Finally back!

[BlackSmoke]

Re: Finally back!

Did NOSLEEP just call me a dead horse? <br /><br />SCO, Are you trying to change the subject?

 

[plywoody]

Re: Finally back!

Reagan decreased taxes, and the deficit went up to unprecedented levels. He also increased taxes late in his term.<br />Clinton inherited a budget that was hopelessly out of balance, with Republicans clamoring for a balanced budget amendment (would that they would do that now!) raised some selective taxes, had the economy boom, nad reversed the deficits to surpluses in just a few short years.<br /><br />With W, in a few short months, we have lost 2 million jobs, independent economists predict in the next 6 months we will lose another half million jobs, and we have a budget escalating out of control with deficits.<br />Reagans economic situation was fundamentally different from the one we are in today. In Reagan's time, we had double digit interest rates, to control inflation, and money for investment was tight and difficult to get. Tax cuts for businesses and yes even the wealthy made some sense, to spur investment. Nowadays, we have a fundamental overcapacity problem, where the problem is not lack of investment, but lack of consumption. It is fundamentally different than what Reagan faced.<br />Interest rates are at all time lows, and even corporate junk bonds are going at like 6%. If a business needs money to expand, and has a decent business plan, it is available and cheap. No one will invest anything that has less than a 6% ROI ever. Capital money is not the problem, and a tax cut for the rich won't help anything at all. What we need is a significant tax cut for the middle class to spur consumption and utilizing unused capacity.<br />The problem is the middle class did not spend mega bucks getting Bush elected, so they are being left out...<br />And this is not class warfare. It is economic reality.

 

[plywoody]

Re: Finally back!

My only response to the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction 15 years ago or so and used them on the Kurds is that there was absolutely no excuse for us not knowing he had these weapons, as Rumsfeld and the Reagan government supplied them to him to use on the Iranians. If we did not want him to have them, chances are it would be a good idea to not supply them to him in the first place.<br /><br />As far as what he did 10 years ago in Kuwait, we pushed him out of Kuwait and decimated his armed forces, in addition to establishing sanctions and a no fly zone that effectively precluded him from rebuilding his military. He was not, in 2003, an imminent threat to any neighboring country, let alone the USA, and there was absolutely no need to rush to war. Period.<br /><br />Dictators tend to be very reactive to potential threats inside their country, and tend to deal with them ruthlessly. Sad to say, it is the way the world works. If we decide that we need to go after all who behave this way, our military is going to be very busy.

 

[plywoody]

Re: Finally back!

And as far as being a minority view, so be it if true. I was in the minority against the Viet Nam war as well, and that ultimately turned around. Being in the minority is no reason to be silent.

 

[ebbtide176]

Re: Finally back!

you tha man PW! and BS as well <br /><br />i think i'm homing in on you guys. i don't mean this is a bad way, just trying to understand why people think the way they do. i did same with skinny. but he put his cards on the table right out front.<br /><br />now i think there is still a way to grow up, understand why there is such a chasm betwixt the 2 powerhouses that control this country! kewl beans.<br /><br />first & foremost, it has to do with pride. once you feel connected to a view, you have a hard time acknowledging peer views.<br /><br />your diatribe seems to come directly from the mouth of those on a slant of reality. not of concern, but of criticism, with concrete rules. like a solidity of a certain party of politics.<br /><br />i hope you will spend as much time studying other point-of-views with as much enthusiasm... not only dwelling on certain partylines. <br /><br />you should know, that for every rationalization you make against a ruling party, there are many others who believed in it to make it come to lead us.

 

[ebbtide176]

Re: Finally back!

BS - i thought i should make mention of a post of yours...<br /><br />you axed SCO if he was trying to change the subject (earlier)<br /><br />i guess you were kidding, since there was no subject to this forum, other than PW coming back.<br /><br />have you guys replied to my forum on "time vs money"? i hope you do<br /><br />since this has become a political free-for-all, (a talent of PW),<br />i'd like to go off on my own tangent:<br /><br />if there happened to be a federal draft, that meant you & plywoody had to fight for USofA in a 3rd world country, against your better thoughts - no matter the physical condition, retired, handicapped, etc... and YOU absolutely were listed as draftees - would you go & shoot/maim/kill whoever UncleSam said we were supposed to be killing?

 

[NathanY]

Re: Finally back!

Just wanted to jump in here and say welcome back, and even though I very, very rarely agree with you it is good to have you back. I guess diversity is good.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: Finally back!

rudeafrican wrote;<br />"As an outsider, allow me to point out an inacuracy in you train of thought"<br />I have recently returned from an extensive business trip abroad and believe me, where-ever I went the sentiment is very much against the war."<br /><br />I was speaking of domestic support of our President and the war. The Presidents approval rating remain high. Support for the war in Iraq remains high and the need to find WMD's doesn't seem to effect this support.<br /><br />Blacksmoke wrote; <br />"The point is not that Iraq had them 10 years ago, the point is it didn't appear to have had them when Dubya and Powell argued it did as justification for a military invasion."<br /><br />Would the discovery of WMD's tomorrow reverse your disapproval?<br />At this point it doesn't matter to me. The killing fields of Saddam are being unearthed. Another evil dictator is down for the count. No more innocent bodys dismembered or tortured by his hands.<br />We've demonstrated our humanity again. And will continue to do so.<br />I'm sorry you didn't get that point. <br /><br /> plywoody wrote;<br />"Being in the minority is no reason to be silent."<br /><br />Absolutely not! Hoop and holler and be proud.<br />However, crying foul when the majority drowns you out is foolish. The Dixie Chicks, the Hollywood fools and you are doing just that! <br /><br />Anyway..... I'm gladly surrendering any debate points I may have gotten, over to you. <br />This is the very least I can do for such an objective thinker as yourself......<br />Again, welcome back. <br /><br />ebb wrote;<br />"i hope you will spend as much time studying other point-of-views with as much enthusiasm... not only dwelling on certain partylines."<br /><br />No ebb, you da man.

 

[muskyone]

Re: Finally back!

welcome back plywoody you make it interesting here it was kinnda sleepy without but i agree with skinny

 

[SCO]

Re: Finally back!

Hey, and I thought the analogy was good! Maybe it is simplistic, but is hard to understand the wildly divergent views we hold here. I can understand the Plywood and Blacksmoke points of view from a perspective of strength. At this point in time though, we have a vulnerability gap that must be closed, and we cant afford the luxury of inaction or delay.

 

[BlackSmoke]

Re: Finally back!

ebb, Good guess, but I just didn't get SCO's analogy. Would I kill if I truly thought it was wrong? No.<br /><br />skinny, Yes, discovery of WMDs would affect my opinion significantly. And, I did get the point that ridding Iraq of Saddam's barbarism was a good thing. My concern is the apparent deception being practiced by Dubya and his posse. It makes me suspicious of their motives.<br /><br />"...crying foul when the majority drowns you out is foolish..." Huh? So, you must believe the majority is always right and above question.

 

[SCO]

Re: Finally back!

Blacksmoke,<br />the gunman is Saddam<br />the gang is Alqueda<br />the family is all of us<br />and you are in President Bush's shoes<br /><br />Do you risk the USA for the likes of Saddam

 

[BlackSmoke]

Re: Finally back!

SCO, OK, now I get it, but I think the analogy is not quite right. Try this...<br /><br />The gunman is only armed with a pea shooter because he used the rest of his weapons to kill his own family.<br />The gunman lives in a glass house.<br />It's illegal for me to act against the gunman alone.<br />The gunman is not part of the gang, but I know the gang will exact revenge on my family if I take out the gunman.<br /><br />Here's what I do if I'm in Dubya's shoes - I definitely do not risk my family for this gunman, because he poses no threat. I go after the gang.

 

[NOSLEEP]

Re: Finally back!

BlackSmoke.<br />The gangs at Saddams house.

 

[mellowyellow]

Re: Finally back!

nobody does it better long view! LOL<br />this crud is really very simple to me...<br />the thing that makes you the safest at any given<br />minute ain't necc. the "right" thing to do.<br />sometimes it smarter to take the first swing, but<br />some feel it's wrong to swing first, EVER!<br />this can/will result in a serious A$$ beatin'<br />eventually IMHO. (WTC)<br />if'n you wanna change yur results, gotta change<br />yur methods.<br />M.Y.

 

[SCO]

Re: Finally back!

Ah Blacksmoke, we don't know if the gun is loaded or not, but it's a gun, not a peashooter. The gang is doing their darndest to get us anyway, and the groupies are not feeling so brave now that we have squared off with the gang. I see that your concern is the backlash and that's valid. My concern is that we do too little too late to avert the storm that is brewing over there. Some may think that it is we who are the objectional ones though they have no economy without the west's oil consumption. I think it they that are unreasonable and objectional war mongers. I heard today that the Saudis have been funding alqueda based organizations even after we informed them<br /> where the money was going(in case they didn't know). Maybe its an appeasment payoff, maybe they are sincere enemies. Time to clean up over there, and the resolve the Pres. has demonstrated is going to be required to be effective in my view.<br />Also, illegal? That arguement is like not running a red light because it is illegal with a runaway truck bearing down on you. Illegal as defined by who? The president is duty bound to defend the United States. If Saddam didnt have a loaded gun, he shouldn't have been obstructing and violating his ceasefire agreement from the gulf war.