| Author |
Message |
    
lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 628
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 10:41 am: |     |
There are substantiated arguments for and against the war in Iraq. The most puzzling argument is in retort to a person who says that we stopped a brutal dictator who was systematically killing thousands of his own people over a period of time. The anti-war argument is essentially a "So what? We don't help other countries with brutal dictators who kill people and violate human rights."
Does this mean that because we can't help the entire world, we shouldn't help anyone? Somehow it's not fair so everyone has to suffer? Heck we can't afford to give food stamps to the whole world either so should we stop giving them here?
You might say that our help is insincere because all we really want is our grubby, greedy hands on Iraq's oil but even if that was true, we would still be helping out the Iraqi's and that's a good thing.
Does anyone understand this argument that I continually hear? |
mem
Citizen
Username: Mem
Post Number: 2646
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 11:21 am: | |
I understand. However, I was stumped that the US presumed it was somehow OUR job to take care of this guy and use billions of US citizen's money to do so (cheaper to take out a contract on him and his cohorts), but I then took it as "we made our bed, now we have to lie in it", but where's our return on investment, none yet? When is it coming? OK, we really could have used the money to fix up our own place, i.e., imagine if we spent ALL that money on our inner city problems? And on revising our internal manufacturing/economic structures and policies so that we can create more jobs, improve the standard of living for all here at home, and strengthen our borders, transportation safety, etc. so we never have to worry about terrorism again? And investing in technology to develop environmental friendly energy alternatives. Even try to go to Mars so we can benefit from those new technologies.
And NO - this does not make me some corny "liberal", yuck. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 476
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 11:29 am: | |
mem,
you've just outlined the platform on which I'm basing my run at the presidency. you wanna be my running mate? |
lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 629
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 11:36 am: | |
There are PLENTY of good arguments against the war. I was wondering why I KEEP hearing this illogical one. It can't be there because there aren't better ones. |
mem
Citizen
Username: Mem
Post Number: 2648
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 11:38 am: | |
Also: education, healthcare, I mean, billions of dollars is a LOT of money, where did it come from? Who's paying for this? What if I took all my hard earned money that I was saving to fix up my house, but decided to throw some mean crazy lunatic guy way on the other side of town out of his house, and use the money to fix up his house, just like that? That would be CRAZY.
Dr., thanks for the invite but NO WAY do I want to get involved in politics. I'm such a hybrid I wouldn't know which way to run. |
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 602
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 11:46 am: | |
Mem: What if you took the money that you were saving to fix up your house and used it to build a house for a family of four in an underdeveloped country that would have a very small chance of survival if they didn’t have a place to live. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 477
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 11:54 am: | |
mem,
all joking aside, in a minute I'd vote for any candidate who was running on a platform like that.
it really seems like common sense - get to work on this country's infrastructure: roads, bridges, rails, airports, power grid, security apparatus. and go to work on making us energy independent. It would provide good, high-paying jobs to people who work with their hands. jobs that can't be shipped overseas.
It would make us safer, more prosperous, and would bring our infrastructure into the 21st century. added bonus points - we'd get to raise a big, fat middle finger to the Saudis and the rest of OPEC, and tell them they can eat their oil for all we care.
Unfortunately, the big campaign $$$ come from the opponents of all those initiatives, so neither party will seize on those ideas.
should we be too cynical to believe these things can ever happen, or is there still hope? |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4403
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 12:12 pm: | |
The thing that still has me scratching my head and shaking it as well is how Bush went from disdain for "nation building" to its biggest practioner.
Can anyone expalin ths? |
mem
Citizen
Username: Mem
Post Number: 2649
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 12:23 pm: | |
Lumpy,
Sorry I went on a tangent, you are correct and I agree, the "if we help them why aren't we helping everyone and Bush is a big *sshole" argument is stupid, babyish and useless.
"Mem: What if you took the money that you were saving to fix up your house and used it to build a house for a family of four in an underdeveloped country that would have a very small chance of survival if they didn’t have a place to live."
Brett - First of all, we have plenty of people in that situation right here in the US. Call me selfish but I like to help my own first, then be in better shape to help others. Also, so many countries are in that situation, how are we to choose? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 758
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 12:35 pm: | |
bobk....9/11 changed Bush on nationbuilding, and indirectly on a host of other things. |
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 1454
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 1:08 pm: | |
not when taken with the fact that removing hussein was a priority from day one.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"
Wayne Gretzky |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 760
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 1:21 pm: | |
Regime change was the policy of the US since at least as far back as 1998, if not 1991. Some administrations were good at it, others were not, obviously.
If the allegation is Bush wanted to invade Iraq the day he assumed office, that's not correct. |
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 1455
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 2:15 pm: | |
quote:If the allegation is Bush wanted to invade Iraq the day he assumed office, that's not correct.
yes it is.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"
Wayne Gretzky |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 902
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 2:18 pm: | |
Lumpy... I don't know why that particular argument is used. Clearly it is both inappropriate and economically/logistically impossible for the U.S. to deal with every country with oppressive, inhumane governments.
WHERE we should apply our resources, and HOW to apply them are both complex subjects, but it is certainly not our responsibility to solve all the world's problems, nor are we qualified to. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 762
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 2:27 pm: | |
Dunk, if you're going off of O'Neill's supposed comments -- that was what the Left ran with on Bush paying particular attention to Iraq. O'Neill himself said the attention was based on the policy of regime change that predated his Administration, thereby fouling your conspiracy theory.
Unless it's just a feeling you have. Which is OK. It guides a lot of voters these days. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 479
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 2:34 pm: | |
and the others are guided by what they believe (not know).
Considering the entire Bush foreign policy team was lobbying for Saddam's overthrow for years, I'm inclined to go along with O'Neill, since the evidence (not my feelings or beliefs) seems in line with his conclusions. |
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 1456
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 2:38 pm: | |
ceeej.. they were not O'Neill's "supposed" comments. I heard him say it himself. And there is a difference between a policy of regime change and plans to enact it. A policy of regime change can have as a part, sanctions, support of insurgents, placement of operatives, etc etc. Not solely war. As O'Neill said it was not a matter of what kind of military intervention there would be only a matter of when.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"
Wayne Gretzky |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 763
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 2:42 pm: | |
Sure they were lobbying for his overthrow, using expats and Kurds and others to accomplish that goal. Clinton was considering possibilities with them as well, combined with lobbing a few Tomahawks into Baghdad.
He concluded nothing of the sort along the lines that Bush wanted a US military invasion. You have no evidence that was the case -- especially if it's O'Neill you're using who has said it wasn't even his book after all this! |
Michaela May
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 50
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 8:04 pm: | |
Lumpy, the argument is not that we shouldn't help one country because we can't help all. Rrather, people who make that claim -- and I am among them -- are questioning the adminstration's sincerity and are arguing that the Bush administration went in for other reasons and merely used humanitarian arguments as an ex post facto explanation when the original justification proved moot. |
lumpyhead
Citizen
Username: Lumpyhead
Post Number: 633
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 10:32 am: | |
I mentioned that even if there was a lack of sincerity on the administration's part, the Iraqi people are still better off. Do you really think we are going to "steal" the oil away from them? Even if we benefit by getting contracts/business so what? We spent 80 billion dollars of our own money and freeing them. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1835
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 10:43 am: | |
Dr. O'Boogie said: it really seems like common sense - get to work on this country's infrastructure: roads, bridges, rails, airports, power grid, security apparatus. and go to work on making us energy independent. It would provide good, high-paying jobs to people who work with their hands. jobs that can't be shipped overseas.
Doctor, it's AAAAAAAALL being taken care of. Trust us. The tax cuts will take care of it all. They are the all-nourishing mother's milk. You shall need nothing else.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 1464
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 10:53 am: | |
now just a second here..
All these tax cuts means that the gov't has less income, right? But we are also spending 87 Billion not previously accounted for on the "war".
Can someone tell me where that money is coming from. Oh deficit spending...I get it. 475 Billion dollars. no sweat. Gonna get my son in the labor pool now so he can help pay down this conservatives debt. Sheesh
Yummmm gimme some more of that mothers milk
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"
Wayne Gretzky |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 767
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:10 am: | |
You wouldn't and didn't bat an eyelash on a gift to middle class geezers for their drugs, and I'll lay money you would even spend more than the 400B already. Your crying about deficits is empty, as you'd spend just as much or more yourself and on yourself. The teat of govt is firmly attached to the boobs in the Democratic party.
As for tax cuts, they've improved the take to the Treasury every time they've been tried -- by JFK, Reagan and now Bush. You don't get more revenue from a shrinking economy. And spending is an entirely different animal regardless. |
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 1465
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:29 am: | |
Man am I sick of you cjc. You win. You are right.. about everything. No one else has a prayer when your razor sharp intellect is on the board. I bow before your genius.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"
Wayne Gretzky |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1837
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:34 am: | |
cjc, claim that revenues go up when taxes go down. Never mind explaining how that works, as I'm aware of the mechanism. You claim that it it is happening now under Bush. Wait, really? Revenues are up already? Or do we have to wait to verify this?
Also, you said, And spending is an entirely different animal regardless. So I suppose the increase in military spending doesn't count when you tally up which party is the bigger spendthrift? To me, it seems like a tremendous increase and should be counted.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 482
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:44 am: | |
The whole idea that tax cuts increase tax revenues is just so counterintuitive, but many MOLers keep saying it over and over. My Ph.D. is not in economics, so I looked up some info on tax revenue with regard to tax cuts to learn a bit about it.
The most logical sounding piece I found was this one:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxcollections.htm
here's an excerpt:
"Tax cuts in recent history
Since World War II, federal tax receipts have fluctuated within a few points of 18 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. Because they have been so stable, tax collections have regularly grown with the economy. Almost always, the only drops in tax collections have been during recession years; otherwise, tax collections have expanded in the years that the rest of the economy expanded.
There are a few notable exceptions to the above rule: those periods following large tax cuts. After Reagan's income tax cuts took effect in 1982, real income tax collections took a long fall, despite the fact our economy continued to grow. For the moment, let's ignore the fact that tax collections could have been expected to grow after 1981. Let's simply use 1981 as a baseline, multiplying it 8 times, and compare that to what was really collected over the next 8 years.
Individual Income Tax Collections (millions) (1)
Year Current Constant (87 dollars)
-------------------------------------------
1981 $285,917 $367,692
1982 297,744 356,366
1983 288,938 332,033
1984 298,415 328,470
1985 334,531 354,677
1986 348,959 359,307
1987 392,557 392,557
1988 401,181 387,128
1989 445,690 411,533
-----------------------------
82-89 total: 2,922,691
1981 (times 8) -2,941,536
-----------------------------
Net 8-year loss -18,845
Corporate Income Taxes (millions)
Year Current Constant (87 dollars)
-------------------------------------------
1981 $61,137 $78,623
1982 49,207 58,991
1983 37,022 42,544
1984 56,893 62,623
1985 61,331 65,024
1986 63,143 65,015
1987 83,926 83,926
1988 94,508 91,224
1989 103,291 98,092
------------------------------
82-89 total: 567,439
1981 (times 8) -628,984
------------------------------
Net 8-year loss -69,545
Combined individual and corporate income tax loss: $88 billion.
Keep in mind that this does not count the lost revenues that could be expected from a growing economy.
Also remember that, because the economy grows in the long run, tax collections will inevitably start rising again sooner or later as the tax base continues to grow. Therefore, supply-siders do not have the argument that there was a delay in increased tax collections, or that we can't expect tax policy to have immediate effects. The simple fact is that there was a 5 year drop in tax collections, which was extremely uncharacteristic of a growing economy. And during that time we incurred a trillion and a half dollars in debt, so the alleged value of such a tax policy is refuted outright."
On the other hand, the articles I found in support of supply side theory used real dollars, and not constant dollars. That seems to me (again not an economist), to be cheating, especially in looking at the '80s, when inflation was pretty high. Tax receipts would have been expected to grow at a pretty strong clip each year based on inflation alone.
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2122
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:49 am: | |
Dr. W O'B:
The Bush Junta is relying on the Enron math, hope and pixie dust. Try that and you will see that by taking a pay cut, you can actually increase your salary. I was laid off, took a job at a lower salary and I am now rolling in money.
If you still don't get it, let me know and I will send over an additional supply off pixie dust. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 484
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:57 am: | |
I guess the part I don't understand is, apparently supply side only works when you're running a deficit.
because I recall Bush advocating a tax cut when we had a budget surplus so he could give the money "back to the people." but by supply side logic, that cut wouldn't have given us back the surplus, it would have INCREASED the surplus.
but now that we have a deficit, the cuts will work to increase revenue and eliminate at least part of the deficit.
maybe I'm thinking too much about this. I should just enjoy my bigger refund. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1840
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:00 pm: | |
I think we're getting into matters of faith now. Deficits and economic downturns happen because of actions of the government or because they are cyclic and are out of the government's control. Pick whichever theory you like whenever it's convenient to make your party look good or the opposing party bad.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 770
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:07 pm: | |
I don't think you can bet on the economy growing in the long run. Japan is an example. They've been mired in a contracting or slightly growing economy at best since the mid 90s.
Duncan.....I'm sorry you're sick of me. It seems that it would be better for many on this board if it was more politically aligned to the left as it was when I first started visiting here. You all just agreed with the occasional conservative here and there, and then you'd make fun of that conservative. I'm not sick of you. I like the back and forth. I'm sorry you don't. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 486
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:28 pm: | |
cjc,
I guess the frustration some of us feel is that you never concede a point, even when you post stuff off the top of your head without data to back it up.
here's an example:
quote:I don't think you can bet on the economy growing in the long run.
But if I look at this chart, it seems like a pretty damn good bet that GDP is going to go up:
 |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4417
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 12:59 pm: | |
Good point on Japan cjc. Up until recently they had a rightest oligargy government and most of the economic and by extension political power centered in a handful of super conglomerates such as Mitsuibishi (the wonderful folks who brought you Pearl Harbor). This seems to be the direction the US seems headed, and probably with the same result except for the top one or two percent.
Hell even the WSJ has an article today about the tact that the income gap between the top and the bottom is growing, in contrast to what was the case in the 1990s. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 772
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 1:00 pm: | |
Well, Doctor....I will CONCEDE that it may hold true with the US economy. I'm actively betting on the economy growing in the long run, and have for my entire investing life. I'm talking more in a theoretical way -- which is why I mentioned Japan. You could, in theory, tax an economy into paralysis or very limited growth. OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I don't recall any nation taxing it's way into prosperity.
And I have conceded points, admitted erring as well as puting things out that I ask other's opinion on as mine isn't entirely formulated. And I've applauded gag lines that go against my party/ideology -- from no other than Duncan himself.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 773
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 1:11 pm: | |
bobk...the income gap did increase during the 90s. This is from the Economic Policy Institute -- and I don't think they're a conservative think tank (corrections, please).
"Income Disparities Continued to Grow in the 1990s
Over the 1990s, the average real income of high-income families grew by 15 percent, while average income remained the same for the lowest-income families and grew by less than two percent for middle-income families — not enough to make up for the decline in income during the previous decade.
In two-thirds of the states, the gap in incomes between the lowest-income and the highest-income families grew over the last decade. The gap between low- and high-income families declined significantly in only three states — Alaska, Louisiana, and Tennessee.
The states with the widest income gaps and the states in which disparities between high- and low-income families and high- and middle-income families grew the most over the time periods considered in the report are shown in Table A of this release."
|
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4418
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 1:13 pm: | |
Cjc, take it up with the WSJ.  |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 775
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 1:18 pm: | |
Was that today's edition? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 487
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 1:26 pm: | |
well cjc,
excuse me for thinking you were referring to the US economy, since that's what every other poster was referring to.
so I guess what I interpreted as an unwillingness to concede a point was in fact a tangent. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4419
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 2:02 pm: | |
Yep, but it was refering to a narrowing gap in the late 1990s, which I didn't make clear I have to admit. Front page story. While I realize that the WSJ is a left wing commie paper... |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page