It's been proven on more than one occasion that if you lower the tax rate, overall tax revenues increase. That, of course, is only half the picture.

In addition to that, you also have to stabilize or reduce spending to see any benefit from that increase in revenues.

Tax revenues increased under Reagan after his tax cuts, but spending spiralled out of control. Part of that was extra spending promised to the Dems by Reagan to get their vote for the tax cuts; more of it was Reagan deciding to spend the USSR into oblivion to win the cold war (an argument for another thread...).

These things are usually judged historically, so any judgment passed now about the Bush tax cuts is premature.

What we really need is a faster recovery of consumer confidence, which is what it will take to increase consumer spending, which in turn will lead to job growth.

SavageWombat

I am reading the various links I got on my search. Most are only quoting what you posted without further analysis and drawing their own conclusion. Does it not make sense that because of the original Gulf War that a terrorist attack on the US might come from Iraq? And if it turned out to be the case that we would already have a military operation on the shelf? I mean would we not expect that of our government? You know be prepared against potential enemies. Like I said I am still looking but I do not see where this means we were planning an attack. Does it mean that we had one on the shelf just in case? I sure hope so. I think without 9/11 any President would have had a hard time lobbying an Iraq war.

Jobless rates are still increasing here, but then again they have been ever since Fort Drum came along.

Dorsai:
Why? Because he was a demonstrated threat to his neighbors (Iran in 1980, Kuwait in 1990)

We SUPPORTED Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war!!! That alone nullifies this argument. Next...

, a demonstrated threat to our interests in the area (Israel, the oil trade),

How were they a threat to Israel, aside from threatening them in response to our liberation of Kuwait? How have they threatened Israel since then? And in regards to our oil interests, you need to clarify.

and refused to comply with UN resolutions, most notably on his weapons programs. Regardless of whether those programs were advanced enough to be a threat, he didn't come clean on them. After a decade of chances to straighten up, it was time to clean house.

If it was based on UN violations, the UN should have been allowed to handle it. The argument that the US had to unilaterally enforce UN resolutions FOR them with military power, without UN support, is illogical at best.

And no, Iraq wasn't necessarily worse than some other countries out there. And if those countries posed similar threats to us and caused similar problems in the world at large, I wouldn't object to them receiving the same treatment.

Again, what threat?

BenJaxBchFL

Yes, one does have to infer meaning from his statement. But Rumsfeld didn't propose going after Iran, or Syria, or other countries we considered hostile. He specifically mentioned Saddam.

Secondly, we should have plans ready should it be necessary to attack another country in self-defense. But we didn't just have an invasion plan - we had a "plan" dictating the need to attack Iraq in the first place. Said plan even mentions the need for a massive attack on the U.S. - comparable to Pearl Harbor - to convince Americans to support such an invasion. It's no wonder many people think Bush permitted, or even orchestrated, the 9/11 incident.

It seems to me that if we shouldn't have attacked Iraq without 9/11, but 9/11 doesn't justify Iraq - we shouldn't have attacked Iraq at all. This is because I believe that the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive self-defense is a monstrous mistake. Especially when you consider that a policy of pre-emptive self-defense might lead you to attack a country that turns out, afterwards, to have never been a threat to you at all.

The Ends Do Not Justify the Means.

Dorsai

Iraq has been a festering problem since Bush I failed to finish the job.

I see this comment from time to time. I recall vividly articles that were written at the time prior to the Gulf War that the US would never go into Baghdad because there was fear of a power vacuum in the region between Syria and Iran.

HappyDaddy

I find nothing factually wrong what you're saying, but you're not arguing against my point. As an aside it's interesting, I guess.

But maybe I wasn't being clear enough a hundred or so posts ago.

BenJaxBchFL's post "Iraq is about 9/11" was the myth I was trying to clear up.

Prior to 1980 we could have a budget deficit because we always had a trade surplus. Save for the Gramm-Rudman 90-93, running a budget deficit AND a trade deficit for the past 20 years will catch up to us. The dollar will be devalued like a Tijuana peso and will probably coincide with the next big stock market crash around 2010 when the first baby boomers turn 65 and 1 million people BY LAW have to withdraw 8% of their 401k each year, and every year an ADDITIONAL 1 million will have to withdraw(read:sell stock) 8% of their 401k.

airzonk - If you have 40 yrs to retire, purchase ONLY stocks that pay the highest dividends (blue chips, REITs, insurance cos.) Purchase a specific amount every month, $100, $500, $1000, whatever you can afford, try to keep it the same amount every month, don't skip a month, reinvest the dividends in the same stocks. When the market is down your $$ will buy more, when it is up it will buy less. In 30 yrs or less you will be set. This only works if you have at least 25 yrs til retirement so that you can weather and take advantage of market downturns. NEVER buy a stock because you or someone else thinks it will go up in price. That is the "Greater Fool" theory, after you buy it you hope that there is some other fool that thinks it is worth more. The problem is you never know if you were the last fool. That is not investing, that is called speculation. If you want to speculate, do it in commodities, better payoff and crude oil never goes out of business.

There isn't a dime's worth of difference between the 2 parties.

BenJaxBchFL, you are the winner. The year was indeed 1965. dave76tx, you recieve Honorable Mention.

SavageWombat:
Said plan even mentions the need for a massive attack on the U.S. - comparable to Pearl Harbor - to convince Americans to support such an invasion.

This fact has always made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

Yikes...too freaky...need a distraction...
*looks at pron*

2003-11-25 05:20:31 PM shonblatt
What we really need is a faster recovery of consumer confidence, which is what it will take to increase consumer spending, which in turn will lead to job growth.


Umm...been following the news today?

We could all be billionaires with no worries, wouldn't change the fact that George Dubya Bush is an EVIL, TWO FACED CLUELESS MORON that should be in JAIL! I hope he dies SOON! But ONLY if DICKHEAD Cheney and John ASScroft are on the same plane when it crashes and burns!

Bring it on Republipukes!

SavageWombat

But we didn't just have an invasion plan - we had a "plan" dictating the need to attack Iraq in the first place.

Ok, I'll bite. What source do you have for the US having a plan to invade Iraq without provocation. In other words not just UN sanction violations like we were told.

I have always felt the 1441 thing was bs. I have always thought it was a military strategy resulting from 9/11.

Anyone know where I can read up on how Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was precipitated by a US official informing the Iraqi administration that any attack would be considered a regional conflict by the US?
I heard about it, but never read any articles on it.

We SUPPORTED Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war!!! That alone nullifies this argument. Next...

No, it means we viewed Iraq as less of an evil than Iran. Iran had just been through its lovely Islamic revolution, remember? The enemy of our enemy isn't *really* our friend.

How were they a threat to Israel, aside from threatening them in response to our liberation of Kuwait? How have they threatened Israel since then? And in regards to our oil interests, you need to clarify.

Remember all the missiles they launched at
Israel during the Gulf War? Also, don't forget Iraq's financial support of Palestinian terrorists. As to the threat to oil supplies, that comes from both their attack on Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990.

If it was based on UN violations, the UN should have been allowed to handle it. The argument that the US had to unilaterally enforce UN resolutions FOR them with military power, without UN support, is illogical at best.

Except that the UN has become afraid of its own shadow and refuses to deal with its
responsibilities. Do you know that, despite their violations of their obligations, neither North Korea nor Iran have actually been reported to the Security Council?

Both countries have threatened 'consequences' if they are reported, and in both cases the UN has caved. The UN is simply incapable of discharging its obligations.

I really think you could have crammed your nonsense ranbling with some more fourth grader comments.

Iran had just been through its lovely Islamic revolution, remember?

Yeah, we did quite well at effectively installing an Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran...

BenJaxBchFL ,
Ok, I'll bite. What source do you have for the US having a plan to invade Iraq without provocation. In other words not just UN sanction violations like we were told.

I have always felt the 1441 thing was bs. I have always thought it was a military strategy resulting from 9/11.


Are you reading any of the links I submitted specifically for your perusal?

BenJaxBchFL
And anyway, what was our provocation this time? ISn't the bush administration calling our war on Iraq "pre-emptive"?

How'd this turn into a "Iraq War" thread? Don't we have those daily in other threads?

C'mon, IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPIDS!

Dozhdbog:

Actually, all we told Iraq back in 1990 was that we didn't have a position in their dispute with Kuwait, which was fundamentally over extraction rights in a particular oilfield that straddles their border. How Hussein took that as a green light to completely conquer the country is a modern-day mystery.

BenJaxBchFL

You need to do your homework. Here's a link for a short version:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/pnac_030310.html

Excerpt:
-----
The group, the Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. Among its supporters were three Republican former officials who were sitting out the Democratic presidency of Bill Clinton: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
In open letters to Clinton and GOP congressional leaders the next year, the group called for "the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power" and a shift toward a more assertive U.S. policy in the Middle East, including the use of force if necessary to unseat Saddam.

And in a report just before the 2000 election that would bring Bush to power, the group predicted that the shift would come about slowly, unless there were "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."
-----
And to get their viewpoint from the horse's mouth, feel free to visit them at http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Maybe its just me, but I for one dont consider growth from a small portion of the economy grounds for celebration. Neither would I prefer seeing the economy stagnant. There isn't a real answer to this problem, so theres really no one to blame, but we're all one nation. When a few profit so completely at the cost of the rest... thats autocratic (republican) economics.

As a nation, we're all paying more and more for progressively worse education, especially at the college level. Those who can barely afford the cost of an education find themselves $20-150,000 in debt coming out of school, but only marginally useful to anyone. Few companies will hire right out of college because the education is so worthless. The few who come away with quality, high paying jobs are the ones that manage to make the jump to that upper rung of society. They grow ever fewer.

Meanwhile, more of the middle class slip below the poverty line, trading things like insurance for food.

Is this economic growth? We'd all love to have health insurance, living debt free in a house we own, but the truth is that it will always be a struggle to make ends meet for those people earning less than $30,000 a year, in one way or another. Those are the people who need economic relief, but those are not the people getting help.

Helping the massive corporations has continued to generate jobs at executive levels, and has fueled the service level (minimum wage) job market. The happy medium, the skilled to somewhat skilled market, the $35-50,000 jobs are still disappearing. Middle management seems to have held on through this economic crunch, but they're starting to slip.

Which begs the question: Why are top executives making millions, while their employees are suffering in low paying jobs?

Dozhdbog:Anyone know where I can read up on how Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was precipitated by a US official informing the Iraqi administration that any attack would be considered a regional conflict by the US?
I heard about it, but never read any articles on it.

It's debatable...
http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm


Do a Google search for "Iraq Ambassador April Glaspie" for more info.

Dorsai

Any links to articles?

SacriliciousBeerSwiller
Grazie por Il link-o

Am I in the wrong thread? I thought this was about the "crappy economy growing at 8.2%."

dozhdbog

Google "April Glaspie" and read to your heart's content. Be aware that there is some dispute over the accuracy of the transcript of her meeting with Saddam.

I'm afrad the inadvertent Threadjack occurred because of the need to discuss the question of whether Americans were "safer" under Bush.

After all, it's not like there's anyone who would argue that Bush has actually improved the economy, right? ;)

it doesnt matter how much the american economy has grown.

it matters if they can pay off the deficit, and it matters how fast other countries are growing. i'd watch out for china if i were you.

Dozhdbog

Are you reading any of the links I submitted specifically for your perusal?

Actually I am. There is a lot there on the first one. But I got to tell you if you read the verbage there are a lot of lines that go like this: " It has been reported...." or "some sources have said....". I will continue to read but obviously those kind of sentences fall short of giving credible evidence. Like I said I fully expect that we have military plans for invasion of most global threats.,like Korea, China, etc.

This made my lips twitch a bit:

GLASPIE: In March 1991, she told a Senate committee that 'we foolishly did not realize [Saddam] was stupid.'

Dozhdbog:

'we foolishly did not realize [Saddam] was stupid.'

Now *that* is a prophetic comment.

You people are STILL talking about this?

Get back to your jobs! Earn that money!

SPEND! SPEND you CONSUMERS! Buy a bunch of CRAPPY STUFF!

Keep making the the rich RICHER!

YA!
YA!
YA!

Dozhdbog

That is worth a giggle or two, yes.

Dorsai:
No, it means we viewed Iraq as less of an evil than Iran. Iran had just been through its lovely Islamic revolution, remember? The enemy of our enemy isn't *really* our friend.

Exactly...so why did we support them? The bottom line is we did, so you can hardly say their war against Iran was an example of justification for our invasion, if WE HELPED THEM to attack Iran. See my point?

Remember all the missiles they launched at
Israel during the Gulf War?

Yes, I even acknowledged that they threatened Israel DURING the Gulf War, as a response to our involvement. I specifically was wondering what threat they have posed to Israel SINCE then.

Also, don't forget Iraq's financial support of Palestinian terrorists.

Well, I know they allegedly gave money to the families of suicide bombers. While ethically questionable, that hardly amounts to financial support, unless you are suggesting the aid went beyond that (which I doubt, judging by the lack of sophistication of the methods employed by said terrorists).

As to the threat to oil supplies, that comes from both their attack on Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990.

1980 is addressed above. And as for 1990...are you admitting that we invaded over oil? If so, a whole other debate opens up.

Except that the UN has become afraid of its own shadow and refuses to deal with its
responsibilities. Do you know that, despite their violations of their obligations, neither North Korea nor Iran have actually been reported to the Security Council?

It's the UN's problem, let the UN handle it. We have no right to speak for everyone unless we are directly threatened by the nations in question...which we weren't.

Ohhh, this is juicy:

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts," the transcript reports Glaspie saying, "such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction ... that Kuwait is not associated with America."

But I'd like to see the transcript in full.
Off to find more on this. Thanks guys.

OK, time for me to go. Fortunately, I have BeerSwiller here to hold up our end.

Everyone enjoy the flames.

Boy, the U.S. government is manufacturing this information as good as or better than the Soviet Union did during their propanganda hey day.

/heads in the sand

Dozhdbog

And anyway, what was our provocation this time? ISn't the bush administration calling our war on Iraq "pre-emptive"?


Yeah that's a broad term, "pre-emptive". Pre-emptive to what? No, I think that we feared the momentum of anti-American sentiment as long as we were going to stand behind Israel. Iraq is about diminishing the threat via changing the political structure in the region. Just my theory.


SavageWombat

You need to do your homework.

Working on it. Lot to read.

dozhdbog

Remember, the transcript was prepared by the Iraqis. Tariq Aziz has refuted parts of it. Glaspie denies making the comment you cite.

It is great news that the economy is doing so well, although the feds will have to shorten up the money supply now, though. No more ultra low interest rates. Anyway, there has not been a significant enough reduction in unemployment to explain these gains. These gains are in a large part due to increased worker productivity. That means people are working harder and for more hours. Anyway, all of you must give Bush a little credit here. As much as many of the liberals here would hate to admit it, the massive spending for Iraq and the tax cut did pump some much needed money into the economy. That and the work of Greenspan.

Dozhdbog:
Ohhh, this is juicy:

...
But I'd like to see the transcript in full.
Off to find more on this. Thanks guys.

You're just going to come to the same dead end everyone comes to: did Iraq doctor the transcript or not?

Exactly...so why did we support them? The bottom line is we did, so you can hardly say their war against Iran was an example of justification for our invasion, if WE HELPED THEM to attack Iran. See my point?

No no...we didn't help them invade Iran. But given that they *did* invade Iran, we preferred that they win instead of Iran. A subtle difference. Regardless, my point was that Iraq is a proven threat to its neighbors, as its invasion of Iran demonstrates.


Yes, I even acknowledged that they threatened Israel DURING the Gulf War, as a response to our involvement. I specifically was wondering what threat they have posed to Israel SINCE then.

Launching missiles is more than a threat...

Well, I know they allegedly gave money to the families of suicide bombers. While ethically questionable, that hardly amounts to financial support, unless you are suggesting the aid went beyond that (which I doubt, judging by the lack of sophistication of the methods employed by said terrorists).

This money is the point I was making. Chances are pretty good that the families don't actually get to bank all that cash.


And as for 1990...are you admitting that we invaded over oil? If so, a whole other debate opens up.

I'm 'admitting' that we invaded partly over the active disruption of the oil trade, which is vital to the interests of the U.S. and the rest of the world. This isn't exactly a secret.

(Regarding Iran and North Korea)

It's the UN's problem, let the UN handle it. We have no right to speak for everyone unless we are directly threatened by the nations in question...which we weren't.

Wow, that's a brilliant plan. And when a mushroom cloud appears over Tel Aviv, Seoul, or Tokyo, how will the UN 'handle' that?

I call bs. My big screen TV just broke and I have to replace it. I'm buying a new one because I need a new one, not because I have confidence in the economy.

I think we can conclude that a lot of people's big screen tvs broke in the third quarter.

*too lazy to Google*

I mean, why IS Thanksgiving on a Thursday? Shouldn't it ALWAYS be on a Friday? SO many people are taking off the day after as it is...

*googles, finds no usable results*

*sheepishly*

nevermind...wrong thread...apply as needed...

go back to your flamin' groovies...:)

Hmm...
Here is a quick read which alleges that Glaspie's conversation with Hussein on tape was obtained by british journalists, but I am having trouble finding any major media sources to confirm it:

FULL APRIL GLASPIE TRANSCRIPT

Odd... I will try again:
FULL APRIL GLASPIE TRANSCRIPT

Ah well.
Here's the link. Copy and paste you lazy bahstads.

http://www.whatreallyhappened..com/ARTICLE5/april.html