Is Mr. Bush right? Can we spend to defeat terrah, spend up national defence, spend up internal security, cut taxes AND have a car in every garrage?
Are we going to attack the "Axis of Evil" any time soon?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Well, we HAVE to spend on defense. That's one of the few legitimate jobs of any government. Cutting taxes has been known to lead in increased tax revenues during hard economic times, so no problem there, necessarily. But cutting pork spending would definitely help, too.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Oh, I think government has several more legitimate jobs than just military spending.
Lopsided as Mr. Bush's tax gift to the certain segments of the population was, I have my doubts about the veracity of your supply side non-arguement.
[ January 29, 2002, 21:32: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by The Antagonist (Member # 484) on :
Yes, and quite a few illegitimate jobs, all of which have a certain amount of government allocated plausible deniability attached.
But in anycase, it wasn't the speech made my Lil' Bush that impressed me, it was the speech made afterward by the House of Congress minority leader (and damn me for forgetting his name at the moment) who spoke of congress attempting to solve the campaign-funding issue of big corporations that influence elected administrations with the corporation's interests in mind.
How, if at all can this be accomplished? This problem alone has sort of upset democracy by turning it into a carefully orchestrated puppet show, controlled by whomever has the most money to throw around. This includes foreign backers, and with enough money, foreign countries could (and probably already have) altered governmental policy in favor of themselves.
This thought alone actually frightens me, to think that decisions such as who will be the next president (ultimately decided by the electoral college) can be changed by House members under the payroll of some fake business that we've barely heard of that's actually a front for another country.
Call me paranoid... Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I believe Dick Gephardt, the House Minority leader gave the rebuttal.
Posted by The Antagonist (Member # 484) on :
Ahh, yes. I believe that was his name. Thanks, Jay.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
I watched 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels' instead, hey wait a minute, maybe we did watch the same thing.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
congress attempting to solve the campaign-funding issue of big corporations that influence elected administrations with the corporation's interests in mind.
No solution necessary. Just elect an administration that has some character. Based on the fact that Bush refused to help Enron, even though it may have been his friends that were in trouble, I'd say we have one.
You can't legislate morality. But you can elect it. Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
I remember Gephart used a line from President Bartlett's State of the Union on The West Wing. Talking about terrorism, he started the sentance with, "We say with one voice..." That's what Bartlett said in an ep a couple weeks ago when talking about terrorism.
Ok...so it's not like he copied a paragraph or anything...I just thought it was humorous. At least as humorous as the fact that I remember what Bartlett said in his fictional State of the Union address...
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Given Aaron Sorkin's tendency to draw inspiration for Bartlett from other American Presidents, I wouldn't bet so much that Gephardt is 'borrowing' from The West Wing as he is from Bush, or Reagan, or, actually, that sounds sort of Kennedyish.
Posted by Aban Rune (Member # 226) on :
True. It could be a borrow from a borrow...or something like that.
Posted by The Antagonist (Member # 484) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: No solution necessary. Just elect an administration that has some character. Based on the fact that Bush refused to help Enron, even though it may have been his friends that were in trouble, I'd say we have one.
You can't legislate morality. But you can elect it.
This is true, but how can we be sure completely that President Dubya Bush didn't count on the collapse of Enron, and that his administration isn't acting out of morality but rather a sense of self-preservation?
While I agree that you cannot legislate morality, you can help to legislate against immorality.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
No Antagonist, Mr. Bush has character because he and his cohorts helped deregulate the industry for Enron so that Mr. Bush's friends at Enron could defraud it's workers and investors.
That takes real character.
Posted by The Antagonist (Member # 484) on :
Character? Or interest? How can we say for certain? I am not arguing the point necessarily because of belief in my point, I just want to bring to light an alternative.
Getting back to the original topic, however... I found his speech rather dull. It had alot of good issues but I think that the President's speechwriter needs to be kicked and told to use inspiring words sparringly and critical moments. Its like pepper on your eggs. If you use it all the time it gets boring. If you use it now and then its perfection at the right moments.
Posted by Lost (Member # 417) on :
I caught bits and pieces on the radio the next am.... along with the commentary by 'experts'. It seemed dull, so I was better off working....
Didn't the Pres in "Independance Day" us those words also???? Just before they took off??
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
how can we be sure completely that President Dubya Bush didn't count on the collapse of Enron, and that his administration isn't acting out of morality but rather a sense of self-preservation?
What point are you trying to make, here?
Mr. Bush has character because he and his cohorts helped deregulate the industry for Enron so that Mr. Bush's friends at Enron could defraud it's workers and investors.
Oh, so Bush MADE Enron colapse, now. That's a new one.
Evidence?
You're missing the fact that the company would have gone under with or without regulation. The employees would likely still have lost their retirement funds.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
But, Omega dear chum, WITH regulation, the employees would've known Enron was about to go under and might've been able to get out with some of their savings in time.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Oh, yes, everyone scrambling to sell their stock at the same time would have been MUCH better.
The problem here is that the people running the company screwed up, and possibly broke the law in the process of trying to save their own investments. No law could have prevented the company from going under, and no law could have prevented it from taking the employees' retirement funds with it. Except, of course, a government subsidy, which invariably does more harm than good. Which is why Bush refused to do it.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
I'll agree with Omega for the moment.
Personally, the only issue at stake between Bush and Enron is if the execs at Enron had unlawful influence over the new energy policy. The fall of Enron itself is simply an independant matter, and should be prosecuted separately. Unless an actual solid link can be pointed out which is not likely to be refuted.
That being said, Bush and Cheney should divulge records regarding campaign contributions from Enron. Such records are available here in Canada under the Freedom of Information Act.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
That, I'll agree with. Every dollar that a cantidate receives and spends should be accounted for in public.
Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :
And what if they adamantly refuse to do so? Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:You're missing the fact that the company would have gone under with or without regulation.
Really?
Evidence?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
And what I wrote Omega, I'll write it again since you didn't read it, was this:
quote:Mr. Bush...and his cohorts helped deregulate the industry
So I'm not sure what orifice on your body you pulld this from,
quote:Oh, so Bush MADE Enron colapse, now. That's a new one.
but I can guess.
Accoding to a New York Times article:
quote:Mr. Lay and other Enron officials interviewed several candidates to fill vacancies on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which regulates Enron's main markets. Mr. Bush selected two people for the panel who were favored by Enron and some other energy companies.
quote: Enron and Kenny Boy bought your [Mr. Bush] silence and the silence of your cabinet members. You yourself didn't have to actually raid the 401(k) accounts of those poor people in Houston (many of whom probably voted for you every time your name was on a ballot). All you had to do was remain silent, change the government regulations that let them get away with it, and install their hand-picked cronies to sit on the "oversight" boards which were supposed to be keeping an eye on them.
---
The saddest part of this whole affair was the day the scandal was revealed -- and you denied that you even knew your good friend, Kenneth Lay. "Ken who?" you said. Oh, he's just some businessman from Texas. "Heck, he backed my opponent for governor, Ann Richards!" was your way of trying to deflect the truth that was hitting you like a Mack truck. You knew that he, in fact, endorsed YOU and gave you THREE times the money Ann Richards ever saw from him.
I hardly ever talk to the guy, you said. You were like Peter outside the walls of Herod after they grabbed J.C. from the Garden of Gethsemane. Three times he denied he knew Jesus, and three times the cock crowed. But Peter, unlike you, felt shame and wept, and then ran away.
This from the man who was "going to restore dignity to the White House, the people's house."
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
All this negativity...I suspect there are Axis of Evil agents participating in this very thread!
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
What, just cause I said "orifice?" Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Or because you quoted Michael Moore, who I wouldn't have described as evil, so much as a big fat arse.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I agree with Liam again.
That's twice in one day. This has to stop. The line must be drawn, here!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)