:13:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
NAVY:
The carriers Kitty Hawk (CV63) and Constellation (CV64) are both conventionally powered (oil not nuke) and 40 years old. Dubya could take either / or both out of service as a political move to save money. Meanwhile the new nuke carrier Ronald Reagan (CVN76) will be completed in about 2 years, just in time for re-election. Nice timing there, Dubya.
They're retiring the Connie? What about the Ranger, she's needed drydock for sometime, I don't recall ever hearing that she was repaired or retired. There are a few others out there that desparately need drydock or retirement too.
Now isn't this pathetic - I'm actually attached to a ship?
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 18:57:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I would like to be the first to congratulate the President on bringing this country back to deficit spending.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
well bush and the republicans did pledge to change things when they got the white house. and sure enough, they ended 8 years of peace and prosperity, and are bringing back the deficit, the cold war and isolationism.  
comrade billyboy |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 19:30:33 [Permalink]
|
Yeah the future looks so......bright 
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2001 : 01:20:37 [Permalink]
|
As least under Shrub the US economy may finally collaspe.
I only hope the rest of the world doesn't go down with it.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2001 : 06:00:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As least under Shrub the US economy may finally collaspe.
I only hope the rest of the world doesn't go down with it.
Wait a minute. It should be clear from this forum that not all Americans are assholes. In fact, the vast majority are honest and hard working regardless of their political ideology. Unfortunately, sometimes we get a leader like the present President who makes an ass of us to the rest of the world. If the US economy collapses, many good people will suffer. The Americans who cause suffering around the world (CEO's of multinationals) will then be able to exploit even mre people.
quote:
Then your complaint is that instead of a big welfare handout, we got a tax rebate instead. In general, anyone who paid taxes, got a rebate. So you should be equally outraged at any past president who didn't advocate, and any past congress that didn't approve, sending out $300 and $600 checks to everyone who didn't pay taxes.
I would rather get the Social Security benefits that I pay into than any stupid $600 check. Unfortunately, the Administration seems hell-bent on gutting it.
And as for who is rich: The top 1% of wagearners makes 65-75% of all current wages (this does not include investments by these people), The average CEO makes 550 times what HIS workers make. A more personal illustration: I worked for a large corporation where the CEO got a 9 million dollar BONUS at the end of the year. What did he do to deserve this bonus? Layed off 10% of the workforce, salary freeze for all workers for over one year (some didn't get raises 2 years in a row because of the freeze), cut benefits (I quit this job on principle about a year later and took a lower paying one). Why are all of these people more deserving of tax relief than the working poor? Who the fuck needs 9 million or 20 million or 30 million dollars a year when so many live in poverty. Just wait until the big corporate giveaways start! I'll be watching.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2001 : 06:30:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Who the fuck needs 9 million or 20 million or 30 million dollars a year when so many live in poverty.
This is the principle Tokyo and I disagree on. Many people can work a full schedule for minimum wag and then have the honor of being blasted as lazy because they need welfare. it's worse than unfair. It's criminal. Taxes help to bring out-of-control capitalism under control.
There is one bright spot about a sagging US economy: If the economy goes in the toilet(not much of an if there) there will be less pollution. It will serve us right.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
