Clinton bombing during the lewinsky ordeal. I think..

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: DaiShan
People make mistakes and the currect regime..I mean administration.. has certainly made their fair share of mistakes (tax cuts, patriot act etc)

ROFL..I will never call being able to legally retain MORE of the money that I EARNED a mistake.

When we currently are running the largest deficit in history, and look to have an even larger one next year, perhaps you should worry about covering your debts before you start spending that money. With the national debt growing as fast as ever, and the ceiling about to be hit, it was a huge mistake. While its money you EARNED, you also have a part in the 6 trillion owed. Take some responsibility. With the collapse of SS looming, we *need* to have the national debt taken care of early on. SS will be another huge mess. The last thing we need is to inflate our debt and run this country into economic collapse.

Actually it is not even near the largest when adjusted for inflation. That being said, all non-essential goverment spending should be cut.

At this rate, using Bush's projections and tying it to (albiet loose) economic projections, even adjusted for inflation it will outpace it. We havent seen that much inflation since 1991 when we had the former largest deficit in history. Go with whatever technicality eases your mind, but we are still being VERY reckless with the budget with the current administration. Even if you were to somehow disregard our 6 TRILLION DOLLAR debt, the deficit spending (and planned future deficit spending) is not a good idea. The administration has increased spending tremendously, and the majority of the huge tax cut hasnt even set in yet!

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
There is a distinct difference between disabling key points of Iraq's military infastructure (as we have been doing aggressively since August) to keep him in check, and regime change, which will result in either a large number of American military casualties or Iraqi civilian casualties, depending on how we choose to proceed.

Both Clinton and Gore were actively calling for regime change in Iraq after '98.

I dont recall Gore doing so, but I do know Clinton has done so. He never pushed it, as Iraq for the most part had been playing it safe. He understood the role that international relations played in such a manuever, and didnt risk our standing in the international community, unlike the current administration. I remember Clinton being on Larry King a few months back talking about Saddam and how bad he was, but also going by the way of caution, to proceed with care.

Gore did so, I'll have to find the article again, but I do recall that he did so. Clinton/Gore attacked Iraq along with the UK without UN approval, without Congressional approval, without any kind of approval at all. Bush has gotten Congressional approval, he has worked with NATO and the UN to the fullest extent on trying to initiate a regime change in Iraq. Which one looks to be the one that proceeded with care and thoughtfullness to the international community?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: DaiShan
People make mistakes and the currect regime..I mean administration.. has certainly made their fair share of mistakes (tax cuts, patriot act etc)

ROFL..I will never call being able to legally retain MORE of the money that I EARNED a mistake.

When we currently are running the largest deficit in history, and look to have an even larger one next year, perhaps you should worry about covering your debts before you start spending that money. With the national debt growing as fast as ever, and the ceiling about to be hit, it was a huge mistake. While its money you EARNED, you also have a part in the 6 trillion owed. Take some responsibility. With the collapse of SS looming, we *need* to have the national debt taken care of early on. SS will be another huge mess. The last thing we need is to inflate our debt and run this country into economic collapse.

Actually it is not even near the largest when adjusted for inflation. That being said, all non-essential goverment spending should be cut.

At this rate, using Bush's projections and tying it to (albiet loose) economic projections, even adjusted for inflation it will outpace it. We havent seen that much inflation since 1991 when we had the former largest deficit in history. Go with whatever technicality eases your mind, but we are still being VERY reckless with the budget with the current administration. Even if you were to somehow disregard our 6 TRILLION DOLLAR debt, the deficit spending (and planned future deficit spending) is not a good idea. The administration has increased spending tremendously, and the majority of the huge tax cut hasnt even set in yet!

I agree, i would prefer budget cuts along with the tax cuts. But I will take the tax cuts no mater how we get them. Both parties are to blame for the deficits. The budget cuts that Bush did ask for only received howls from the other side.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: DaiShan
People make mistakes and the currect regime..I mean administration.. has certainly made their fair share of mistakes (tax cuts, patriot act etc)

ROFL..I will never call being able to legally retain MORE of the money that I EARNED a mistake.

You ever heard of deficits??

Yeah, but remember Clinton "fixed" this in like two years before didn't he...remember we were in the black for a while under his accounting numbers? Why can't we just build up the deficit and then just wipe it away like he did back when? 😀

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
There is a distinct difference between disabling key points of Iraq's military infastructure (as we have been doing aggressively since August) to keep him in check, and regime change, which will result in either a large number of American military casualties or Iraqi civilian casualties, depending on how we choose to proceed.

Both Clinton and Gore were actively calling for regime change in Iraq after '98.

I dont recall Gore doing so, but I do know Clinton has done so. He never pushed it, as Iraq for the most part had been playing it safe. He understood the role that international relations played in such a manuever, and didnt risk our standing in the international community, unlike the current administration. I remember Clinton being on Larry King a few months back talking about Saddam and how bad he was, but also going by the way of caution, to proceed with care.

read this and refresh your memory a little bit.

How does that not agree with my statement? Nothing in that link shows Gore calling for regime change, and it shows Clinton doing so. That link fails does show Clinton's involvement with the UN on the matter. Kerry's quote is quite telling:

"If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the U.N. resolution for inspections, and UNSCOM cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press that case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights"

With the UN resolution passed in October, all those things are in place. Note a key phrase in there - "press that case internationally".

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: DaiShan
People make mistakes and the currect regime..I mean administration.. has certainly made their fair share of mistakes (tax cuts, patriot act etc)

ROFL..I will never call being able to legally retain MORE of the money that I EARNED a mistake.

You ever heard of deficits??

Yeah, but remember Clinton "fixed" this in like two years before didn't he? Why can't we just build up the deficit and then just wipe it away like he did back when? 😀

Actually, even with Clintons balanced budgets, the debt still rose every year he was in office.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: charrison
I agree, i would prefer budget cuts along with the tax cuts. But I will take the tax cuts no mater how we get them. Both parties are to blame for the deficits. The budget cuts that Bush did ask for only received howls from the other side.

Agreed. Tax cuts mean less spending on the part of the government. The less money of mine they have to waste on artists who make feces art the better.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: DaiShan
People make mistakes and the currect regime..I mean administration.. has certainly made their fair share of mistakes (tax cuts, patriot act etc)

ROFL..I will never call being able to legally retain MORE of the money that I EARNED a mistake.

You ever heard of deficits??

You ever heard of recession? 9/11? Corporate scandals? Over-spending? The tax-cut is a fraction of the tax revenue that was lost because of all the above.

Besides, do you think money will do better in the hands of government where it is known to likely go to waste? Or in the hands of consumers who may need it and help stimulate the economy (albeit, not by a large amount).

Yes, these are all problems with government revenues, but look at the "solutions" the Bush admin. has proposed.
Recession - well, the first round of tax cuts sure didn't help out much did it?? What makes you think more tax cuts will help now?
9/11 - Go after Iraq which will cost billions.
Corporate scandals - decreased oversight, that's what the Admin is doing.
Over-spending - You mean like billions for national missle defense that won't work and will never be used??

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
There is a distinct difference between disabling key points of Iraq's military infastructure (as we have been doing aggressively since August) to keep him in check, and regime change, which will result in either a large number of American military casualties or Iraqi civilian casualties, depending on how we choose to proceed.

Both Clinton and Gore were actively calling for regime change in Iraq after '98.

I dont recall Gore doing so, but I do know Clinton has done so. He never pushed it, as Iraq for the most part had been playing it safe. He understood the role that international relations played in such a manuever, and didnt risk our standing in the international community, unlike the current administration. I remember Clinton being on Larry King a few months back talking about Saddam and how bad he was, but also going by the way of caution, to proceed with care.

read this and refresh your memory a little bit.

How does that not agree with my statement? Nothing in that link shows Gore calling for regime change, and it shows Clinton doing so. That link fails does show Clinton's involvement with the UN on the matter. Kerry's quote is quite telling:

"If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the U.N. resolution for inspections, and UNSCOM cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press that case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights"

With the UN resolution passed in October, all those things are in place. Note a key phrase in there - "press that case internationally".

Yes, but remember at the time, there was 3 carrier groups in middle east and larger forces building. However at the time the US nor the president was a war monger. It is amazing how opinion changes when a president changes, but the official goverment position does not.

Sorry, unfettered, unrestricted and unlimited access is not in place yet.

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: charrison

I agree, i would prefer budget cuts along with the tax cuts. But I will take the tax cuts no mater how we get them. Both parties are to blame for the deficits. The budget cuts that Bush did ask for only received howls from the other side.

That is where you and I differ on our fiscal ideology. I dont want tax cuts until we get our debt straightened out. Its a serious concern, and will be magnified when SS collapses.

Remember a few years back when Clinton was in office? He refused to sign a budget he didnt like. He set a new standard for Presidents in doing so (the people sided with him instead of Congress in 94), but Bush hasnt followed his lead if what you claim is true.

You will find that Bush's proposed budgets are only a very tiny bit off from what finally gets passed. Yes there are always concessions, even in Clinton's day. But the final budget the past few years have been monstrous, and they were well before the Democrats (who are running around like chicken with their heads cut off) touched them. Going by Bush's proposed budgets is more than enough to frighten a fiscal conservative.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: DaiShan
People make mistakes and the currect regime..I mean administration.. has certainly made their fair share of mistakes (tax cuts, patriot act etc)

ROFL..I will never call being able to legally retain MORE of the money that I EARNED a mistake.

You ever heard of deficits??

You ever heard of recession? 9/11? Corporate scandals? Over-spending? The tax-cut is a fraction of the tax revenue that was lost because of all the above.

Besides, do you think money will do better in the hands of government where it is known to likely go to waste? Or in the hands of consumers who may need it and help stimulate the economy (albeit, not by a large amount).

Yes, these are all problems with government revenues, but look at the "solutions" the Bush admin. has proposed.
Recession - well, the first round of tax cuts sure didn't help out much did it?? What makes you think more tax cuts will help now?
9/11 - Go after Iraq which will cost billions.
Corporate scandals - decreased oversight, that's what the Admin is doing.
Over-spending - You mean like billions for national missle defense that won't work and will never be used??

1. Recession- Actually it looks liek those tax cuts helped the recession get from getting deeper. Props to the democrats for proposing the $300 immediate tax rebate. Shame on the entire goverment for not providing stronger rate cuts right away.
2. Iraq - Keeping the status quo with Iraq is costing billions every year.
3. Corperate scandel - Bushs lastest budget give massive increases to the SEC.
4. Overspending - Happens everywhere and not just for defence.

 

[Aquaman]

Didn't Clinton bomb Sudan & Afghanistan in reaction to the US embassy bombing in Kenya? Which I think was attributed to Osama.

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Queasy

You ever heard of recession? 9/11? Corporate scandals? Over-spending? The tax-cut is a fraction of the tax revenue that was lost because of all the above.

Besides, do you think money will do better in the hands of government where it is known to likely go to waste? Or in the hands of consumers who may need it and help stimulate the economy (albeit, not by a large amount).

Yes, these are all problems with government revenues, but look at the "solutions" the Bush admin. has proposed.
Recession - well, the first round of tax cuts sure didn't help out much did it?? What makes you think more tax cuts will help now?
9/11 - Go after Iraq which will cost billions.
Corporate scandals - decreased oversight, that's what the Admin is doing.
Over-spending - You mean like billions for national missle defense that won't work and will never be used??

The first round of tax cuts were not much of a tax cut at all. I actually disagreed with the Bush approach on this. He compromised with the democrats and spread his originally proposed cuts over 10 years which severely reduces their immediate effectiveness. Even Alan Greenspan has said that if you are going to have tax cuts you need to have them all at once and not spread out. You almost might as well not even consider them tax cuts.

9/11 and Iraq are two seperate events IMO. We went into Afghanistan because of 9/11. We are going into Iraq more because of Iraq's failure to live up to its end of the cease-fire agreement and the resulting 17 UN resolutions.

I don't know what the current Admin plan is for the corporate scandals so I can't comment on that.

God forbid you had this attitude during the space race of the 60s. We'd still be locked into the atmosphere of Earth. You'll never get a system to work and you'll never use it if you are afraid to test it. What is the bigger deterrent? Nuclear Missles or Nuclear Missles + Missle Defense Shield?

I would be more concerned about the millions lost in waste by the Federal Education Department, Homeland Security, and the tons of other pork barrel spending that has nothing to do with the defense of our nation.

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
There is a distinct difference between disabling key points of Iraq's military infastructure (as we have been doing aggressively since August) to keep him in check, and regime change, which will result in either a large number of American military casualties or Iraqi civilian casualties, depending on how we choose to proceed.

Both Clinton and Gore were actively calling for regime change in Iraq after '98.

I dont recall Gore doing so, but I do know Clinton has done so. He never pushed it, as Iraq for the most part had been playing it safe. He understood the role that international relations played in such a manuever, and didnt risk our standing in the international community, unlike the current administration. I remember Clinton being on Larry King a few months back talking about Saddam and how bad he was, but also going by the way of caution, to proceed with care.

read this and refresh your memory a little bit.

How does that not agree with my statement? Nothing in that link shows Gore calling for regime change, and it shows Clinton doing so. That link fails does show Clinton's involvement with the UN on the matter. Kerry's quote is quite telling:

"If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the U.N. resolution for inspections, and UNSCOM cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press that case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights"

With the UN resolution passed in October, all those things are in place. Note a key phrase in there - "press that case internationally".

Yes, but remember at the time, there was 3 carrier groups in middle east and larger forces building. However at the time the US nor the president was a war monger. It is amazing how opinion changes when a president changes, but the official goverment position does not.

Sorry, unfettered, unrestricted and unlimited access is not in place yet.

The inspectors are giving Iraq good grades on that account. They werent doing that back in 98. How have you come to the conclusion that the inspectors arent getting the access they want when they are saying that they do? Do you know something they dont?

3 carrier groups /= 300,000 troops.

We sought international cooperation, and refused to proceed without it. Bush has already stated that we will "go it alone" if needed (which certainly seems to be the case). Bush is being called a war monger becuase he is using the UN as justification for war even though the UN doesnt want a war. Only 40% of Americans support going into Iraq WITHOUT UN support (zogby). Over 65% would support war if the UN would support it (zogby again).

If Bush were to get international support, he would get domestic support. From me included.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: charrison

I agree, i would prefer budget cuts along with the tax cuts. But I will take the tax cuts no mater how we get them. Both parties are to blame for the deficits. The budget cuts that Bush did ask for only received howls from the other side.

That is where you and I differ on our fiscal ideology. I dont want tax cuts until we get our debt straightened out. Its a serious concern, and will be magnified when SS collapses.

Remember a few years back when Clinton was in office? He refused to sign a budget he didnt like. He set a new standard for Presidents in doing so (the people sided with him instead of Congress in 94), but Bush hasnt followed his lead if what you claim is true.

You will find that Bush's proposed budgets are only a very tiny bit off from what finally gets passed. Yes there are always concessions, even in Clinton's day. But the final budget the past few years have been monstrous, and they were well before the Democrats (who are running around like chicken with their heads cut off) touched them. Going by Bush's proposed budgets is more than enough to frighten a fiscal conservative.

I would glady pay more in taxes if I knew the goverment would spend my money wisely. They have not shown the ability to do so. When they start showing responsability, I will gladly pay more.

The democrats have an excellent chance to make bush look bad financially. They could have filibustered the budget insisting on it being balanced. Instead they tried to add more spending and decided to filibuster a qualified minority judge.

I have zero confidence in either party handling my hard earned money.

 

[Bulk Beef]

Originally posted by: Aquaman
Didn't Clinton bomb Sudan & Afghanistan in reaction to the US embassy bombing in Kenya? Which I think was attributed to Osama.

My recollection is that the accusations of "wagging the dog" came about during the bombing in Kosovo.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
There is a distinct difference between disabling key points of Iraq's military infastructure (as we have been doing aggressively since August) to keep him in check, and regime change, which will result in either a large number of American military casualties or Iraqi civilian casualties, depending on how we choose to proceed.

Both Clinton and Gore were actively calling for regime change in Iraq after '98.

I dont recall Gore doing so, but I do know Clinton has done so. He never pushed it, as Iraq for the most part had been playing it safe. He understood the role that international relations played in such a manuever, and didnt risk our standing in the international community, unlike the current administration. I remember Clinton being on Larry King a few months back talking about Saddam and how bad he was, but also going by the way of caution, to proceed with care.

read this and refresh your memory a little bit.

How does that not agree with my statement? Nothing in that link shows Gore calling for regime change, and it shows Clinton doing so. That link fails does show Clinton's involvement with the UN on the matter. Kerry's quote is quite telling:

"If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the U.N. resolution for inspections, and UNSCOM cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press that case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights"

With the UN resolution passed in October, all those things are in place. Note a key phrase in there - "press that case internationally".

Yes, but remember at the time, there was 3 carrier groups in middle east and larger forces building. However at the time the US nor the president was a war monger. It is amazing how opinion changes when a president changes, but the official goverment position does not.

Sorry, unfettered, unrestricted and unlimited access is not in place yet.

The inspectors are giving Iraq good grades on that account. They werent doing that back in 98. How have you come to the conclusion that the inspectors arent getting the access they want when they are saying that they do? Do you know something they dont?

3 carrier groups /= 300,000 troops.

We sought international cooperation, and refused to proceed without it. Bush has already stated that we will "go it alone" if needed (which certainly seems to be the case). Bush is being called a war monger becuase he is using the UN as justification for war even though the UN doesnt want a war. Only 40% of Americans support going into Iraq WITHOUT UN support (zogby). Over 65% would support war if the UN would support it (zogby again).

If Bush were to get international support, he would get domestic support. From me included.

So to get grades, you keep people from giving interviews and claim to have no documentation on weapons destructions. Man good grade are easy to get these days.

Well at the time warmonger crowd started, the force build ups were about the same.

We have sought internation cooperation, more than 30 countries agree with us.
We are not going alone and far from alone.
Saw a poll from the other day, 65% of Americans think Saddam should be removed from power.

We have domestic support, Congress gave him that support.

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: charrison

I agree, i would prefer budget cuts along with the tax cuts. But I will take the tax cuts no mater how we get them. Both parties are to blame for the deficits. The budget cuts that Bush did ask for only received howls from the other side.

That is where you and I differ on our fiscal ideology. I dont want tax cuts until we get our debt straightened out. Its a serious concern, and will be magnified when SS collapses.

Remember a few years back when Clinton was in office? He refused to sign a budget he didnt like. He set a new standard for Presidents in doing so (the people sided with him instead of Congress in 94), but Bush hasnt followed his lead if what you claim is true.

You will find that Bush's proposed budgets are only a very tiny bit off from what finally gets passed. Yes there are always concessions, even in Clinton's day. But the final budget the past few years have been monstrous, and they were well before the Democrats (who are running around like chicken with their heads cut off) touched them. Going by Bush's proposed budgets is more than enough to frighten a fiscal conservative.

I would glady pay more in taxes if I knew the goverment would spend my money wisely. They have not shown the ability to do so. When they start showing responsability, I will gladly pay more.

The democrats have an excellent chance to make bush look bad financially. They could have filibustered the budget insisting on it being balanced. Instead they tried to add more spending and decided to filibuster a qualified minority judge.

I have zero confidence in either party handling my hard earned money.

I agree that the Democrats are sucking with the budget, and with just about any other issue. They are showing no solidarity and no direction. Its pathetic.

Also, Queasay was partially right above about the tax cut. Most of it hasnt phased in yet. The tax cut for the middle class and lower class finishes kicking in fully this year. The tax cut for the upper class starts kicking in next year, and I believe will be in full effect by 2008. By 2010 the tax cut will be gone for everyone, and taxes will revert to the way they were before the tax cut. However, Bush is currently trying to make the tax cut permanent.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: charrison

I agree, i would prefer budget cuts along with the tax cuts. But I will take the tax cuts no mater how we get them. Both parties are to blame for the deficits. The budget cuts that Bush did ask for only received howls from the other side.

That is where you and I differ on our fiscal ideology. I dont want tax cuts until we get our debt straightened out. Its a serious concern, and will be magnified when SS collapses.

Remember a few years back when Clinton was in office? He refused to sign a budget he didnt like. He set a new standard for Presidents in doing so (the people sided with him instead of Congress in 94), but Bush hasnt followed his lead if what you claim is true.

You will find that Bush's proposed budgets are only a very tiny bit off from what finally gets passed. Yes there are always concessions, even in Clinton's day. But the final budget the past few years have been monstrous, and they were well before the Democrats (who are running around like chicken with their heads cut off) touched them. Going by Bush's proposed budgets is more than enough to frighten a fiscal conservative.

I would glady pay more in taxes if I knew the goverment would spend my money wisely. They have not shown the ability to do so. When they start showing responsability, I will gladly pay more.

The democrats have an excellent chance to make bush look bad financially. They could have filibustered the budget insisting on it being balanced. Instead they tried to add more spending and decided to filibuster a qualified minority judge.

I have zero confidence in either party handling my hard earned money.

I agree that the Democrats are sucking with the budget, and with just about any other issue. They are showing no solidarity and no direction. Its pathetic.

Also, Queasay was partially right above about the tax cut. Most of it hasnt phased in yet. The tax cut for the middle class and lower class finishes kicking in fully this year. The tax cut for the upper class starts kicking in next year, and I believe will be in full effect by 2008. By 2010 the tax cut will be gone for everyone, and taxes will revert to the way they were before the tax cut. However, Bush is currently trying to make the tax cut permanent.

And this is very good. I am looking forward to paying less in taxes.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: charrison

I agree, i would prefer budget cuts along with the tax cuts. But I will take the tax cuts no mater how we get them. Both parties are to blame for the deficits. The budget cuts that Bush did ask for only received howls from the other side.

That is where you and I differ on our fiscal ideology. I dont want tax cuts until we get our debt straightened out. Its a serious concern, and will be magnified when SS collapses.

Remember a few years back when Clinton was in office? He refused to sign a budget he didnt like. He set a new standard for Presidents in doing so (the people sided with him instead of Congress in 94), but Bush hasnt followed his lead if what you claim is true.

You will find that Bush's proposed budgets are only a very tiny bit off from what finally gets passed. Yes there are always concessions, even in Clinton's day. But the final budget the past few years have been monstrous, and they were well before the Democrats (who are running around like chicken with their heads cut off) touched them. Going by Bush's proposed budgets is more than enough to frighten a fiscal conservative.

I would glady pay more in taxes if I knew the goverment would spend my money wisely. They have not shown the ability to do so. When they start showing responsability, I will gladly pay more.

The democrats have an excellent chance to make bush look bad financially. They could have filibustered the budget insisting on it being balanced. Instead they tried to add more spending and decided to filibuster a qualified minority judge.

I have zero confidence in either party handling my hard earned money.

I agree that the Democrats are sucking with the budget, and with just about any other issue. They are showing no solidarity and no direction. Its pathetic.

Also, Queasay was partially right above about the tax cut. Most of it hasnt phased in yet. The tax cut for the middle class and lower class finishes kicking in fully this year. The tax cut for the upper class starts kicking in next year, and I believe will be in full effect by 2008. By 2010 the tax cut will be gone for everyone, and taxes will revert to the way they were before the tax cut. However, Bush is currently trying to make the tax cut permanent.

And this is very good. I am looking forward to paying less in taxes.

Yep, the less the government is allowed to spend on non-essential junk the better.

 

[HendrixFan]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
There is a distinct difference between disabling key points of Iraq's military infastructure (as we have been doing aggressively since August) to keep him in check, and regime change, which will result in either a large number of American military casualties or Iraqi civilian casualties, depending on how we choose to proceed.

Both Clinton and Gore were actively calling for regime change in Iraq after '98.

I dont recall Gore doing so, but I do know Clinton has done so. He never pushed it, as Iraq for the most part had been playing it safe. He understood the role that international relations played in such a manuever, and didnt risk our standing in the international community, unlike the current administration. I remember Clinton being on Larry King a few months back talking about Saddam and how bad he was, but also going by the way of caution, to proceed with care.

read this and refresh your memory a little bit.

How does that not agree with my statement? Nothing in that link shows Gore calling for regime change, and it shows Clinton doing so. That link fails does show Clinton's involvement with the UN on the matter. Kerry's quote is quite telling:

"If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the U.N. resolution for inspections, and UNSCOM cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press that case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights"

With the UN resolution passed in October, all those things are in place. Note a key phrase in there - "press that case internationally".

Yes, but remember at the time, there was 3 carrier groups in middle east and larger forces building. However at the time the US nor the president was a war monger. It is amazing how opinion changes when a president changes, but the official goverment position does not.

Sorry, unfettered, unrestricted and unlimited access is not in place yet.

The inspectors are giving Iraq good grades on that account. They werent doing that back in 98. How have you come to the conclusion that the inspectors arent getting the access they want when they are saying that they do? Do you know something they dont?

3 carrier groups /= 300,000 troops.

We sought international cooperation, and refused to proceed without it. Bush has already stated that we will "go it alone" if needed (which certainly seems to be the case). Bush is being called a war monger becuase he is using the UN as justification for war even though the UN doesnt want a war. Only 40% of Americans support going into Iraq WITHOUT UN support (zogby). Over 65% would support war if the UN would support it (zogby again).

If Bush were to get international support, he would get domestic support. From me included.

So to get grades, you keep people from giving interviews and claim to have no documentation on weapons destructions. Man good grade are easy to get these days.

Well at the time warmonger crowd started, the force build ups were about the same.

We have sought internation cooperation, more than 30 countries agree with us.
We are not going alone and far from alone.
Saw a poll from the other day, 65% of Americans think Saddam should be removed from power.

We have domestic support, Congress gave him that support.

I was referring to the inspectors claiming they were having absolutely no problems getting access to whatever they wished. I never claimed the US agreed with the inspectors, I mean why should they, they are only preventing war, right?

The warmonger crowd started when Bush said that he would go for a regime change with or without UN support. As Bush went from Reason A to Reason B to Reason C to Reason B to Reason D to Reason A the warmonger crowd picked up support. The only "major" country to support us is Britain, where only 30% of the population agrees with that decision.

Go to zogby, and see the proper breakdowns of those polls.

By domestic support I meant public support at home. He got is "State of the Union" boost that was expected, but the support still isnt there. Im guessing (no proof) that this is the reason that Bush is holding back.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HendrixFan

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
There is a distinct difference between disabling key points of Iraq's military infastructure (as we have been doing aggressively since August) to keep him in check, and regime change, which will result in either a large number of American military casualties or Iraqi civilian casualties, depending on how we choose to proceed.

Both Clinton and Gore were actively calling for regime change in Iraq after '98.

I dont recall Gore doing so, but I do know Clinton has done so. He never pushed it, as Iraq for the most part had been playing it safe. He understood the role that international relations played in such a manuever, and didnt risk our standing in the international community, unlike the current administration. I remember Clinton being on Larry King a few months back talking about Saddam and how bad he was, but also going by the way of caution, to proceed with care.

read this and refresh your memory a little bit.

How does that not agree with my statement? Nothing in that link shows Gore calling for regime change, and it shows Clinton doing so. That link fails does show Clinton's involvement with the UN on the matter. Kerry's quote is quite telling:

"If there is not unfettered, unrestricted, unlimited access per the U.N. resolution for inspections, and UNSCOM cannot in our judgment appropriately perform its functions, then we obviously reserve the rights to press that case internationally and to do what we need to do as a nation in order to be able to enforce those rights"

With the UN resolution passed in October, all those things are in place. Note a key phrase in there - "press that case internationally".

Yes, but remember at the time, there was 3 carrier groups in middle east and larger forces building. However at the time the US nor the president was a war monger. It is amazing how opinion changes when a president changes, but the official goverment position does not.

Sorry, unfettered, unrestricted and unlimited access is not in place yet.

The inspectors are giving Iraq good grades on that account. They werent doing that back in 98. How have you come to the conclusion that the inspectors arent getting the access they want when they are saying that they do? Do you know something they dont?

3 carrier groups /= 300,000 troops.

We sought international cooperation, and refused to proceed without it. Bush has already stated that we will "go it alone" if needed (which certainly seems to be the case). Bush is being called a war monger becuase he is using the UN as justification for war even though the UN doesnt want a war. Only 40% of Americans support going into Iraq WITHOUT UN support (zogby). Over 65% would support war if the UN would support it (zogby again).

If Bush were to get international support, he would get domestic support. From me included.

So to get grades, you keep people from giving interviews and claim to have no documentation on weapons destructions. Man good grade are easy to get these days.

Well at the time warmonger crowd started, the force build ups were about the same.

We have sought internation cooperation, more than 30 countries agree with us.
We are not going alone and far from alone.
Saw a poll from the other day, 65% of Americans think Saddam should be removed from power.

We have domestic support, Congress gave him that support.

I was referring to the inspectors claiming they were having absolutely no problems getting access to whatever they wished. I never claimed the US agreed with the inspectors, I mean why should they, they are only preventing war, right?

The warmonger crowd started when Bush said that he would go for a regime change with or without UN support. As Bush went from Reason A to Reason B to Reason C to Reason B to Reason D to Reason A the warmonger crowd picked up support. The only "major" country to support us is Britain, where only 30% of the population agrees with that decision.

Go to zogby, and see the proper breakdowns of those polls.

By domestic support I meant public support at home. He got is "State of the Union" boost that was expected, but the support still isnt there. Im guessing (no proof) that this is the reason that Bush is holding back.

Please show me were inspectors have been able to interview anyone they wanted.
Please show me were inspectors have been able to get documenation showing that WMDs have been destroyed.
This is not supposed to be an easter egg hunt for the inspectors. Current inspections are not working.
I would very much like for inspections to work and war to be averted, but that is not happening.

Strong support for removal of Saddam exists if inspections have failed, and they have.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: DaiShan
People make mistakes and the currect regime..I mean administration.. has certainly made their fair share of mistakes (tax cuts, patriot act etc)

ROFL..I will never call being able to legally retain MORE of the money that I EARNED a mistake.

You ever heard of deficits??

Ever heard of budget cuts?