State of the Nation Address

[iain]

[AlpineK]

I'm a little late on this, but all this talk of how tax cuts increase the federal revenue (hmm Greg) is pretty funny.

 

Lets cut the tax rate to zero. Just think of how much money the government would have.

[Greg_W]

I'm a little late on this, but all this talk of how tax cuts increase the federal revenue (hmm Greg) is pretty funny.

 

Don't know what to tell you, AlpineK, it works. Let people keep more of their own money and they will spend more in the public forum, thus providing opportunity for sales taxes, gas taxes, etc. to be incurred.

[sk]

trickle down economics is a load of crap. it doesn't work and you will see in 6 months

[Greg_W]

trickle down economics is a load of crap. it doesn't work and you will see in 6 months

 

So, you want to duke it out on the Ballard bridge too, eh?

[MysticNacho]

trickle down economics is a load of crap. it doesn't work and you will see in 6 months

 

So, you want to duke it out on the Ballard bridge too, eh?

 

C'mon Muffy! There's plenty o' room in the battle cage!

[sk]

LOL not at all. But you will see. It just sucks that we are going to have to live threw regonomics again. I have some statistics somewhere reguarding unemployment and presidents... may be it is ecinomic growth or somethin. at any rate the smallest amount of growth occured durring Bush Sr. presedency. I will see if I can find them

[Dru]

trickle down economics is a load of crap. it doesn't work and you will see in 6 months

 

So, you want to duke it out on the Ballard bridge too, eh?

 

can you say massive wealth transfer from the poor to the rich? sure. i knew you could!!!

[sk]

I don't know where I got this from so you will just have to believe that I am not smart enough to make it up.

 

supply side economics

 

pres. job growth

Johnson 3.8%

Carter 3.1%

Clinton 2.4%

Kennedy 2.3%

Nixon 2.3%

Reagan 2.1%

Bush 0.6%

 

regonomics did not work for this country. It will not work this time. Unless there are a lot of jobs created by the war. in that case we may see some relief. but I doubt it.

[sexual_chocolate]

I watched his speech. I also watched senate and congressionl reactions and the partisan snubbing he got from the Democrats. Interesting. Asshole Democraps.

 

I think he understands more now than he ever did that our future and our fate as the wealthiest nation in the world is hinged on helping those who cannot help themselves. I was interested to note his willingness to work on the AIDS virus and other potential viruses in a preventive medicine stance. I also get fed up with the "this is only for oil" crowd. They need to get a frickin life.

 

Trask, what do you expect the Dems to do? Stand up and applaud with stuff they don't believe in just 'cause their constituents are? Come on, dude!

 

In the past, it's been known as respect, you prick.

 

Hahahahaha!

 

Intentional oxymoron, or unintentional moron. YOU decide!

[MysticNacho]

HAHAH!!!!! I didn't even catch that! BeautifuL!!!!!

[sexual_chocolate]

S-C:

"Newsflash, Mtgoat, I didn't like Clinton; I didn't like his use of the military."

 

Newsflash, I don't care if you didn't like Clinton! I never asked if you liked him, I asked for your thoughts on his use of the military given his non service. Thanks for the answer, it's consistent with your criticism of Dubya.

 

And yeah, I guess I'm old-fashioned: If someone wants something as serious as war, then I really really really think that that someone should have the courage and conviction to serve in the war effort, risking as much as the front-line soldiers. "

 

This means only former military personell should serve as president, and that non military personell have no place determining military usage.

 

"Recently heard something about congressional members' off-spring not serving. Do you have info to the contrary? I'd love to hear it...."

 

I find the chance that out of 635 members of congress, not one has any children serving, vanishly small. Especially given that many members themselves have service records. I will not claim I have proof and I'm not going to look it up either, I will suggest that this statistic is bogus anyway given the former two reasons.

 

"And I believe it was Bush Sr. who flew jets. I think his son flopped around Texas in the National Guard, getting his nose white and his dick red."

 

No, senior flew in WW2. Dubya flew jets.

 

 

 

 

 

Egad, you certainly are dry as an ostrich turd. Let's just say the implication was there (point #1). But to answer your (other) question: I believe some, if not all, of his military manurings were suspect. Serbia I'm not familiar enough to comment on.

 

#2. Excellent point, one that I thought you might make. No, I don't believe only military should be running the gov! I just feel that a cause one pushes for is a cause one should be ready to die for, especially if there is a likelyhood that others might die. Are there things you would die for? Are there things you'd send others to die for, but wouldn't die for yourself? I think the second point speaks of callous cowardice myself, but as I said, I'm a bit old-fashioned that way.

 

#3. Congressional off-spring in the service. Well, I kinda was hoping you'd do a search to get to the bottom of this, but you only use non-factual bluffery to refute me. How irrational of you! I expect statistics and facts, not innuendo! You have Rand rolling in her grave. Search, baby! Google is at your fingertips. Prove me wrong.

 

And yes, GW flew jets, protecting Texas against the Mexican airforce during Vietnam. Good job, George.

 

Hmmm....

[gregm]

A Dr. Suessian Response

To The State Of The Union

1-28-3

 

I am Saddam.

Saddam I am.

I am the ruler of Iraq,

The country that you would attack.

You are Bush.

Bush you are.

The fame of you has spread afar.

You do not like me, Bush, I know.

You would not like me in a show.

You would not like me in the snow.

You simply wish that I would go.

You say I used to slaughter Kurds.

You say that I use naughty words.

You say I have an evil stash

Of weapons of destruction (mass),

Of bombs and missiles, germs and gas.

You say I tried to kill your Pop.

Oh, how I wish that you would stop!

I promise you I have no stash

Of weapons of destruction (mass).

I do not have them near or far.

I did not hide them in my car.

I did not hide them in a bar.

I did not hide them in a hole.

I did not hide them up a pole.

I did not hide them in a grave.

I did not hide them in a cave.

I did not hide them in a dish.

I did not hide them in a knish.

I did not hide them in my coat.

I did not hide them in a goat.

I did not hide them in a trunk.

I did not hide them in my bunk.

I did not hide them anywhere.

In short, they simply are not there.

The inspectors came and looked,

And looked, and looked, and looked, and looked.

They looked high and they looked low,

Every place that they could go.

They looked in every hole and crack,

Each drawer and closet, bag and sack.

They found nothing in a trunk-or

Even in my private bunker.

They did not find a single stash

Of weapons of destruction (mass) ...

And STILL you won't get off my a**!

I've done all that I can do.

The rest, dear Bush, is up to you.

Please don't be angry, don't be sore.

We don't need to have a war.

Let's go back to the good old days

When your dad and Reagan sang my praise.

I was your faithful ally then.

Why can't we be friends again?

I say, let's let this whole thing drop.

(My best regards to your dear Pop.)

[To_The_Top]

Posted by MtnGoat earlier:

"Also, it has been proven that cutting taxes for middle income taxpayers is more effective at stimulating the economy than cutting the top tax payers taxes, which shifts the burden to lower income tax payers."

 

When was this proven? And how does one shift the burden of an income tax to lower income payers, most of whom do not pay any income taxes at all, and many of whom get earned income credits, money back when they paid no income tax in the first place? By definition, a tax cut can only happen if you pay income tax in the first place, of course an income tax cut will only effect those who pay income taxes.

 

Now if we're talking the SS/payroll tax, then that's a different story. If the Dems want to support an across the board cut there, I'm all for it.

Hey MTNGoat, I said LOWER INCOME TAXPAYERS, not people who dont pay taxes.

I think that all government dollar spenders should be audited and accountable, this includes the military.

What I dont get is if we are having an impending war why are they trying to cut taxes to the wealthy (meaning someone else will have to pick up the tab).

TTT

[Fairweather]

Do you think the Dems would be proposing ANY tax cuts to ANY income level if Al Gore were president and/or the Dems controlled congress? They have been reduced to the "Me Too!" party. The writing is on the wall if they want to read it....

[allthumbs]

fairweather

[j_b]

Please don't so blithely elide over the Iraqi civilians who would be killed for no reason

 

Iraquis are killed for no reason anyway. This is not a situation in which one option results in no dead Iraqui civilians. If we go to war, some will be accidentally killed. If we do not, Saddam will continue to kill more intentionally.

 

In case of war, the deaths will be accidental and then cease when the war ends, and all the folks who would have been gutted and raped in dark basements tomorrow, next week, and next year, will still be alive. We do not have the luxury of choosing an option where no Iraqui civilians will die, we do have the opportunity to choose an option where the dying will end ASAP.

 

 

does this imply we had nothing to do with Saddam staying in power while we had full knowledge of what he was up to? or is it that since people will die we might as well do the killing ourselves for our purpose?

 

I think you out-did yourself this time (if that was possible)

 

'accidental death by cruise missile'.... yeah right!

[Fairweather]

...see attached. Halabja. Northern Iraq,1988. Saddam did this. Not America.

[Fairweather]

...more of Saddam's handi-work.

[Fairweather]

...and still more. JB, Sex Choc, Dr Flasher, are so anxious to blame America first...so anxious to over-analyze, so sure they're morally and intellectually superior to the majority, that they can't see a picture like this as murder on a ghastly scale by a tyrant who's got to go.

[MtnGoat]

"They know that they're next on the list after we clean up from our session on Iraq so they might as well provocate now and try to get something for it. Which they did."

 

What did they get?

 

 

 

[MtnGoat]

"does this imply we had nothing to do with Saddam staying in power while we had full knowledge of what he was up to? "

 

Not at all.

 

"or is it that since people will die we might as well do the killing ourselves for our purpose?"

 

Yes. Our purpose (ending Saddam's ownership of WMD) coincides with their purpose, getting rid of him. We have a reason to want him gone, they certainly do, that our reasons overlap do not mean they are not valid ones.

 

It's very nice to figure you're in favor of no civilians dying, I am certainly in that camp. but the plain fact is, they're dying now, and with no end in sight given the "effectiveness" of current UN methods.

 

Some folks will unavoidably be killed by accident, he kills them on purpose. When the war is over, or he is gone, his intentional killing will be at and end. The unintentional and tragic deaths we will cause will be over quickly, the fully intentional ones he causes have the possibility of extending many years into the future.

 

Ignoring that people are already dying, and that there is no option where they don't, does not exactly indicate a situation where one faction here can claim the actions they support lead to no Iraqui civilian deaths.

 

Each and every one does. Shall they die for nothing, gutted in a basement intentionally, leading to no changes and more hapless souls there in that basement, next week, next month, next year, extending until Saddam drops (and maybe not even then), or for a reason, unintentionally, where the end result is an end to torture and murder in a few weeks?

 

 

[jja]

what he said

[j_b]

what these pictures can't hide is the fact that we were in bed with him while these murders and many others were committed. What did we do about it then? provide him with chemical weapon technology to use against Kurds and Iranians?

[j_b]

"does this imply we had nothing to do with Saddam staying in power while we had full knowledge of what he was up to? "

 

 

Not at all.

 

what do you mean by 'not at all'? during the 80's Iraq had our financial, political, and military support (all approved by Rumsfeld by the way). Is this another case of your chronic lapse of conciousness?

 

"or is it that since people will die we might as well do the killing ourselves for our purpose?"

 

It's very nice to figure you're in favor of no civilians dying, I am certainly in that camp. but the plain fact is, they're dying now, and with no end in sight given the "effectiveness" of current UN methods.

 

most death occurring now in Iraq are due to sanctions and the 91 gulf war. We should do everything we can to get rid of Saddam (as we always should have), but in the interest of being consistent, not create greater hardship for the people we purport to defend.

 

Some folks will unavoidably be killed by accident

 

oh please! You know as well as I do what the verdict is for someone firing a gun in a crowded theater, and it's not ruled accidental.

 

I am pleased to see our conservative friends motivated by such goodwill towards the oppressed of this world. There is a lot of work to do and I hope you won't shy away from the task at hand anywhere it may be.