Going forward

[MGKrebs]

It's easy to look back and decide what our opinions are regarding history. Let's look forward and say what we believe about things that are coming up.

I'll start off with this: War

We appear to be very close to moving on Iraq. Do you still feel this is a good idea?

Korea is blowing up, we are still in Afghanistan, Venezuela is near chaos, Iran is a concern. Our economy still sucks, and I've seen no forecasts anticipating improvement. Osama is still on the loose. If we attack Iraq, I'm sure we can expect trouble in Syria, Libya, and Sudan.

I think these events are pretty strong evidence that a diplomatic approach is superior to belligerence whenever possible, and demand recognition that a sophisticated attitude is not evil. We seem to want simple solutions to complex problems, and the promise that if we just do "this", then "tomorrow" that problem will be solved.

Why the hell can't we find osama? Is it possible that we've pissed off so many people that we no longer have the assets necessary?

When is the economy supposed to start picking up? After the tax cuts kick in? Or a few years after that?

I don't know if Korea violated that agreement or not. (I've also read that we violated it first.) But it seems that a key nuclear plant has been shut down for all these years, and even had monitoring equipment in it. And there have been UN inspectors over there. Now the plant is being started up and the inspectors are being kicked out. What the heck is going on? Is this somehow Jimmy Carter's fault too?

 

[kelley]

I fully support President Bush's current method of dealing with the Iraq problem. At first when he was calling for blood and saying we'll do it alone because that bad man (Hussein) attempted to kill his ole' dad. Now that he is pursuing joint action with the United Nations, I feel that we are "acting prudently at this juncture."

We have pissed too many nations off and I think that we have some serious relationships to mend. North Korea needs to be dealt with now but a conflict with that nation, I think would be far more devasting than one with Iraq because the Chinese would come to the defense of their Korean communist friends.

Yeah, why the hell can't we find Osama? And has that become a secondary option? I recall President Bush saying that we would "smoke him out" of the caves. Now that we cannot maybe has our president played a little politics and decided that the best way to save his own ### was to go after another evil leader? I get the feeling that we are not actively searching for him anymore and it makes me feel terrified and discouraged that we are not more actively searching for the person that abruptly ended thousands of lives. While I completely trust President Bush and he is much more suited to act in this situation than any Democrat, I just feel that he needs to listen to Colin Powell more than he does Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld.

The economy is in the tanks and I do not know how else to fix it other than pass another stimulus package that benefits average consumers and not the corporations of America. We already gave them one, it did not produce the results that we initially thought it would, so I feel that a middle class tax stimulus combined with continued unemployment benefits would sufficiently stimulate the economy due to its effects on the average people of America that create the economic state of the nation. Yet we cannot and should not remove all of President Bush's tax cut. That assertion is just wrong and detrimental to the overall economic status. I hope that Congress will act bipartisanly to approve positive economic stimulus so that when I graduate, there will be a job waiting for me that will pay the bills and then some.

 

[vraiblonde]

Honeybunch, there WILL be a job waiting for you - your generation is so used to handouts that anyone willing to work is worth their weight in gold.

I say nuke the whole Middle East - power unexercised is power wasted (in the immortal words of my brother-in-law). Who cares if we've pissed them off? Do you think them bombing our embassies, our military installations and our buildings doesn't piss us off? I think Bush should fire Colin Powell and put someone with a little more gumption in his place - for a General, he's sure a wussy boy. Mr. UN - the same UN that made Mommar Khaddafy (or however you spell his name) a human rights chair.

There are some circles who believe bin Laden is already dead. Since it behooves both the US and the Al Qaeda to make the people think he's alive, I'm inclined to think they're right.

As far as the economy goes, I, personally, am not in an economic slump. My business is doing well, I spent more on Christmas this year than I did last year, I have a higher standard of living than I did two years ago so I am doing my part to keep the dough rolling. Of course, I didn't tie my finances to the stock market or any other artificial means of generating wealth so maybe that's the key.

 

[MGKrebs]

I'm going to take issue with you on a couple of things, Kelley.

Re: Bush. I have no problem with Afghanistan, except that we haven't caught osama.

Iraq- I do not support our strategy. I cannot and will not support war based on evidence that has not been provided, for reasons that are unclear, with consequences that are probably much worse than the problem we are trying to fix. I ain't no CIA analyst, but based on the info I have, that's where I stand.

Especially when I see no real problem with the strategy of containment that we, and the world community, and the UN, have adopted for the past several years.

Bush only changed his tune to say that we would TRY to go through UN channels. He reserves the right to attack anyway, and all indications are that we are just about ready to go.

We have no info that the inspectors have found anything. We have said that the weapons declaration is inadequate, but no specifics have been offered. Troops continue to stage all around Iraq. No one believes that saddam is any kind of serious threat while we essentially occupy two thirds of the country and have every available satellite pointed at them.

Therefore, i can say that there are Democrats who could have handled this better. I don't think it's really a dem vs. repub thing. In other words, just because more repub politicians have ties to the war industry doesn't make them more qualified to decide when not to go to war.

Tax cuts- the cuts that have been passed favor the wealthy. You can believe that it is just fair to reduce their burden, a discussion already explored at length earlier here, or you can believe that it will help the economy. My view is that a tax cut that favors the wealthy and corporations can help the economy if there is more demand than supply. That is not the case right now. There is too much capacity and not enough demand, because the average joe is almost broke. The initial part of the tax plan (the rebate), actually bumped the economy for a month or two in Sept/Oct. Making it possible for those who will spend it TO spend it is what is needed now. Job creation especially. (Alternative energy?)

 

[vraiblonde]

Maynard, sweetie, pumpkin, I have just one thing to say to you:

The guy who just won the Powerball up here is a construction contractor. He said that with his winnings, he's going to rehire the guys he had to lay off because of the economy.

What exactly do you think rich people DO with their money? Hide in under a mattress?

 

[MGKrebs]

Vrai, sweetie,

Rich people, by definition, already have disposable income. In order to give them enough money to possibly spend more, it would have to be a very, very large amount of money, and therefore a small number of rich folks.

 

[demsformd]

Originally posted by MGKrebs
Iraq- I do not support our strategy. I cannot and will not support war based on evidence that has not been provided, for reasons that are unclear, with consequences that are probably much worse than the problem we are trying to fix. I ain't no CIA analyst, but based on the info I have, that's where I stand.

Especially when I see no real problem with the strategy of containment that we, and the world community, and the UN, have adopted for the past several years.

Bush only changed his tune to say that we would TRY to go through UN channels. He reserves the right to attack anyway, and all indications are that we are just about ready to go.

We have no info that the inspectors have found anything. We have said that the weapons declaration is inadequate, but no specifics have been offered. Troops continue to stage all around Iraq. No one believes that saddam is any kind of serious threat while we essentially occupy two thirds of the country and have every available satellite pointed at them.

Krebs, you have some very valid points here but Bush IS trying to go through the UN and it looks like Saddam is hindering them enough to be unable to remove all suspicision of him. Look, he has done far too much to his people to just allow him stay in power. He oppresses far too much and it is apparent that he has nuclear weapons. And I would trust that the White House has much more information aka evidence but I would not want them to release it because it is a matter of national security and well we don't need to know it. I do not think that President Bush would just make this whole thing up just because he was a sadist or a man bent on revenge or whatever. We tried to stop oppression in Somalia, in Afganistan, why not in Iraq?

Tax cuts- the cuts that have been passed favor the wealthy. You can believe that it is just fair to reduce their burden, a discussion already explored at length earlier here, or you can believe that it will help the economy. My view is that a tax cut that favors the wealthy and corporations can help the economy if there is more demand than supply. That is not the case right now. There is too much capacity and not enough demand, because the average joe is almost broke. The initial part of the tax plan (the rebate), actually bumped the economy for a month or two in Sept/Oct. Making it possible for those who will spend it TO spend it is what is needed now. Job creation especially. (Alternative energy?)

A minimal tax cut for the wealthy and corporate America will benefit the economy but a large neglectful one like President Bush's will not as we have seen. The bulk of our tax cuts must go to the ones that need it the most. I just cannot believe that the President's plan reduced the rate for the top bracket by 6 points but left the bottom bracket to stay unchanged.

 

[demsformd]

What a break for me huh?
WE can always change minds.

 

[kelley]

So who here supports war with Iraq? Don't give me a wordy answer which some of us, I won't name any names (demsformd), give. I would like to see how our little county stands.

 

[kelley]

Speaking of demsformd, what kind of a pic is that? Guess what, Gore lost and well he's not running again. Find some other guy to back.

 

[MGKrebs]

That's fine dems. i would LIKE to be shown otherwise. But until they do, based on the information available to me, that's my opinion. There are plenty of reasons for me to doubt our current posture;

You can see just around here how powerful "pride" and ego are. We just can't let those Iraqi's get away with flaunting their pathetic attempts to resist our will.

I don't think the alleged attempt on Bush Sr's. life is a major factor in Junior's attitude, but he has given us reason to believe that it is.

The evidence of this adminstration's support for the oil industry is overwhelming. So who stands to gain from control of Iraq? ! Is that a good reason to kill people?

Then there's the political aspect. I live in Georgia. I saw Saxby Chambliss say that he was going to be Bush's man in Georgia. Then I heard him say that Max Cleland was unpatriotic for voting against one particular version of the Homeland Security bill. There is no doubt in my mind that war is being used as a political trump card. It's sick.

Then there is the American imperialism issue. I'll post a link for you in a minute. This is not opinion. it is our stated foreign policy to maintain world dominance, even if it means pre-emptive strikes.

As far as oppression is concerned: although i am a liberal, I am not in favor of imposing our will on any and every country around the globe whose human rights standards do not match ours. Our involvement in afghanistan had nothing to do with oppression, and I can't remember why we were in somalia? Was that the deal where one tribe was wiping out the other? And you didn't mention Serbia, but we were there in a large part for human rights, but it was genocide, and the neighbors were concerned and invited us to participate. Iraq does not look like genocide. Yes, he punishes his political enemies, and they throw stones at women. What else? Killing Kurds? They are trying to overthrow the government WITH OUR HELP! They are combatants.

I'd like to hear how a minimal tax cut for the wealthy and corporations will help the economy.

 

[Heretic]

Lets Get Saddam

I say lets get Saddam, he is dangerous and its only a matter of time until he proves it again. (as if he already hasn't)

Firing on coalition planes patroling the no-fly zones for the last 10 years was nothing short of aggression.

Saddam wants us to attack for some reason, lets oblige him there.

 

[vraiblonde]

Look, Kelley - pick a side!

I support war with Iraq and any other nation that threatens us. In fact, I might go after the French just because they criticize us. Most of these countries enjoy independence because of the US helping fend the freaks off. The least they can do is show some appreciation.

That's one of my many issues with the Middle East. If it weren't for the US being such oil gluttons, they'd be (what was it Christy said? Oh yeah...) making hour glasses for a living. As it stands, they're very wealthy because we develop their natural resources and pay them for the privilege. Should be a win-win, right? But they're not happy. The Saudi government knows which side their bread is buttered on so they want to stay friendly to the US. But they won't reign in their own terrorists nor will they quit financing other Arab terrorist groups.

I'd love to see a major energy source other than foreign oil - put their happy butts out of business. Of course, then they'll hate us even more because it's OUR fault they're too stupid to make a living. Then their citizens will be starving in the streets and guess who will come bail them out - AGAIN.

 

[MGKrebs]

Here's that link, dems.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/0902/29bookman.html

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by MGKrebs
I'd like to hear how a minimal tax cut for the wealthy and corporations will help the economy.

Maynard, you are being deliberately obtuse. Again, what do you think wealthy people and corporations DO with their money - stick it in a sack and bury it in the backyard? NO! They spend it! They hire more people. They get a cleaning lady. They have landscaping done. They put it back into the economy in some fashion.

What part of this don't you understand?

 

[vraiblonde]

What a bunch of BS. I read the first paragraph and closed the window. If this retard doesn't understand the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, he shouldn't be writing for a major newspaper. And I doubt he'll be saying anything worth listening to.

 

[MGKrebs]

As I already said, cupcake, rich people already HAVE extra money! Giving them MORE extra money is going to inspire them to add another landscaping crew?

 

[Larry Gude]

Here I come to save the day...

First off, things must be a mess here at home if my wife is flirting with you Maynard! I better fix that!

Secondly, as I am me, I can save the world at large and my own at the same time, so...

War is a very BAD idea. So far, Saddam seems to be slowly moving along deliberately and may well keep on doing enough to keep himself in groceries. As I've tried to point out to you, it is up to Hussein.

As far as Bin Laden, A. he is no more than a pawn in this game and B. what makes you think he is alive? The real enemy is the ones responsible for turning him loose. Read your history sweety pie! It's not the ideologues, it's their masters.

The economy is creeping along pretty well. Growth is slow but not negative. Employment, while not robust at 6% is only 2% above what is considered "technically" full employment. Inflation is non existant. Of course, if your after the corporate scandal driven hyper economy of the 90's, well...

Lastly, Korea is not Carters doing. It was Clinton.

 

[Heretic]

Re: Here I come to save the day...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
First off, things must be a mess here at home if my wife is flirting with you Maynard! I better fix that!

Wife? Doh I never connected you two until now. How dense am I

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by MGKrebs
As I already said, cupcake, rich people already HAVE extra money! Giving them MORE extra money is going to inspire them to add another landscaping crew?

In fact, snookums, that's exactly what they do. They buy expensive cars, they give to charity, they endow scholarships, they have a new home built - they put it back into circulation. What do you THINK they do with it?

Im4Change was talking in a different thread about the low renter who hit the lottery, then pissed all the money away on booze. That's a true story. Contrast that to the guy who just won here recently who plans on rehiring his laid off crew members.