| Author |
Message |
    
TomD
Citizen
Username: Tomd
Post Number: 378
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 4:14 pm: | 
|
No comment necessary. |
TomD
Citizen
Username: Tomd
Post Number: 379
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 4:16 pm: |
|
But if I had to make a snide comment I might say that Bill Clinton appears to be the meat in an incompetence sandwich. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3329
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Source: Bush Administration's OMB. Fox guarding the henhouse. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5349
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 9:39 pm: |
|
The chart is empty as far as comments go.
10 year projections are great. Unless, of course, someone tosses a recession and 9/11 into the mix.
It would also help if the Republican Congress threw the brakes on government spending on Bush as they did to Clinton. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1001
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 9:50 pm: |
|
I would hire some-one with a background in Economics.
Rhodes Scolar, maybe.
Strauss and his Chicago followers dont know diddly |
John
Citizen
Username: Jdm
Post Number: 8
Registered: 3-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 11:47 pm: |
|
There wasn't a Republican majority in Congress until '94.
Likewise 9-11 occurred late in '01, after Bush's tax cut had been passed.
Surely no president is entirely responsible for the economy during his term, but it is worth noting that under Clinton the deficit was reduced every year, and under Bush it has increased in every year but one. Gov't spending also increased every year under both presidents, and all Congresses. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 927
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 8:55 am: |
|
dont let the facts get in the way of good propaganda cjc.
all the excuses in the world cant take away the nearly 9 trillion dollar deficit that Bush jr. has rung up. Recession, war, tax cuts. None of it are excuses for emptying the treasury and attempting to privatize everything.
Republican fiascos start with the tax cuts and continue with the scrapping of the pay as you go rules only to be topped off with the war of choice in Iraq.
Incompetant is the perfect adjective to describe this administration. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4538
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 11:49 am: |
|
I thought the recession was over, and that the economy had recovered full-steam from 9/11. Or is that argument that is just wheeled out when we're talking about how "great" Bush has done with the economy? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5356
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Pay as you go rules in liberal thinking don't make sense. How else do you explain the 'drain' on the Treasury from cap gains tax cuts that result in increased revenues to the Treasury as we've just had? That's not propaganda.
And Democrats can't cut spending (unless it's for the military).
Republicans controlled congress beginning in 1994. With the ensuing cap gains tax cuts, the stock market and receipts to the Treasury from that activity took off which provided the monies for a surplus combined with holds put on Clinton's desire to spend. That spending restraint evaporated under Bush.
As for Kerry, he campaigned on spending his desired tax hike on programs 2-3 times over without regard to deficits.
The recession is over, and the tax cuts' boost to the economy is the reason why. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4540
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 12:09 pm: |
|
so why is the deficit still so big? oh never mind. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1499
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 12:13 pm: |
|
so why is the deficit still so big?
So the next president is forced to cut social programs. |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5966
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 12:15 pm: |
|
cjc...it seems that the Republicans (the party of smaller gov't as I recall) can't stop spending, and yet they also can't send vests to troops, and have to retrofit vehicles already in the theater.
This is chicanery at best, and idiocy at worst. And somewhere in the middle lies the truth...incompetence. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 930
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 12:19 pm: |
|
and tell me whats wrong with cutting a defense budget that is over 40% of all revenue received by the government.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5357
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 12:31 pm: |
|
62 cents of every dollar goes to entitlements and debt servicing, Hoops. Don't know what you're talking about.
Duncan -- they are sending upgraded vests to the troops, and they do retro-fit vehicles when the battle tactics change. Remember D-Day? Troops and convoys getting shelled from Germans hiding behind the hedgerows along the roads out of there? Troops had to fashion brush cutters on the fronts of tanks on the fly. It's the nature of the war. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4542
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 12:34 pm: |
|
one of you is including Social Security money and one of you isn't. |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5971
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 1:06 pm: |
|
cjc..that is a shoddy comparison and you know it. How can you compare D-Day with going into Iraq? It is insane and, yes I will say it, STUPID |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5358
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 1:21 pm: |
|
Take the time to read some history on the course many wars have taken and how victorious armies have to adapt to changing conditions which usually occur after setbacks or losses.
This is a polite way of saying you don't know what you're talking about. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4547
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 1:55 pm: |
|
It's one thing to adapt to changing conditions, and another thing altogether to be cheap. Body armor and armored vehicles are nothing new and should have been provided from the outset. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5359
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 2:06 pm: |
|
They did have armored vehicles. They didn't have every vehicle up-armored to deal with the attacks on convoys and increasingly lethal IEDs.
The Army did have body armor for dismounted troops on foot in Iraq, per Senate testimony. The tactics of the enemy made outfitting all personnel regardless of how they were dispatched necessary. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5196
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 2:22 pm: |
|
Cjc, that's simply incorrect. The vehicles and the troops were sent in, from the beginning, with insufficient protection. |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5974
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 2:30 pm: |
|
In fact, cjc, I do know what I am talking about. adapting to battlefield conditions is great, but we knew what we were headed for this time. And I am not talking about retrofitting for IED's I am talking about retrofitting for GASP the possibility of mines. Who would have thought there would be mines on the ground?
Admit when you are wrong just once and maybe you will build a little credibility outside your cadre of like minded, like blinded buddies. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5360
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 2:49 pm: |
|
Given how the war is being fought, you're correct Nohero. If there was no use of roadside IEDs vs 'mines' which are entirely different ordinants, then the vehicles would have had sufficient armor.
Saying there was no body armor or no armored vehicles is not accurate. Insufficient in hindsight? Yes.
And when I am wrong, I'll be sure and tell you about it, Duncan. |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5976
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 2:51 pm: |
|
cjc...why not start right now. You are wrong when you characterize the post above as having said "no body armor or no armored vehicles"...that was not what I said at all.
So, this would be a good place for you try it on. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5362
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 2:57 pm: |
|
Here's your statement:
"and yet they also can't send vests to troops, and have to retrofit vehicles...."
If I inaccurately put Nohero's statement of armor being "insufficient" in line with yours, then I erred. He seemed to be piling on your misguided premise of there being no body armor and no armor on the vehicles used when this war began. |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5977
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 3:10 pm: |
|
man talk about parsing something a little too fine. You must constantly be on the defensive if you say that "they also can't send vests to troops" to be the same as "no body armor". Perhaps I should be clearer when I know you are reading.
Ok, here is what I meant.
"and yet they also can't send enough vests for every soldier (which would seem to be the least they can do, no?)"
The retrofitting statement is pretty clear and I don't see how you can find fault with it. They sent Humvee's over there that were not fit to take a hit from a land mine.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5364
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 3:20 pm: |
|
A land mine is one that usually involves a trip wire or pressure mechanism that must be touched before it explodes. A well-armored forward vehicle like a tank or Bradley can take that type of hit.
When you have IEDs made of artillary shells activated by an electronic device after the well-armored forward vehicle passes, you've got a problem when they explode next to lightly armored Humvees. You have to make adjustments then, which we have. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5197
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Quote:When you have IEDs made of artillary shells activated by an electronic device after the well-armored forward vehicle passes, you've got a problem when they explode next to lightly armored Humvees. You have to make adjustments then, which we have.
I don't believe the "adjustments" were made in a timely fashion, and there is no reason to believe that sufficient "adjustments" have been made for all of the combat vehicles being used in Iraq.
Another piece of information to consider, as to whether the U.S.properly "adjusted" in order to give our troops sufficient protection -
On July 18, 2003, the Army first reported a death due to an IED.
Over two years later, on August 4, 2005, Columbia High graduate Edward Schroeder was killed by an IED, while he was in a lightly-armored, amphibious vehicle that was being used in desert combat. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4551
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 4:22 pm: |
|
two years after D-Day those jury-rigged brush cutters had already been beaten into plowshares. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page