LAWYER'S VIEW of recent American history

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I emailed a friend about something, and he said something about vietnam and iraq etc. He's a nice guy, and we agree on Sooner Football, women and lots of music etc. I had forgotten how OUT THERE he was on politics, though, and unfortunately, far too many lawyers are hardcore democrats. Here was his next email, an elaboration of his views on Iraq and Afghanistan and other related stuff:

"Nam turned out to be a mistake because we went in there believing that China, especially, was just using it as a proxy to spread communism. It was a huge, huge blunder. It turned out to be just a civil war, and the Vietnamese hated the Chinese as much as they hated us, for being foreigners trying to rule their country. And sure enough, after the war, unlike places like Tibet, the Vietnamese were not about to let the Chinese rule them, and they never have. They have been that way forever. Ever see "The Fog of War," where McNamara confesses how wrong we were to be there?
Iraq I was a good thing to do, but the war in 03 was another gigantic blunder. Dubya's daddy was incredulous that his pinhead son was going to go in there (that's the phone hang up incident). We'd just been terrorized by Afghanistan's Taliban Al Quaeda, so Dubya lets Bin Laden go, quits doing much in Afghanistan, invades Iraq instead, lets the Taliban/Al Qaeda get stronger, spread all over the world. In the meantime we attack a former ally, Iraq, a Sunni nation that had fought it's neighbor, Iran, a Shiite nation, for a decade with Cheney supplying the arms. Iraq was secular, not Islamist by any means, had no Al Qaeda--until we invaded it. Saddam was weak, the restrictions kept weapons away from him, we had the perfect situation. But you know why we invaded? Israel. Iraq was viewed as a threat by the Israelis, not us. So who spearheaded the neocon effort? Wolfowitz. A jew, Feith, another, and at least two more. And Bill Kristol, another jew but not in the government, influential, was howling to do it. The proof of WMD was not there so Cheney created his own intelligence at the Pentagon. And, of course, check off how many WMD we found. How about absolute zero. And the muslims hated us for it. We did nothing except help Israel, and that's not even clear since we let the Shiites, who like Iran, take over the country.
What we did wrong, other than invading Iraq, is do the spread democracy thing. All we needed to do was install another Saddam, except one who liked us, and leave."


I do agree we shouldn't have gone to Nam, or should have pulled out as soon as we had decided to limit our troops, due to concern over further involvement by China or Russia.

[yermom]

well, have you seen Fog of War?

the end might be a little out there, but what specifically do you take issue with?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

well, have you seen Fog of War?

the end might be a little out there, but what specifically do you take issue with?I have not seen it. I believed we went to nam in '62 or whenever it was that Jack Kennedy decided to send troops there, to stop the advancement of Chinese led troops from taking over Nam. We limited engagement of the enemy fairly quickly after we were there. My impression was that when we decided to not fight to win, we should have pulled out. Of course we stayed, and brought in more troops.

[olevetonahill]

I have not seen it. I believed we went to nam in '62 or whenever it was that Jack Kennedy decided to send troops there, to stop the advancement of Chinese led troops from taking over Nam. We limited engagement of the enemy fairly quickly after we were there. My impression was that when we decided to not fight to win, we should have pulled out. Of course we stayed, and brought in more troops.


Ike sent the 1st troops there in like 58 . The 1st KIA for us was 2 Advisors killed in an ambush on I believe 6-9 59

U.S. Army Master Sgt. Chester Ovnand and Maj. Dale Buis were the first two U.S. servicemembers killed in the Vietnam War. Their sacrifice was honored in Washington, D.C., Jyly 8, 2009, in a ceremony commemorating the 50th Anniversary of their deaths. DoD photo by U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Michael J. Carden

http://www.libnot.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/viet-nam-first-kia.jpg

[SoonerProphet]

I emailed a friend about something, and he said something about vietnam and iraq etc. He's a nice guy, and we agree on Sooner Football, women and lots of music etc. I had forgotten how OUT THERE he was on politics, though, and unfortunately, far too many lawyers are hardcore democrats. Here was his next email, an elaboration of his views on Iraq and Afghanistan and other related stuff:

"Nam turned out to be a mistake because we went in there believing that China, especially, was just using it as a proxy to spread communism. It was a huge, huge blunder. It turned out to be just a civil war, and the Vietnamese hated the Chinese as much as they hated us, for being foreigners trying to rule their country. And sure enough, after the war, unlike places like Tibet, the Vietnamese were not about to let the Chinese rule them, and they never have. They have been that way forever. Ever see "The Fog of War," where McNamara confesses how wrong we were to be there?
Iraq I was a good thing to do, but the war in 03 was another gigantic blunder. Dubya's daddy was incredulous that his pinhead son was going to go in there (that's the phone hang up incident). We'd just been terrorized by Afghanistan's Taliban Al Quaeda, so Dubya lets Bin Laden go, quits doing much in Afghanistan, invades Iraq instead, lets the Taliban/Al Qaeda get stronger, spread all over the world. In the meantime we attack a former ally, Iraq, a Sunni nation that had fought it's neighbor, Iran, a Shiite nation, for a decade with Cheney supplying the arms. Iraq was secular, not Islamist by any means, had no Al Qaeda--until we invaded it. Saddam was weak, the restrictions kept weapons away from him, we had the perfect situation. But you know why we invaded? Israel. Iraq was viewed as a threat by the Israelis, not us. So who spearheaded the neocon effort? Wolfowitz. A jew, Feith, another, and at least two more. And Bill Kristol, another jew but not in the government, influential, was howling to do it. The proof of WMD was not there so Cheney created his own intelligence at the Pentagon. And, of course, check off how many WMD we found. How about absolute zero. And the muslims hated us for it. We did nothing except help Israel, and that's not even clear since we let the Shiites, who like Iran, take over the country.
What we did wrong, other than invading Iraq, is do the spread democracy thing. All we needed to do was install another Saddam, except one who liked us, and leave."


I do agree we shouldn't have gone to Nam, or should have pulled out as soon as we had decided to limit our troops, due to concern over further involvement by China or Russia.

Don't see to much here to fuss over. The Weekly Standard/Fox news crowd does deserve a hefty amount of blame for pimping the war in Iraq, it was a bipartisan effort and both parties deserve scorn. We might just be wishing for the likes of a Saddam in the region here in a few years.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Don't see to much here to fuss over. No, I didn't expect you would.

[soonercruiser]

Funny, but I missed the lawyer's mention of how all the big name Democrats were fooled into believing the "intelligence" reports on WMDs in Iraq. Like Hillary Clinton for instance! I guess that makes her a fool too?
Maybe that's why Hillary and Obama ignored the intelligence on Benghazi, and allowed 4 Americans to be sacrificed, because of an internert video? They knew that the intel probably wan's good....it was just a peaceful protest!

BTW, maybe someone could ask the lawyer how the Arab Spring thing is going?
They will say that Democracy is messy....bloody messy!

And, maybe ask the lawyer why Bill Clinton had 15+ shots at Bin Laden and left him go scott free?
Could it have been Bill was preoccupied with his.....oh well. Is Billy Boy near sighted?
I know that he and Tedyy are/were simply adored by the Left!
:02.47-tranquillity:

[SoonerProphet]

No, I didn't expect you would.

Outside of its singular blame for the recent war in Iraq, what about this lawyers views to you find so, "OUT THERE"?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Funny, but I missed the lawyer's mention of how all the big name Democrats were fooled into believing the "intelligence" reports on WMDs in Iraq. Like Hillary Clinton for instance! I guess that makes her a fool too?
Maybe that's why Hillary and Obama ignored the intelligence on Benghazi, and allowed 4 Americans to be sacrificed, because of an internert video? They knew that the intel probably wan's good....it was just a peaceful protest!

BTW, maybe someone could ask the lawyer how the Arab Spring thing is going?
They will say that Democracy is messy....bloody messy!

And, maybe ask the lawyer why Bill Clinton had 15+ shots at Bin Laden and left him go scott free?
Could it have been Bill was preoccupied with his.....oh well. Is Billy Boy near sighted?
I know that he and Tedyy are/were simply adored by the Left!
:02.47-tranquillity:I like the stupid card my buddy plays on W, too.(they can't resist calling W stupid, when we all know he is far from that). Just getting warmed up, he plays the EVIL card on Dick Cheney. I gotta believe they hate Cheney as much as they do Clarence Thomas, W and Rush Limbaugh. My friend's political analysis was so chock full of Shi* that I told him I didn't want to talk politics, and just mentioned we had some differences, and I also had some doubts about some of the things he said..

[diverdog]

I like the stupid card my buddy plays on W, too.(they can't resist calling W stupid, when we all know he is far from that). Just getting warmed up, he plays the EVIL card on Dick Cheney. I gotta believe they hate Cheney as much as they do Clarence Thomas, W and Rush Limbaugh. My friend's political analysis was so chock full of Shi* that I told him I didn't want to talk politics, and just mentioned we had some differences, and I also had some doubts about some of the things he said..


His assessment is dead on. The reason you don't want to talk politics is when you are confronted with facts you choose to cover your ears and sing lalalala.life in the bubble goes on.

[diverdog]

Ike sent the 1st troops there in like 58 . The 1st KIA for us was 2 Advisors killed in an ambush on I believe 6-9 59

U.S. Army Master Sgt. Chester Ovnand and Maj. Dale Buis were the first two U.S. servicemembers killed in the Vietnam War. Their sacrifice was honored in Washington, D.C., Jyly 8, 2009, in a ceremony commemorating the 50th Anniversary of their deaths. DoD photo by U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Michael J. Carden

http://www.libnot.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/viet-nam-first-kia.jpg

vet:

i believe the first Americans killed in Vietnam was at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu . Their names were James McGovern, Jr. and Wallace Buford and they were killed in action while flying support during the siege of Dien Bien Phu.

Ike screwed up. He should have provied the French with bombers and he could have destroyed Giap and the NVA in one central battle.

[olevetonahill]

vet:

i believe the first Americans killed in Vietnam was at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu . Their names were James McGovern, Jr. and Wallace Buford and they were killed in action while flying support during the siege of Dien Bien Phu.

Ike screwed up. He should have provied the French with bombers and he could have destroyed Giap and the NVA in one central battle.

That happened in 54 before our "Offcial" involvement in Nam.

Heres the story on the Wall Im a say The Wall is the deciding factor

http://thewall-usa.com/names.asp

[Midtowner]

His assessment is dead on. The reason you don't want to talk politics is when you are confronted with facts you choose to cover your ears and sing lalalala.life in the bubble goes on.

Pretty much.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

His assessment is dead on. The reason you don't want to talk politics is when you are confronted with facts you choose to cover your ears and sing lalalala.life in the bubble goes on.Well, we know that's what you would say as a Lefty. What you choose to call facts are the Left's convoluted spin on things, and for you to simply insult people's intelligence while making up crap about them is not what constitutes facts. haha.

My friend, and apparently you, have bought into the disgusting lies of the MSM, and we know you're not going to wake up and realize how they operate, or at least you won't admit it.

[yermom]

could you kindly cite the lies you are referring to?

[bluedogok]

Both sides lie and spin the "facts" to bolster their position....that is just politics as usual.

[diverdog]

could you kindly cite the lies you are referring to?

He can't and that is his problem.

[diverdog]

That happened in 54 before our "Offcial" involvement in Nam.

Heres the story on the Wall Im a say The Wall is the deciding factor

http://thewall-usa.com/names.asp

Vet:

Have you ever visited the wall? I went the first year and my dad spent a long time looking for his friends. It is really moving.

[olevetonahill]

Vet:

Have you ever visited the wall? I went the first year and my dad spent a long time looking for his friends. It is really moving.

Been to the Moving Wall twice, Hopefully Ima make the trip in the spring of 14. Scout wants to go. I wanta ride Amtrak and see a as much as I can see while im in that neck of the woods. Maybe spend a month er so if thats what it takes to see everything I wanta see.

[yermom]

the mall is awesome. i only got like a day to walk around. i did make it to the wall though.

could have easily spent a week there

[sappstuf]

Don't see to much here to fuss over. The Weekly Standard/Fox news crowd does deserve a hefty amount of blame for pimping the war in Iraq, it was a bipartisan effort and both parties deserve scorn. We might just be wishing for the likes of a Saddam in the region here in a few years.

Saddam has been gone a long time and Iraq is fairly stable.

Egypt without Mubarak... Different story.

[olevetonahill]

the mall is awesome. i only got like a day to walk around. i did make it to the wall though.

could have easily spent a week there

Ive been to a Lot of the Monuments back in the late 60s, would like for sure see the new stuff and the things I didnt have time to see back then Even some of the Museums and such
Why I say I want to take at least a Month if I can find someone who I can trust to take care of the Shack an My critters. Them Deer aint gonna feed themselves ya know.:glee:

[diverdog]

Been to the Moving Wall twice, Hopefully Ima make the trip in the spring of 14. Scout wants to go. I wanta ride Amtrak and see a as much as I can see while im in that neck of the woods. Maybe spend a month er so if thats what it takes to see everything I wanta see.

You get to DC let me know. I am a good tour guide.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

could you kindly cite the lies you are referring to?See post #26 below

[olevetonahill]

You get to DC let me know. I am a good tour guide.

Im sure Ill let:glee: every one Know when Im leavin. :glee:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

could you kindly cite the lies you are referring to?Soonercruiser covered the first one in post #7. My friend also said W lets Bin Laden go. I'm not aware of him doing that. (Note also that my friend failed to mention the many times Der Schlichmeister let Bin Laden go) Now, even the democrats were convinced Sadaam had plenty of WMD's in Iraq. Nothing has ever shown that they didn't. A lot of time passed between America telling Sadaam to give them up and when we went into iraq n '03. Think what you will about that, but my friend was ignoring the whole situation of WMD's in Iraq, and implying that W went after Sadaam INSTEAD of Bin Laden. What a crock! What's sad for you guys is that you should know/remember that, instead of saying my biased friend is right. It doesn' speak well for the lawyers and yourself that have continued the farce in this thread.


My friend then says Sadaam was weak, and "weapons were kept away from him". (If you believe he didn't have WMD's, there
is transatlantic bridge for sale in Nebraska that you mihgt be interested in)

He then says we invaded Iraq just for the Israelis! (this solidifies, in his mind, that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, since1)Bin Laden wasn't there and 2)there was no doubt they didn't have WMD'S)

He then goes on an anti-jew rant, and said it was Cheney and the influential Jews Wolfowitz and Bill Kristo who convinced W to send in the troops.

You wonder why so many lawyers think this way...Apologies to the attornies who aren't all screwed up about politics like my buddy is, and who don't have republicans as their bogeymen. you have a difficult image to overcome with that type of thinking prevalent in the legal community.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

His assessment is dead on. The reason you don't want to talk politics is when you are confronted with facts you choose to cover your ears and sing lalalala.life in the bubble goes on.You're losing it. (must be the Christmas spirit) It took you 2(TWO) sentences to play the stupid card. thanks. Merry Christmas to you and yours.

[sappstuf]

His assessment is dead on. The reason you don't want to talk politics is when you are confronted with facts you choose to cover your ears and sing lalalala.life in the bubble goes on.

I would certainly like to know more about the supposed phone call between Bush Sr. and Bush Jr where Bush Sr. hung up in anger over the Iraq invasion.

That book was written by James Risen of the NYTimes... The same guy that once wrote an article that was so bad, that the NYTimes agreed to pay damages for it.

Got any other sources on that phone call?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I would certainly like to know more about the supposed phone call between Bush Sr. and Bush Jr where Bush Sr. hung up in anger over the Iraq invasion.

That book was written by James Risen of the NYTimes... The same guy that once wrote an article that was so bad, that the NYTimes agreed to pay damages for it.

Got any other sources on that phone call?Thanks. I didn't know where he got that suppose "fact", either.(I don't stay tuned to much Leftist horsesh*t media, so I miss some of their facts. Surely Risen must have a published transcript of that phone call somewhere...

[LiveLaughLove]

A lot of so called "facts" that were spewed weren't facts at all. Just supposition and left wing conspiracy theories.

For the record, I was against us going in to Iraq. I wanted us to concentrate on Afghanistan, kill Bin Laden and get the heck out.

I think W wanted to kill the guy that tried to kill his father. The crap about it being for Israel is pure conjecture. Israel is smart enough to know Saddam wasn't a serious threat to them when compared to Iran.

Now I do think there were some WMDs and I believe they were spirited away to Syria by the Russians, but I won't say it's fact. It's my belief of what happened and some reports that stated it.

WMDs or no, we should have gone after OBL first and foremost.

[SoonerProphet]

Saddam has been gone a long time and Iraq is fairly stable.

Egypt without Mubarak... Different story.

To say that Egypt is less stable than Iraq in its current form is a bit of a stretch imo. My point was along the same lines, we may be wishing for a secular Sunni strongman in the region here soon.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

A lot of so called "facts" that were spewed weren't facts at all. Just supposition and left wing conspiracy theories.

Now I do think there were some WMDs and I BELIEVE they were spirited away to Syria by the Russians, but, I won't say it's fact. It's my belief of what happened and some reports that stated it.

This is exactly right. I believe there were, too, but nobody reliable can say for sure. The Left acts as if their suppositions and wishes for character destruction of their political opposition are accepted facts. Well, their spins might be believed in their circles, but are certainly nowhere near proven facts.

[Midtowner]

A lot of so called "facts" that were spewed weren't facts at all. Just supposition and left wing conspiracy theories.

Which scenario sounds more likely?

1) Our intelligence community is so inept that they make a number of assumptions without evidence to support them, then make assumptions based on those assumptions which mislead the civilian leadership into spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives due to mistakes. Yikes.

2) Our leadership conspired to jump on and use any shred of evidence to build a case to invade a foreign country to benefit their political benefactors, maybe get a little bit of revenge and perhaps establish a toehold for democracy in the Middle East.

Frankly, I'd rather believe scenario #2 than #1--that our government could be so incompetent as to do something like invade Iraq because of a mistake? That even being possible is horrific.

[LiveLaughLove]

Which scenario sounds more likely?

1) Our intelligence community is so inept that they make a number of assumptions without evidence to support them, then make assumptions based on those assumptions which mislead the civilian leadership into spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives due to mistakes. Yikes.

2) Our leadership conspired to jump on and use any shred of evidence to build a case to invade a foreign country to benefit their political benefactors, maybe get a little bit of revenge and perhaps establish a toehold for democracy in the Middle East.

Frankly, I'd rather believe scenario #2 than #1--that our government could be so incompetent as to do something like invade Iraq because of a mistake? That even being possible is horrific.

Are they assumptions or facts? Earlier these assumptions were being stated as fact. They are not.

As I said, my belief is there were WMDs. We waited a very long time to invade. It gave them plenty of time to hide them, destroy them, or take them away to Syria (which some reports stated happened). I believe they were sent to Syria.

So I don't accept either of your assumptions, sorry.

[SoonerProphet]

Regardless of the debate on wmd, one issue that cannot be ignored is the whole democracy spreadin' bullsh*t. Many conservatives, neo and statist alike, argued the whoe "freedom agenda" nonsense. That spreading democracy and "Western" ideals would be a bromide for what cures the problems in the Mideast. It has been a abject failure. On every level the Bush administration and its "strategy" of going to war to rid the world of Saddam has been a complete clusterf*ck for the region as a whole. It has not advanced our national interests, has done little to quell the growing popularity of political Islam, and has cost trillions of dollars and killed thousands of people. What possible positive spin could anyone put on this foreign policy blunder?

[SoonerProphet]

Are they assumptions or facts? Earlier these assumptions were being stated as fact. They are not.

As I said, my belief is there were WMDs. We waited a very long time to invade. It gave them plenty of time to hide them, destroy them, or take them away to Syria (which some reports stated happened). I believe they were sent to Syria.

So I don't accept either of your assumptions, sorry.

How are stockpiles of chemicals weapons removed? Rail, truck, camel-train? And yes, I am serious, who, how, and why?

[8timechamps]

Which scenario sounds more likely?

1) Our intelligence community is so inept that they make a number of assumptions without evidence to support them, then make assumptions based on those assumptions which mislead the civilian leadership into spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives due to mistakes. Yikes.

The fact of the matter is you have no idea what our intelligence community does or does not know and/or act on. I love when people make blanket statements like that, when they have no idea what they're talking about.




Frankly, I'd rather believe scenario #2 than #1--that our government could be so incompetent as to do something like invade Iraq because of a mistake? That even being possible is horrific.

Oh no...not a mistake. Have you ever analyzed a sat view of a foreign country? Do you know what SCUD missiles look like? Do you know that Iraq had a long history of loading SCUD missiles with lethal gas? Do you know that the missiles shown to the UN were, in fact, in-country. Given Saddam's history, was it far fetched to think he had WMDs?

I will never understand the blaming of the Jews. WTF is wrong with people?!

[8timechamps]

How are stockpiles of chemicals weapons removed? Rail, truck, camel-train? And yes, I am serious, who, how, and why?

One really easy way is to bury them. Which I believe they did.

[olevetonahill]

One really easy way is to bury them. Which I believe they did.

Agreed.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Are they assumptions or facts? Earlier these assumptions were being stated as fact. They are not.

As I said, my belief is there were WMDs. We waited a very long time to invade. It gave them plenty of time to hide them, destroy them, or take them away to Syria (which some reports stated happened). I believe they were sent to Syria.

So I don't accept either of your assumptions, sorry.The Left won't accept that (likely) scenario, as it doesn't do the job of tearing into W and his administration and appointed officials. They are shameless with their mission of destruction of their political opposition.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Many CONSERVATIVES, neo and STATIST alike, argued the whoe "freedom agenda" nonsense. just what is a statist conservative? Authoritarianism(statism) is a jewel of the Left?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Regardless of the debate on wmd, one issue that cannot be ignored is the whole democracy spreadin' bullsh*t. Many conservatives, neo and statist alike, argued the whoe "freedom agenda" nonsense. That spreading democracy and "Western" ideals would be a bromide for what cures the problems in the Mideast. It has been a abject failure. On every level the Bush administration and its "strategy" of going to war to rid the world of Saddam has been a complete clusterf*ck for the region as a whole. It has not advanced our national interests, has done little to quell the growing popularity of political Islam, and has cost trillions of dollars and killed thousands of people. What possible positive spin could anyone put on this foreign policy blunder?Own up to it, no matter what W would have done, it would have been a disaster to you. I don't know how it happens, but our troops have been severely limited on Rules of Engagement, and the Left howls at everything any republication does. So, we'll not ever know what being in Iraq could have accomplished, since we were sabotaged by the US domestic political opposition. We are left with you guys spinning history, and the message is carried on by Media, the Entertainment Industry and Public Education.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

How are stockpiles of chemicals weapons removed? Rail, truck, camel-train? And yes, I am serious, who, how, and why?Do you enjoy wasting everyone's time? How the hel* do we know? You don't know. You know that admitting even the democrats in congress believed that Iraq had WMD doesn't allow you to call W stupid as effectively as you would if WMD wasn't a possibility.

[SoonerProphet]

Own up to it, no matter what W would have done, it would have been a disaster to you. I don't know how it happens, but our troops have been severely limited on Rules of Engagement, and the Left howls at everything any republication does. So, we'll not ever know what being in Iraq could have accomplished, since we were sabotaged by the US domestic political opposition. We are left with you guys spinning history, and the message is carried on by Media, the Entertainment Industry and Public Education.

Sounds like you are having issues owning up to it. You place blame on everyone you can think of except the proponents of the policy who led us into the mess. It is a blunder and the ones who need to own it are the ones who squawked the loudest in the the run up to the conflict.

[SoonerProphet]

Do you enjoy wasting everyone's time? How the hel* do we know? You don't know. You know that admitting even the democrats in congress believed that Iraq had WMD doesn't allow you to call W stupid as effectively as you would if WMD wasn't a possibility.

Just don't know if I find it plausible that the weapons were moved or buried. Can't prove a negative I guess.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Sounds like you are having issues owning up to it. You place blame on everyone you can think of except the proponents of the policy who led us into the mess. It is a blunder and the ones who need to own it are the ones who squawked the loudest in the the run up to the conflict.You guys can have any cockamamie ideas you want to foster. nothings's going to try to stop you with that. The whole point of this thread, and it has been demonstrated here, is that the Left comes up with political ideas and carries on as theough they are facts, while in reality, are not facts, and many are such horsesh*t that they are laughable. That is, they would be if they weren't so damaging to the country.

[diverdog]

You guys can have any cockamamie ideas you want to foster. nothings's going to try to stop you with that. The whole point of this thread, and it has been demonstrated here, is that the Left comes up with political ideas and carries on as theough they are facts, while in reality, are not facts, and many are such horsesh*t that they are laughable. That is, they would be if they weren't so damaging to the country.

Where are your facts?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Where are your facts?haha D'oh!!!






I gave them to you. What did you do with them?

[OU_Sooners75]

Any of you left wing tools that believe Saddam didn't have WMD, would you care to exsplain to me why he used WMDs against the Kurds in the North?

He may not have had them when we finally attacked his country in 2003., but there was plenty of time from the ultimatum given to get them out of the country.

Iraq isn't that big of a country. You can travel by car through that country unimpeded within a day. And the Ultimatum was 48 hours.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Any of you left wing tools that believe Saddam didn't have WMD, would you care to exsplain to me why he used WMDs against the Kurds in the North?

He may not have had them when we finally attacked his country in 2003., but there was plenty of time from the ultimatum given to get them out of the country.

Iraq isn't that big of a country. You can travel by car through that country unimpeded within a day. And the Ultimatum was 48 hours.Seems to me we had warned Sadaam for quite a long while before we sent the troops in. If he had them, he had beaucoup time to dispose of them(to be safe for future use).

[Midtowner]

Even if he had 'em, who GAS? We clearly didn't when he actually used them decades ago and we had no evidence he was cooperating with Islamist terrorists. There was certainly no evidence he had anything to do with 9/11, so why again did we spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives?

[SoonerorLater]

Even if he had 'em, who GAS? We clearly didn't when he actually used them decades ago and we had no evidence he was cooperating with Islamist terrorists. There was certainly no evidence he had anything to do with 9/11, so why again did we spend billions of dollars and thousands of lives?

Here is a fact. Saddam Hussein violated the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement multiple times. That fact alone would justify attacking Iraq WMD's or no WMD's. Whether that was a good policy decision is quite another question.

[Midtowner]

Here is a fact. Saddam Hussein violated the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement multiple times. That fact alone would justify attacking Iraq WMD's or no WMD's. Whether that was a good policy decision is quite another question.

First, no solid evidence was ever presented showing Iraq to be in "material breach." The weapons inspections came up with nothing. Secretary Powell presented "evidence," and all but guaranteed we'd find significant stores after the invasion. We never did and the "evidence" has largely been discredited.

And even assuming a material breach, why should we have cared as long as he was contained? There are war crimes happening all over Africa right now, why aren't we over there doing something? Did the cease-fire agreement actually state that they would be re-invaded in the event of a violation of the cease fire? There was still no evidence he was a threat to anyone other than his own people. I doubt he would have been stupid enough to attack Kuwait again.

[pphilfran]

Saddam was the kind of guy that was always stepping across the line by a little bit...the bully on the sandy beach...is was inevitable...we were going in sooner or later, we just chose sooner...

[OU_Sooners75]

First, no solid evidence was ever presented showing Iraq to be in "material breach." The weapons inspections came up with nothing. Secretary Powell presented "evidence," and all but guaranteed we'd find significant stores after the invasion. We never did and the "evidence" has largely been discredited.

And even assuming a material breach, why should we have cared as long as he was contained? There are war crimes happening all over Africa right now, why aren't we over there doing something? Did the cease-fire agreement actually state that they would be re-invaded in the event of a violation of the cease fire? There was still no evidence he was a threat to anyone other than his own people. I doubt he would have been stupid enough to attack Kuwait again.

You say who GAS but then you act as if you do.

Okay. John Kerry, Billary Clinton, Barnie Frank, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and just about any other democrat believed Saddam had WMDs and was violating the UN ceasefire.

They were given the exact same "intell" as Powel and Bush. They also voted for a new UN resolution stating either Saddam conform and allow inspectors back in or face attack.

He didn't let the inspectors back in without limitations. Bush (with approval from the congress) attacked and overthrew him.

In the long run it was something that would have happened anyway. Bush just decided Sooner was better.

You can disagree with sending our troops in or not. But the US would have eventually went in and took care of Saddam and his family anyway.

Inaccurate intell seems to be something our intellligence community is good at.

[Midtowner]

You say who GAS but then you act as if you do.

Okay. John Kerry, Billary Clinton, Barnie Frank, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and just about any other democrat believed Saddam had WMDs and was violating the UN ceasefire.

Yep, they saw the same ginned up evidence that fooled everyone else. At least our current President was smarter than any of the above. He was right, they were wrong, that's more than likely a big reason he won the Democratic Primary in '08.


They were given the exact same "intell" as Powel and Bush. They also voted for a new UN resolution stating either Saddam conform and allow inspectors back in or face attack.

Exactly. A quick search turns up this:


US Secretary of State Colin Powell misled the world about the threat posed by Iraq when he spoke at the United Nations last winter, a former top weapons expert has claimed.
Greg Thielmann, who retired last year as the State Department's expert on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, described the appearance as one of Mr Powell's career "low points".
He claimed that intelligence was interpreted to lead to the conclusion that war was necessary.
In fact, he said, Iraq posed no imminent threat to the world or even to its neighbours.
His claims are contested by the American and British governments, who believe Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and could have eventually passed them on to terrorists.
Mr Thielmann made the claims on the CBS 60 Minutes II programme, which will be shown on US television.
He said: "I think my conclusion (about Powell's speech) now is that it's probably one of the low points in his long distinguished service to the nation.
"The main problem was that the senior administration officials have what I call faith-based intelligence. They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show. They were really blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing information the intelligence community would produce."
His claims were backed up by Steve Allinson, a British-born chemical engineer who was a team leader among the 30-member UN chemical inspection group which was pulled out of Iraq in March when an invasion was imminent.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-199827/Powell-misled-public-Iraq.html#ixzz2GCscRPBP
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


He didn't let the inspectors back in without limitations. Bush (with approval from the congress) attacked and overthrew him.

In the long run it was something that would have happened anyway. Bush just decided Sooner was better.

It didn't have to happen. We accomplished little more than replacing one dictator with another whose grip on power is much more tenuous.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

We accomplished little more than replacing one dictator with another whose grip on power is much more tenuous.Now that we have one in our own country, how do we replace him, now that either the American people and/or the election process are out of order?

[olevetonahill]

Yep, they saw the same ginned up evidence that fooled everyone else. At least our current President was smarter than any of the above. He was right, they were wrong, that's more than likely a big reason he won the Democratic Primary in '08.



Exactly. A quick search turns up this:





It didn't have to happen. We accomplished little more than replacing one dictator with another whose grip on power is much more tenuous.

Your President wasnt even in Congress at the time ya Numbnuts

[Midtowner]

Your President wasnt even in Congress at the time ya Numbnuts

Did I say he was?

He was a State Senator and was very clearly opposed to the War.

[olevetonahill]

Did I say he was?

He was a State Senator and was very clearly opposed to the War.

And we all know a State Senator ranks up there with the Big Boys, Again yer a Dumbass

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Did I say he was?

He was a State Senator and was very clearly opposed to the War.He won the primary because He is black and socialist. He won both elections for the same reasons, and more people are now with their hands out than before, and you guys have effectively demonized the republicans.(with the massive combined effort of the MSM, Public Schools and the Entertainment Industry) I would imagine you're quite proud of the Transformation we are experiencing.

[Midtowner]

He won the primary because He is black and socialist. He won both elections for the same reasons, and more people are now with their hands out than before, and you guys have effectively demonized the republicans.(with the massive combined effort of the MSM, Public Schools and the Entertainment Industry) I would imagine you're quite proud of the Transformation we are experiencing.

Ah yes.. the ever-more-ineffectual cry of the angry white man with the hostility to education and further hostility to other racial or ethnic groups. Just remember, Romney won his primary because he lied his pants off about his beliefs and appeared slightly less crazy than anyone else on the stage. As far as what transformations we are experiencing? Yes. We need to reform medicine. We're doing that. We need to get a handle on taxes and spending. The Democrats at least are trying to do that, but the Republicans seemed bound and determine to adhere to the Norquist peldge. It really is a good thing to be advancing as a society.

[olevetonahill]

Ah yes.. the ever-more-ineffectual cry of the angry white man with the hostility to education and further hostility to other racial or ethnic groups. Just remember, Romney won his primary because he lied his pants off about his beliefs and appeared slightly less crazy than anyone else on the stage. As far as what transformations we are experiencing? Yes. We need to reform medicine. We're doing that. We need to get a handle on taxes and spending. The Democrats at least are trying to do that, but the Republicans seemed bound and determine to adhere to the Norquist peldge. It really is a good thing to be advancing as a society.

So says a White apologist

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Ah yes.. the ever-more-ineffectual cry of the angry white man with the hostility to education and further hostility to other racial or ethnic groups. Just remember, Romney won his primary because he lied his pants off about his beliefs and appeared slightly less crazy than anyone else on the stage. As far as what transformations we are experiencing? Yes. We need to reform medicine. We're doing that. We need to get a handle on taxes and spending. The Democrats at least are trying to do that, but the Republicans seemed bound and determine to adhere to the Norquist peldge. It really is a good thing to be advancing as a society.You have accused me of a hostility to education and racism. It is expected of you, so we're not surprised. Calling Romney crazy also normal MO, (ho-hum) Intentionally lying about what Obama is doing is also expected of you. You've demonstrated your superior, ethical behavior over and over again. We must congratulate you. Authoritarianism, with its unlawful and underhanded methods of operation have conquered the USA!

[Midtowner]

You have accused me of a hostility to education and racism.

Yes. Right after you posted words hostile to public education and stated that Obama won "because he is black." I think that's pretty much an admission of guilt right there.


It is expected of you, so we're not surprised. Calling Romney crazy also normal MO

Sorry, the nation has spoken and the beliefs of the far right to which Romney ran hard to and couldn't quite claw his way back to the middle are not considered mainstream in this day and age.


(ho-hum) Intentionally lying about what Obama is doing is also expected of you. You've demonstrated your superior, ethical behavior over and over again. We must congratulate you. Authoritarianism, with its unlawful and underhanded methods of operation have conquered the USA!

Both parties favor authoritarianism. Your own namesake supported the Patriot Act.

Trust me, being able to be detained without any due process or wiretapped without a warrant is a lot more authoritarian than actually requiring people to help pay for the medical care they will inevitably receive.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Give it a rest, Mr Schumer. Your irrational arguments are not persuasive. I am sort of astonished how you guys come up with the tripe you present, but I'm not convinced that twisted speech and reasoning can be called some kind of attribute.

[Midtowner]

Your irrational arguments are not persuasive. I am sort of astonished how you guys come up with the tripe you present, but I'm not convinced that twisted speech and reasoning can be called some kind of attribute.

Likewise. At least I'm not the one slamming public education and then turning around immediately acting astonished that I was called anti-education.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Yes. Right after you posted words hostile to public education and stated that Obama won "because he is black." I think that's pretty much an admission of guilt right there.

So, are you saying that his color had nothing to do with him winning both elections?

[Soonerjeepman]

The Democrats at least are trying to do that, but the Republicans seemed bound and determine to adhere to the Norquist peldge. It really is a good thing to be advancing as a society.

ya got to be $hitten me? Explain WHERE the dems are cutting spending? wow..

[Midtowner]

ya got to be $hitten me? Explain WHERE the dems are cutting spending? wow..

Obama's proposal:


(revenues)
Increasing taxes to families making over $400,000
Limiting the tax benefit of itemized deductions to 28%
Resetting estate taxes to 45% (2009 level)
Elimination of the 2010 2% payroll tax cut

The $1.2 trillion in spending cuts would come from the following areas:
$100 billion in defense cuts
$290 billion in interest savings
$130 billion in Social Security, by utilizing chained CPI for cost of living increases
$400 billion in health care savings
Various other spending reductions
The Democratic offer also included $50 billion in new stimulus spending, an extension of unemployment benefits and a two-year increase in the debt ceiling.

http://www.decodedscience.com/the-fiscal-cliff-crisis-democratic-versus-republican-proposals/22812/2

But hey... facts don't matter in your bubble, do they?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Likewise. At least I'm not the one slamming public education and then turning around immediately acting astonished that I was called anti-education.Now, that just doesn't make any sense, as usual. You, as an adult and educated, should be able to understand that I was not slamming education, but was criticizing the nature of public education nowadays. Like I said, you need to give it a rest. you're just wasting your own time.

[Midtowner]

but was criticizing the nature of public education nowadays.

Ah yes, horrible public education where the Bible is not a textbook, where the teachers are not allowed to force students to pray, where they teach things like evolution and the big bang theory. Public education, by and large is just fine.

[olevetonahill]

Ah yes, horrible public education where the Bible is not a textbook, where the teachers are not allowed to force students to pray, where they teach things like evolution and the big bang theory. Public education, by and large is just fine.

Did you finish SCS's Breakfast for him?
http://digitaldivablog.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/bowl-of-stupid.jpeg?w=289

[pphilfran]

Obama's proposal:


http://www.decodedscience.com/the-fiscal-cliff-crisis-democratic-versus-republican-proposals/22812/2

But hey... facts don't matter in your bubble, do they?

All of that accounts for about 25% of our current deficit...and none of it helps economic growth...

Par for the course....

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

All of that accounts for about 25% of our current deficit...and none of it helps economic growth...

Par for the course....Social spending is what buys Him votes, and helps to bring down the economy. Beary isn't about to abandon His plans.

[nutinbutdust]

Obama's proposal:

The Democratic offer also included $50 billion in new stimulus spending, an extension of unemployment benefits and a two-year increase in the debt ceiling.

But hey... facts don't matter in your bubble, do they?

Could someone please explain to me how a two year increase in the debt ceiling amounts to any cutting in spending?

[diverdog]

Could someone please explain to me how a two year increase in the debt ceiling amounts to any cutting in spending?

Most of this is being driven by a huge loss in tax revenue due to a still depressed economy and unemployment.

[sappstuf]

Could someone please explain to me how a two year increase in the debt ceiling amounts to any cutting in spending?

It has nothing to do with it. Dems like to operate without an annual budget(illegal) and no debt ceiling to worry about.

[Midtowner]

All of that accounts for about 25% of our current deficit...and none of it helps economic growth...

Par for the course....

You can't cut spending without hurting the economy. If you wanted to cut government back to equilibrium spending, we'd be in a serious depression.

Cuts have to be made in such a way that the economy grows through them. Cutting while we're not growing simply guarantees the economy will regress.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You can't cut spending without hurting the economy. If you wanted to cut government back to equilibrium spending, we'd be in a serious depression.

Cuts have to be made in such a way that the economy grows through them. Cutting while we're not growing simply guarantees the economy will regress.haha. I get it....






giving you the benefit of a doubt on your joke, there.

[Midtowner]

haha. I get it....






giving you the benefit of a doubt on your joke, there.

How do you think the economy would do if we cut the military 100%?

Probably pretty bad, right? Millions of jobs lost?

Okay, let's look at welfare. What happens if we cut TANF and WIC and section 8 housing by 100%? Dollar General goes out of business. Wal Mart sees a huge decline in revenue and has to lay of probably hundreds of thousands of dollars. Landlords would be broke and our last resort homeless helpers would be overrun.

You see, all of that government spending money (at least when it's spent here) is borrowed. That borrowed money is then spent in the economy. At equilibrium, you either tax those dollars out of the economy or you get rid of the government spending. Either way, at least in the short term, the economy is going to hurt.

In a perfect world, you have a growing economy which eclipses spending cuts on its own. To not wreck the economy when it's already on the precipice, spending cuts have to be gradual.

[KantoSooner]

Seriously, is anyone really talking spending cuts? My impression was that, except for Gary Johnson, all the leading politico's were talking reductions in spending increases.

Now, we can buy the argument that an anemic economy can't withstand a major loss of spending overnight. (or not, but let's lay that argument aside for a moment). But it seems odd to me that no one, save the LIbertarians, are actually talking AT ALL about a defined path to payment of the debt and permanently living within our means. Even most of our so-called 'conservatives' are allowing themselves to be trapped in the Keynesian framework of government as a permanent prime actor in the economy.

Unless and until our government is reduced to the economic importance of the National Park Service or Municipal Fire Departments (both of which are desireable and necessary, in my opinion)(and both of which enforce rules, regulatiions and incorporate real, coercive force used against members of the public at large to enforce said regs.)we will forever face the problem of government growing itself into dysfunction. It is simply the nature of any bureaucracy that perfectly good hearted people will see an ever increasing need for what they are doing, ad infinitum.

[cleller]

As Barack himself would have said (before being elected president)

What we got here is a failure of leadership.

http://i701.photobucket.com/albums/ww14/cs6000/Captain.jpg

[pphilfran]

You can't cut spending without hurting the economy. If you wanted to cut government back to equilibrium spending, we'd be in a serious depression.

Cuts have to be made in such a way that the economy grows through them. Cutting while we're not growing simply guarantees the economy will regress.


I agree 100%

Lost in all of this is the economy...the economy should be the priority and not the deficit or debt...

[Midtowner]

I agree 100%

Lost in all of this is the economy...the economy should be the priority and not the deficit or debt...

And we have a lot of morons in Congress who apparently never took macroeconomics, or took them at religious schools where they studied equations like "Prayer=more jobs."

Give the Tea Party the reigns and they would single handedly pilot us in to the worst depression in history. Imagine the effect of $1.1 trillion suddenly removed from the economy, safety nets cut and jobs lost. That's the sort of trifecta which leads to People's Armies and that sort of thing.

[Serenity Now]

Regardless of the debate on wmd, one issue that cannot be ignored is the whole democracy spreadin' bullsh*t. Many conservatives, neo and statist alike, argued the whoe "freedom agenda" nonsense. That spreading democracy and "Western" ideals would be a bromide for what cures the problems in the Mideast. It has been a abject failure. On every level the Bush administration and its "strategy" of going to war to rid the world of Saddam has been a complete clusterf*ck for the region as a whole. It has not advanced our national interests, has done little to quell the growing popularity of political Islam, and has cost trillions of dollars and killed thousands of people. What possible positive spin could anyone put on this foreign policy blunder?It is too early to say whether or not this is going to work or not. These things don't work themselves out in a neat, little election cycle. These things take years to evolve. Hopefully, the arab spring will result in more functional middle eastern democracies in the future. That should be a bipartisan goal.

[Serenity Now]

you guys have effectively demonized the republicans.You make it so easy.

You forgot to mention election fraud. You almost hit for the cycle.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

And we have a lot of morons in Congress who apparently never took macroeconomics, or took them at religious schools where they studied equations like "Prayer=more jobs."

Give the Tea Party the reigns and they would single handedly pilot us in to the worst depression in history. Imagine the effect of $1.1 trillion suddenly removed from the economy, safety nets cut and jobs lost. That's the sort of trifecta which leads to People's Armies and that sort of thing.excessive govt. jobs and welfare beyond a reasonable safety net are what damage the econonmy, but I'm sure you know that, and choose to incessantly lie about it, for some negative reason that somehow motivates you. The govt. is supposed to work for the people of the USA, instead of back-assward, as you want it to be.

[diverdog]

excessive govt. jobs and welfare beyond a reasonable safety net are what damage the econonmy, but I'm sure you know that, and choose to incessantly lie about it, for some negative reason that somehow motivates you. The govt. is supposed to work for the people of the USA, instead of back-assward, as you want it to be.

You are clueless! What has hurt the economy is the collapse of the home building market, current lack of consumer demand, world wide recessions, and access to credit (business). If you think for one moment that cutting the government by a quarter would help the economy right now then you are ought of your f**ing mind.

Like phil said we need to focus on jobs and growing the economy. If you were to say Obama has not done enough on that front then I would agree with you.

[cleller]

I can see that as we ride the deficit down into the muck, and have the govt further step in as the father of the family, the refrain is always going to be "it would have been worse".

Our grandkids will be stirring up some instant eggs in a govt shanty town saying, "it could be worse".

Its not like everyone expects the govt to shut down the taps, just do something, anything, to show a little responsibility.
Scaling back the govt destruction of personal responsibility would be the greatest success, but to even mention that with this administration is folly.

[Midtowner]

excessive govt. jobs and welfare beyond a reasonable safety net are what damage the econonmy, but I'm sure you know that, and choose to incessantly lie about it, for some negative reason that somehow motivates you. The govt. is supposed to work for the people of the USA, instead of back-assward, as you want it to be.

No, in the short run, those things expand the economy. Debt, in the short run is stimulative. In the long run, you have to pay it back, but the hope is that by incurring the debt and growing the economy, the debt will basically be worth less than the spending and will be easier to pay off because of a better economy. When you start to toss around tens of billions of dollars like they're nothing, we're no longer in a realm where a comparison to your household or business budget makes any sense. When you're talking trillions of dollars, this is more money in a theoretical sense. Debt can be managed two ways--growth and inflation. Growth is generally pleasant, inflation is most decidedly not. A billion dollars in 1940 was not the same as it is now, so over the long term, our kids/grandkids don't have to lose out here.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Taking a nannystate marxist authoritarian seriously is not a smart thing to do, but you have gobbled the goop, as have far too many attorneys who have stayed firmly entrapped in collectivist thinking.

[Midtowner]

Taking a nannystate marxist authoritarian seriously is not a smart thing to do, but you have gobbled the goop, as have far too many attorneys who have stayed firmly entrapped in collectivist thinking.

How is any of that marxist? That's just a factual explanation of how a large economy works. It's as much true as the sky is blue.

You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means.

[Turd_Ferguson]

You keep using that word. I do not think you know what it means.That's funny, because I don't think you know what it means...

[pphilfran]

No, in the short run, those things expand the economy. Debt, in the short run is stimulative. In the long run, you have to pay it back, but the hope is that by incurring the debt and growing the economy, the debt will basically be worth less than the spending and will be easier to pay off because of a better economy. When you start to toss around tens of billions of dollars like they're nothing, we're no longer in a realm where a comparison to your household or business budget makes any sense. When you're talking trillions of dollars, this is more money in a theoretical sense. Debt can be managed two ways--growth and inflation. Growth is generally pleasant, inflation is most decidedly not. A billion dollars in 1940 was not the same as it is now, so over the long term, our kids/grandkids don't have to lose out here.

I think you are right on the money...

Our problem, though, is that we have gotten to the upper end of what debt we should incur...our debt servicing is going to kill us if we don't get the debt increases under control...even with our historically low interest rates we are paying out 225 billion a year in interest payments...in five years our debt servicing is projected to be 565 billion...and that 565 billion will grow further if we have higher interest rates down the road (highly likely)...

We also have less of the population working which will lower revenue....those lower unemployment numbers are not a reality since so many have stopped looking for a job...

Another two or three years of 2-3% GDP growth and we are sunk...

[Midtowner]

Another two or three years of 2-3% GDP growth and we are sunk...

If Congress wanted to get serious about GDP growth, they'd start with eliminating free trade agreements for countries like China. Romney was right on the money when he said he'd label China a currency manipulator. I'd also start shrinking unnecessary things like the world's largest military 10x over and transferring the spending to items more likely to result in growth and job creation. Things like infrastructure, R&D, green energy, etc. That creates growth at home, and while an aircraft carrier creates thousands of jobs during its production and service, if that money was spent on infrastructure and shoring up the private sector, GDP growth could really start to happen.

Will you get the occasional Solyndra boondoggle? No doubt. Business is risky. But for every Solyndra, there's a GM or Chrysler.

Welfare may be the most efficient way out there to grow the economy. You send someone a welfare check, they spend ALL of that money post haste. That creates jobs even if the recipient is unemployed and creates growth. Out of every possible spending cut, I imagine cutting welfare would do the most damage to the economy overall. Even departments I think are completely useless like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce do create jobs. Those federal bureaucrats earn that salary and go spend it at the mall or on cars or whatever.

Case in point, a recent USDA study found that for every dollar paid in SNAP benefits, $1BN in new SNAP benefits (food stamps) spending resulted in an increase in GDP by $1.79BN.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err103/report-summary.aspx

Of course if you're not a fan of increasing SNAP benefits, perhaps we could be talking about requiring companies to pay a living wage? Raising the minimum wage? Rent-controlled housing? Things like that would also be of huge benefit to the GDP.

[XingTheRubicon]

If Congress wanted to get serious about GDP growth, they'd start with eliminating free trade agreements for countries like China. Romney was right on the money when he said he'd label China a currency manipulator. I'd also start shrinking unnecessary things like the world's largest military 10x over and transferring the spending to items more likely to result in growth and job creation. Things like infrastructure, R&D, green energy, etc. That creates growth at home, and while an aircraft carrier creates thousands of jobs during its production and service, if that money was spent on infrastructure and shoring up the private sector, GDP growth could really start to happen.

Will you get the occasional Solyndra boondoggle? No doubt. Business is risky. But for every Solyndra, there's a GM or Chrysler.

Welfare may be the most efficient way out there to grow the economy. You send someone a welfare check, they spend ALL of that money post haste. That creates jobs even if the recipient is unemployed and creates growth. Out of every possible spending cut, I imagine cutting welfare would do the most damage to the economy overall. Even departments I think are completely useless like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce do create jobs. Those federal bureaucrats earn that salary and go spend it at the mall or on cars or whatever.

Case in point, a recent USDA study found that for every dollar paid in SNAP benefits, $1BN in new SNAP benefits (food stamps) spending resulted in an increase in GDP by $1.79BN.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err103/report-summary.aspx

Of course if you're not a fan of increasing SNAP benefits, perhaps we could be talking about requiring companies to pay a living wage? Raising the minimum wage? Rent-controlled housing? Things like that would also be of huge benefit to the GDP.

So by that logic, we should double payments to our liberal friends (welfare and foodstampers) and the economy would boom!

You're so unbelievably ignorant on this subject. Everyone here knows that massive cuts will hurt short term...however, status quo will kill us long term.

[pphilfran]

Don't bring up Chrysler...we bailed them out so they could be sold to Fiat...Fiat now has a entire dealer network instead of having to build from scratch...it was a bonehead move to sell them to Fiat...

As far as Solyndra....the government shouldn't be in the business of picking out individual companies to fund...they don't have the expertise to be venture capitalist...there may have been a company out there in the very beginning stages with a far superior product but since Solyndra got the loan the other start up was unable to compete due to the low cost loans...you want to grow a sector you give tax breaks to start ups in that sector...

As far as welfare you can't overload the bottom end and expect quick results...it will be slow, slow, slow...those welfare people are not going to buy cars, a high end tv, or a home...they will buy groceries and trinkets...sell enough groceries and trinkets and you will see growth at a much later date in cars and homes and tv...

We need balance....

And what we need even more than balance is confidence...confidence in our leadership to get things done in a timely manner...confidence that we know what tax rates we are going to see...confidence that the Affordable Healthcare Act isn't going to cost more in the long run...

The consumer and business is not going to spend **** until they know what is coming...and right now no one has a clue...

[Midtowner]

So by that logic, we should double payments to our liberal friends (welfare and foodstampers) and the economy would boom!

Nah, I think the study takes into account our current status. I'm sure the benefit there would taper off at some point, but if you haven't read the study I just linked to, you're really not in a good position to critique it.


You're so unbelievably ignorant on this subject. Everyone here knows that massive cuts will hurt short term...however, status quo will kill us long term.

RLIMC obviously doesn't know that. He denied it directly. Lots of other folks on here have displayed a pretty shocking level of ignorance on subjects like basic biology and simple macroeconomic theory, so no, it's not a very safe assumption that anyone understands any of this.

I agree, the status quo is no way to go. I'm saying that growth is always the better option when compared to recession, and with recession inevitably comes lower revenue, so let's say you slash FY2013 back to equilibrium spending, that's $1.1 trillion taken out of the economy. That's $1.1 trillion fewer dollars for wages, benefits, guns and butter all around. FY2013's economy will contract dramatically resulting in dramatically lower 2013 revenue and the worst part is, in FY2013, where you thought you were going to be spending at equilibrium, you ran another massive deficit.

That's why none but some of the Tea Party kooks are talking about immediate massive cuts. Anyone who went to college and paid attention in macro class knows this.

[pphilfran]

So by that logic, we should double payments to our liberal friends (welfare and foodstampers) and the economy would boom!

You're so unbelievably ignorant on this subject. Everyone here knows that massive cuts will hurt short term...however, status quo will kill us long term.

I disagree...he is not ignorant on the subject...the problem is the balance between spending on welfare and the tax rates on the rich...somewhere in there is a happy medium...I do think he wants more on the bottom end then is reasonable but then again he may be right in his assumptions...

Whatever the case...the deficit is not our primary problem....the debt is not our primary problem...an economy growing at 2-3% a year is the problem and if we don't get this resolved all the tax increases and spending cuts won't solve our deficit and debt problems...

[pphilfran]

Nah, I think the study takes into account our current status. I'm sure the benefit there would taper off at some point, but if you haven't read the study I just linked to, you're really not in a good position to critique it.



RLIMC obviously doesn't know that. He denied it directly. Lots of other folks on here have displayed a pretty shocking level of ignorance on subjects like basic biology and simple macroeconomic theory, so no, it's not a very safe assumption that anyone understands any of this.

I agree, the status quo is no way to go. I'm saying that growth is always the better option when compared to recession, and with recession inevitably comes lower revenue, so let's say you slash FY2013 back to equilibrium spending, that's $1.1 trillion taken out of the economy. That's $1.1 trillion fewer dollars for wages, benefits, guns and butter all around. FY2013's economy will contract dramatically resulting in dramatically lower 2013 revenue and the worst part is, in FY2013, where you thought you were going to be spending at equilibrium, you ran another massive deficit.

That's why none but some of the Tea Party kooks are talking about immediate massive cuts. Anyone who went to college and paid attention in macro class knows this.

I can't imagine taking out a half trillion a year much less a trillion....

With the stumbling world economy any cuts in spending are too much...

I would damn sure be shutting down our overseas war machine and bring em home and spend money on them here instead of Europe or Asia...

[Midtowner]

Don't bring up Chrysler...we bailed them out so they could be sold to Fiat...Fiat now has a entire dealer network instead of having to build from scratch...it was a bonehead move to sell them to Fiat...

Not really a horrible deal and it still saved thousands of jobs. I'll agree it wasn't as good a result as GM, but it beat Chapter 11.


As far as Solyndra....the government shouldn't be in the business of picking out individual companies to fund...they don't have the expertise to be venture capitalist...there may have been a company out there in the very beginning stages with a far superior product but since Solyndra got the loan the other start up was unable to compete due to the low cost loans...you want to grow a sector you give tax breaks to start ups in that sector...

Well no one can compete with the Chinese firms because we allow them to compete toe-to-toe unimpeded while their government subsidizes them until every other firm in the world goes belly up trying to compete. Free trade with China is something which needs to be looked at as far as growth is concerned.


As far as welfare you can't overload the bottom end and expect quick results...it will be slow, slow, slow...those welfare people are not going to buy cars, a high end tv, or a home...they will buy groceries and trinkets...sell enough groceries and trinkets and you will see growth at a much later date in cars and homes and tv...

We need balance....

The point wasn't that we need to massively increase welfare benefits, but that we need to look at federal spending and focus it in areas which will grow the economy more. I'm unconvinced that military bases in Japan or Guam or submarine programs which haven't really been relevant since the fall of the Soviet Union are really the best way to accomplish that.

[pphilfran]

Chrysler did file for BK when lenders refused to lower the balance owed...they then went looking for a buyer and found Fiat and they then backed out of the filing...GM filed and they seemed to have survived...

I would have given Chrysler to an US operating team before I sold them to Fiat...all we did was give Fiat a major stake in the US market to complete immediately with Ford and GM...

I agree with the China trade problem...

I see your point on welfare and generally agree...just don't want to go overboard....

[Midtowner]

One place I think we ought to cut spending real quick is U.S. foreign aid. We spend 1.5% of our budget on propping up kings and dictators and crooked governments in third world countries. What benefit have we received from the nearly 2 billion in economic aid paid to Pakistan last year? Keeping the supply lines open to support our war in Afghanistan where we are accomplishing exactly what?

But even cutting the spending on the Afghan war is going to cause massive layoffs in the defense industry.

[pphilfran]

One place I think we ought to cut spending real quick is U.S. foreign aid. We spend 1.5% of our budget on propping up kings and dictators and crooked governments in third world countries. What benefit have we received from the nearly 2 billion in economic aid paid to Pakistan last year? Keeping the supply lines open to support our war in Afghanistan where we are accomplishing exactly what?

But even cutting the spending on the Afghan war is going to cause massive layoffs in the defense industry.

That is damn sure a problem...

We have to go slow...bring em home and continue to supply them here...won't save a lot of money but it would be stimulus here instead of overseas...

Focus on the economy, get it up and moving, and both spending and revenue will benefit...

Freeze spending at current levels and let inflation slowly reduce the deficit...doing this will put the pressure on each organization on how to become more efficient...

[Midtowner]

Gawd you are such a Communist and Marxist.

[soonercruiser]

No! The Communists and Marxists are growing their military to conquer other countries!
"World Domination"!

Was that Ron Paul, pos(t)ing as Phil?

[nutinbutdust]

One place I think we ought to cut spending real quick is U.S. foreign aid. We spend 1.5% of our budget on propping up kings and dictators and crooked governments in third world countries. What benefit have we received from the nearly 2 billion in economic aid paid to Pakistan last year? Keeping the supply lines open to support our war in Afghanistan where we are accomplishing exactly what?

But even cutting the spending on the Afghan war is going to cause massive layoffs in the defense industry.

I really think we should cut off aid to Afganistan. This made me wonder why we give em any economic aid. I usually dont frequent NPR, but ran across this gem today In Pakistan, Tax Evaders Are Everywhere — Government Included (http://www.npr.org/2012/12/19/167631856/in-pakistan-tax-evaders-are-everywhere-government-included?sc=emaf)

Tax evasion is a chronic problem in Pakistan — only about 2 percent of the population is registered in the tax system, and the government collects just 9 percent of the country's wealth in taxes, one of the lowest rates in the world.

But now a new investigative report is making headlines. It says that just a third of the country's 446 federal lawmakers bothered to file income tax returns last year.

"Tax evasion is a social norm in Pakistan," says Umar Cheema, a reporter for the Pakistani English-language newspaper The News, and a founder of the Center for Investigative Reporting in Pakistan, whose first project is this report. "They are tax evaders. They are tax dodgers. And those who are paying some amount, it doesn't match with their living style. They live like [a] prince, and they pay like a poor man."

One of those who reportedly skipped filing was Pakistan's president, Asif Ali Zardari.

Zardari's spokesman has said the president did pay taxes last year, though he has yet to provide public proof of doing so. Cheema says he learned about Zardari and the other politicians with old-fashioned gumshoe reporting and a combination of publicly available data and questionnaires he sent to lawmakers.

Officials inside the tax bureau quietly passed along information as well.

Cheema's report doesn't take into account the taxes politicians pay on their parliamentary salaries; those taxes are automatically deducted from their paychecks.

The report focuses instead on supplementary income — what lawmakers make on their properties and businesses outside their parliamentary duties, many of which they do not declare.

The report's findings made banner headlines in all the major Pakistani newspapers last week.

Naseer Rajput was shopping at a local market in Islamabad and said he was outraged.

"A poor man pays all his taxes, and those who get elected to become our rulers evade taxes. But they expect their people to pay?" Rajput says.

Mohammed Farooq, 40, agrees. He says he pays his taxes, and so should leaders.

"I have been a taxpayer since 1992 and submit my returns regularly, and pay taxes regularly," Farooq says.

Hundreds of thousands of people have made money illegally, and the tax authorities never question them, he says. They don't ask how they got their luxury vehicles or how they got their big houses — and maybe they should, he adds.

This is the kind of discussion Cheema was hoping to inspire.

"It has put on alert the people in Pakistan and abroad, and people realize in Pakistan who they are voting for," Cheema says.

Cheema says the tax payments for those who did file on their supplementary incomes are laughably small.

Last year, Mushahid Hussain Sayed, a member of the Senate, paid just 82 rupees — a little less than $1 — in taxes, the report says.

In an email to Reuters, Sayed disputed the report, saying he actually had paid $6.

Cheema says that taxes are more than just money.

"This tax payment is something that establishes your relationship with the state, and when you don't pay your taxes, your relationship with the state ceases to exist," Cheema says.

Cheema plans to revisit the issue in the spring, when the Pakistani election is likely to be called. He hopes to make taxes a campaign issue.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You are clueless! What has hurt the economy is the collapse of the home building market, current lack of consumer demand, world wide recessions, and access to credit (business). If you think for one moment that cutting the government by a quarter would help the economy right now then you are ought of your f**ing mind.

Like phil said we need to focus on jobs and growing the economy. If you were to say Obama has not done enough on that front then I would agree with you.When the socialists understand and want market economics(citizens in control of the economy, not the government), we will all be better off. The govt. doesn't have and doesn't deserve the confidence of the people to run the economy. It's always been that way(human nature), but you guys won't accept it. We are in a world of hurt here in the USA. We have lead the world into prosperity in the past, but are unprepared to do so any more. We've gone nannystate, and things are going south fast.

[Midtowner]

When the socialists understand and want market economics(citizens in control of the economy, not the government), we will all be better off. The govt. doesn't have and doesn't deserve the confidence of the people to run the economy. It's always been that way(human nature), but you guys won't accept it. We are in a world of hurt here in the USA. We have lead the world into prosperity in the past, but are unprepared to do so any more. We've gone nannystate, and things are going south fast.

No, you just have no clue what you're talking about. :)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No, you just have no clue what you're talking about. :)You are lying out your ***, and you know it, but I will admit you're seemingly tireless, even though you are talking socialism as a means to control the people and bring down the economy:hopelessness:. I will let you have the last word, so sum it up, Vladimir.

[Midtowner]

Just go back and read the conversation between pphil and myself and you will hopefully understand why massive cuts would send us into an immediate depression and probably not do anything to help pay down the debt or slow down its growth.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Just go back and read the conversation between pphil and myself and you will hopefully understand why massive cuts would send us into an immediate depression and probably not do anything to help pay down the debt or slow down its growth.oh stop it. you have conjured up some "massive cuts" in your mind, and acting as though I recommended whatever it is you have in mind. I have not been talking about paying down the debt, either. Rather, allowing the economy to grow. Well, I said you would have the last word, and i really did expect some more lies or erroneous statements, but that is the purpose of this thread anyway, to point that out.

[Midtowner]

oh stop it. you have conjured up some "massive cuts" in your mind, and acting as though I recommended whatever it is you have in mind. I have not been talking about paying down the debt, either. Rather, allowing the economy to grow. Well, I said you would have the last word, and i really did expect some more lies or erroneous statements, but that is the purpose of this thread anyway, to point that out.

You said:


Social spending is what buys Him votes, and helps to bring down the economy. Beary isn't about to abandon His plans.

I said:


You can't cut spending without hurting the economy. If you wanted to cut government back to equilibrium spending, we'd be in a serious depression.

Cuts have to be made in such a way that the economy grows through them. Cutting while we're not growing simply guarantees the economy will regress.

Then you said:


haha. I get it....

giving you the benefit of a doubt on your joke, there.

Then I said...


And we have a lot of morons in Congress who apparently never took macroeconomics, or took them at religious schools where they studied equations like "Prayer=more jobs."

Give the Tea Party the reigns and they would single handedly pilot us in to the worst depression in history. Imagine the effect of $1.1 trillion suddenly removed from the economy, safety nets cut and jobs lost. That's the sort of trifecta which leads to People's Armies and that sort of thing.

Then you said....


excessive govt. jobs and welfare beyond a reasonable safety net are what damage the econonmy, but I'm sure you know that, and choose to incessantly lie about it, for some negative reason that somehow motivates you. The govt. is supposed to work for the people of the USA, instead of back-assward, as you want it to be.

At no time did you suggest that "massive cuts" was not what you were suggesting. You want to cut welfare and spending by a huge amount and at no time until now, when your *** has been handed to you, do you deny it. You're welcome for the lesson in economics. It's always fun when I can get you little robots to change your tune through a little education :)

[yermom]

so what is a reasonable safety net?