posted
1980s tax cuts and deregulation, combined with Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker's inflation-curbing money controls, unleashed American enterprise and boosted national production 30% with a 20% rise in per capita income.
Between 1982 and 1989 the economy grew at an average annual rate of 4.2 percent.
If you look at the 1980's, families increased their income by 11 percent, or $4,100. That was the increase in median family income during the 1980's.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Veers: Maybe if Bush hadn't stressed the WMD claim OVER AND OVER AGAIN until it's imbedded in our conciousness, and then when we went in, it's suddenly about liberation and the WMDS don't matter. What would I have had him do differently? I don't know, maybe stressed Saddam's reign of terror before the war instead of WMDs.
Actually, the liberation angle was stressed "OVER AND OVER AGAIN" as well. Weren't you paying attention to the actual speeches? Or were you just hearing the endless media soundbites (because "liberating the Iraqi people" doesn't sell papers and commercial spotslike "imminent threat of annihilation" does?)
Remember, just because the media (liberal or otherwise) pounds something into your skull doesn't make it accurate.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
If I remember correctly, there was four or five terrorist bombings that occured overseas during the Clinton administration. After each, he proceeded to expound upon how the U.S. would hunt down those responsible and bring them to justice. That never occured. After 9-11 Bush said that we would hunt down those responsible and the majority favored that action. Now that we are doing that, and its taking more than 15 minutes and a push of a button or two, the ADD American people are crying about it.
As for the UN.... it is a WORTHLESS organization. People talk about how the US congress is riddled with politics and partisanship. UN action is like putting an MS patient in the ring with Mike Tyson. You know what REAL effect is going to be achieved before it even begins. Plus, I don't trust my future to be "guided" or decided by a consortium of cultures and nations that have no stake in my betterment and plenty of philosophical/political/religious reasons to wish my demise. The UN, rather than pulling other cultures up, would rather LOWER western cultures to create an "Even Playing Field".
Working to the lowest common denominator is defeatest. We should be seeking the Greatest Common Multiple.
-------------------- I am the Anti-Abaddon. I build models at a scale of 2500/1
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
quote:Actually, the liberation angle was stressed "OVER AND OVER AGAIN" as well.
Yeah, once we couldn't find any WMD.
Bush's little vendetta suddenly became about a bunch of different things, none of which threatened the national security of the United States.
Oh, but Jay, the Iraqi people were oppressed and we needed to help them.
As a liberal, I agree with that. But I'd also point out that we don�t have a foreign policy of humanitarian intervention, if we did, we wouldn�t stop at Iraq. Heck, Iraq might not have even been on the top of the list...North Korea anyone?? Rather we have a foreign policy of self interest, economic and otherwise.
And despite the argument offered by the second article David posted, motivations matter. There is no way Bush could have rallied support for his war by saying it was to free the oppressed Iraqi people, so he flat out fabricated a story about Saddam�s WMD being aimed out our proverbial hearts, making Saddam a threat to our self interest.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes, it's very sad when we cant rally any support to free a country victimized by it's leader but that we'll leap to war if there's a chance in hell they're a threat to us personally.
Because hey, it's not our problem untill they have WMD, right?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Admittedly, it might not have been the tax cuts directly, human endeavours are difficult to trace back to a single ultimate cause. Still, do you have a better explanation for the eighties economy?
Also, I'd like to address your statement about the tax cuts being directed at the rich. Where else would you have them be directed? The rich pay nearly all the taxes in this country. You can't give the poor tax cuts because they're not paying taxes to begin with. Further, why would it be bad to take less income from the rich? What do they do with their money that you find so objectionable?
Rob: Actually, the liberation angle was stressed "OVER AND OVER AGAIN" as well.
Jay: Yeah, once we couldn't find any WMD. Then Bush's little vendetta became about a bunch of different things, none of which threatened the national security of the United States.
You know, we keep going back and forth on this one. Rob says that Bush always had many reasons for invading Iraq, Jay says those only came up after WMDs weren't found, Rob says nuh-uh, Jay says yuh-huh, repeat ad nauseum. Does anyone actually know where we can find transscripts of the Bush administration's statements on the issue from before we invaded? 'Cause that's the only way further discussion on the point can serve any purpose.
I'd also point out that we don�t have a foreign policy of humanitarian intervention, if we did, we wouldn�t stop at Iraq.
Who says we don't under this administration, and who says we've stopped?
Heck, Iraq might not have even been on the top of the list...North Korea anyone??
The situation in North Korea is hardly analogous. First, there's still some chance of a diplomatic solution. Second, they have nukes, and missiles that can hit densely populated cities. Shoot, even without the nukes the missiles are bad enough. Even if diplomacy fails, it'd be in everyone's best interest to put that war off as long as possible, because the longer we wait the closer we are to having working theatre missile defense. Third, North Korea is an isolated country. Replacing its government will keep it from attacking its neighbors, and help its people, just like Iraq. Iraq becoming a stable democracy will do all those things, but it will also become an example to all the countries around it that there's a better way to do things. Further, once the job's done and we pull out, it will likely help prove our good intentions to many more in the middle east. Basically, North Korea is isolated, what happens there doesn't change anything elsewhere. Iraq can change its whole region.
he flat out fabricated a story about Saddam�s WMD being aimed out our proverbial hearts
At least point out that this is your opinion. You have no evidence that Bush lied. We did in fact have very good intelligence stating that Iraq had biological and chemical weapons.
Yes, it's very sad when we cant rally any support to free a country victimized by it's leader but that we'll leap to war if there's a chance in hell they're a threat to us personally.
Amen to that. I hate war, war sucks. But sometimes it's better than the alternative. What's the use of having the most powerful military and economy anyone's ever seen if you don't do some good with it all?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The thing is: no matter how much we debate, the conservatives will never convince the liberals that the war was just, and the liberals will never convince the conservatives that the war was right all along.
BTW, didn't the first acknowledgement that the war started go like this (from Ari Fleischer): "the first stages of the disarmament of Iraq have begun." Why not say "liberation?" Because it wouldn't play well with the world?
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"The rich pay nearly all the taxes in this country."
Do they? The rich comprise only 1% of the population, yet control 45% of all wealth in the US. Numbers, please.
In any case, taxes SHOULD be distributed such that the rich pay more than the poor.
"You can't give the poor tax cuts because they're not paying taxes to begin with. Further, why would it be bad to take less income from the rich? What do they do with their money that you find so objectionable?"
Something tells me you're not going to embrace the POV of a socialist or of anyone leaning less to the right than you do, so I'll just save both of us the time and trouble and skip this point.
"Who says we don't under this administration, and who says we've stopped?"
The list of candidates for humanitarian intervention hasn't been shortened much since Bush took office:
Iran Chile North Korea Guatemala Laos Liberia Cambodia Angola El Salvador Libya Bolivia Colombia Venezuela Zimbabwe
Combating terrorism != a foreign policy of humanitarian intervention. If Bush is really so anxious to clean up after himself and showcase his devotion to the welfare of others, he's still got his work cut out for him. That is, assuming he even wins a second term.
Besides, how many more wars do you think your "powerful" economy can sustain, anyway?
"First, there's still some chance of a diplomatic solution. Second, they have nukes, and missiles that can hit densely populated cities. Shoot, even without the nukes the missiles are bad enough. Even if diplomacy fails, it'd be in everyone's best interest to put that war off as long as possible, because the longer we wait the closer we are to having working theatre missile defense. Third, North Korea is an isolated country. Replacing its government will keep it from attacking its neighbors, and help its people, just like Iraq. Iraq becoming a stable democracy will do all those things, but it will also become an example to all the countries around it that there's a better way to do things. Further, once the job's done and we pull out, it will likely help prove our good intentions to many more in the middle east. Basically, North Korea is isolated, what happens there doesn't change anything elsewhere. Iraq can change its whole region."
1) "Some" as in "less than there was for Saddam & Co to leave Iraq before Bush's ultimatum expired". 2) Saddam allegedly had missiles aimed at every city in Israel, but that didn't stop you from mopping HIS floor. 3) Yes, aka WMDs. You know, it's ironic. Iraq didn't have nukes, but somehow was a grave threat to the US. North Korea actually HAS them, but isn't. Also, the longer you wait, the more innocent victims, which was your argument for invading Iraq. Why doesn't it apply here? 4) So because the country is isolated and not a great demonstrator for The American Way�, its people can rot away indefinitely? 5) By the way, North Korea borders on China. If there is ONE region in the world where proving your intentions might be beneficial, it's THAT one.
"...and the liberals will never convince the conservatives that the war was right all along."
"Also, I'd like to address your statement about the tax cuts being directed at the rich. Where else would you have them be directed?"
Who said we needed tax cuts in the first place?
"The rich pay nearly all the taxes in this country. You can't give the poor tax cuts because they're not paying taxes to begin with."
Which is how it should be. Tax money has to come from somewhere. Shouldn't it come from the people who have money, rather than those who don't?
"Further, why would it be bad to take less income from the rich?"
Because, if you take less money from the rich, there are only two things that can happen. Either the governemt will have less money, or they'll have to take more money from the poor. And neither of those situations is good.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Does anyone actually know where we can find transscripts of the Bush administration's statements on the issue from before we invaded? 'Cause that's the only way further discussion on the point can serve any purpose.
I can tell you pretty much from memory Mr. Bush's stated reasons for invasion were because Hussein was an immediate threat to the National Security of the United States...not for any humanitarian reason.
quote:Who says we don't under this administration, and who says we've stopped?
Um, I do. And I did. Any such humanitarian intervention is Iraq is a side-affect of the real Get Saddam� policy. In fact, a more cynical person than I might imagine something like the following:
Some middling staff member noticed at a post- invasion meeting a great worried meeting when there were no WMD to be found and the administration was wondering what to say to the public about it.
"What do we do now?" Mr. Bush might have asked.
"Give me time," Mr. Cheney might have answered.
"There not there, Dick. Richard and Wolfie said they would be there. Now what are the people going to say. I want my second term!" Mr Bush might have said rubbing his hands together.
"Calm down Mr. President. We�ll figure it out," Mr. Cheney might have said.
"Hey, we liberated all those people," the staff member might have interjected.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Chenney might have looked at each other and grinned.
"Yes we did," they might have said together. "Ari, get that out right away. And tell Haliburton, we�ll have another contract for them real soon."
Again, that's clearly someone more cynical than I am.
quote:The situation in North Korea is hardly analogous.
The analogy holds in that the people of North Korea are under the thumb of a brutal dictator, lack democracy, and suffer terrible living conditions. All of which, it now appears after the fact, are reasons why we went into Iraq.
quote:First, there's still some chance of a diplomatic solution.
Which was also the case for the situation in Iraq before Mr. Bush said "Fuck Saddam, were taking him out."
quote:Second, they have nukes, and missiles that can hit densely populated cities.
I see, we only free the people in countries where it is easy? And here I'll point out that I'm not necessarily advocating this course, but by extension, we invade to free the oppressed people of Iraq, well, why not then North Korea?
quote:Third, North Korea is an isolated country. Replacing its government will keep it from attacking its neighbors, and help its people, just like Iraq.
I'll just assume that was supposed to mean something.
quote:You have no evidence that Bush lied.
It's simple really, where are the WMD which were supposed to have been deployed in 45 minutes, you remember, the ones that were an immediate threat?
Why all changing justifications for the war?
We�ve attacked Iraq and yet the masterminds behind 9/11 attacks remain at large. It�s appaling that Mr. Bush allowed the �bber-hawks to take over foreign policy and push through their pet Let�s-Attack-Iraq policy on a American public willing to strike just about any blow after 9/11.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
These numbers are from the IRS as of 2001. The top 1% of wage-earners earn 17.5% of the wages earned in this country, and pay 33.9% of the income taxes. The botton 50% earn 13.8% of the wages, and pay slightly less than 4% of the taxes.
The list of candidates for humanitarian intervention hasn't been shortened much since Bush took office:
It's been shortened by as much as possible with the time, resources, and political capital available. What would you have done differently?
1) "Some" as in "less than there was for Saddam & Co to leave Iraq before Bush's ultimatum expired".
There we disagree. Kim is still talking. Sadaam wasn't.
2) Saddam allegedly had missiles aimed at every city in Israel, but that didn't stop you from mopping HIS floor.
Someone said this?
3) Yes, aka WMDs. You know, it's ironic. Iraq didn't have nukes, but somehow was a grave threat to the US. North Korea actually HAS them, but isn't. Also, the longer you wait, the more innocent victims, which was your argument for invading Iraq. Why doesn't it apply here?
Iraq having biochem weapons was a threat because they could be passed to terrorist organizations. Sadaam may not have had connections with bin Laden and friends, but he did have at least some terrorist connections. North Korea's nukes can't be moved quite so easily, making the threat qualitatively different. They're a threat to everyone in missile range, a threat we're addressing through both technology and diplomacy. Yes, the longer we wait the more innocent victims there are likely to be in N. Korea, but if we invade now we'll probably lose Seoul. Pick the lesser evil.
4) So because the country is isolated and not a great demonstrator for The American Way�, its people can rot away indefinitely?
Ahh, the joys of red herrings. For those keeping score, what I actually said was more along these lines: We can not solve all problems at once. Therefore we solve the problem that will have the greater positive effect first. For example, if we'd invaded North Korea, do you think Lybia would now be agreeing to let UN inspectors in? North Korea will have to wait, regrettable as it may be, but what would you do differently?
5) By the way, North Korea borders on China. If there is ONE region in the world where proving your intentions might be beneficial, it's THAT one.
Compared to the middle east? Riiiiiiiight...
Who said we needed tax cuts in the first place?
The economy was flagging. Tax cuts have historically proven beneficial to the economy. Thus we needed tax cuts.
Tax money has to come from somewhere. Shouldn't it come from the people who have money, rather than those who don't?
I tend to agree, at least to some degree. However, this also means that if you're going to give a tax cut, you must give it to the wealthy, since they're the only ones paying taxes. See above.
Because, if you take less money from the rich, there are only two things that can happen. Either the governemt will have less money, or they'll have to take more money from the poor.
"lower tax rates = more robust economy = more federal revenue"
Obviously there are limits to the process, but it's hardly a simple "higher taxes = more revenue" system like you propose.
I can tell you pretty much from memory Mr. Bush's stated reasons for invasion were because Hussein was an immediate threat to the National Security of the United States...not for any humanitarian reason.
And Rob's memory disagrees. Find me every Bush administration statement on the issue (have you seriously heard and read them all?), or I can't take either position seriously, and will continue giving Bush the benefit of the doubt for lack of a reason not to.
The analogy holds in that the people of North Korea are under the thumb of a brutal dictator, lack democracy, and suffer terrible living conditions.
Yes, but the analogy does NOT hold in several variables which I've already pointed out.
Which was also the case for the situation in Iraq before Mr. Bush said "Fuck Saddam, were taking him out."
Sadaam was flatly refusing all demands that anyone was making. You're a more hopeful person than I.
we only free the people in countries where it is easy?
Try "not practically guarenteed to kill several million locals".
I'll just assume that was supposed to mean something.
You wouldn't have to assume if you'd read my post. Yes, perhaps it might have been phrased slightly clearer, but the statement was still understandable, and made sense in the context of the rest of the paragraph you chopped it out of.
where are the WMD which were supposed to have been deployed in 45 minutes, you remember, the ones that were an immediate threat?
A very good question, seeing as our intelligence sources said they'd be there. One of those sources has since claimed that the Iraqi army simply didn't want to fight, and thus did not use the weapons they were provided. This source may have lied at one time or another, but that's bad intelligence, not Bush lying.
Why all changing justifications for the war?
Which you have not proven. In fact, since I seriously doubt you've been exposed to even a small fraction of the Bush administration's pre-war statement's on the issue, I'm not sure how you can personally justify being so sure of it.
So again, why do you say Bush lied?
\We�ve attacked Iraq and yet the masterminds behind 9/11 attacks remain at large.
And are being persued by large numbers of troops. It's not as if putting off the invasion of Iraq for a few years would have captured Osama bin Laden faster, y'know.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:And are being persued by large numbers of troops. It's not as if putting off the invasion of Iraq for a few years would have captured Osama bin Laden faster, y'know.
Yeah, we've got him surrounded.
quote:There are 12 times as many American troops in Iraq as there are in the mountainous border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan where Mr. bin Laden is believed to be hiding.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
That does not address the point of whether those same troops would have been in Afganistan had we not invaded Iraq.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
One might figure, with what is it, 4 divisions out of action resting and refiting, that yes, there are troops in Iraq that might be in Afghanistan.
Any other alledged points you want to bring up?
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
