I want you all to read and remember this!

[Korgoth]

Four years from now I want you guys to recall reading this article, when a new administration takes office and you are up to your eyeballs in taxes and the economy is flushing itself down the toilet, remember that you read this and remember what it said please... Thank you, and good day.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21721-2005Feb13?language=printer

By the time the next president comes along, some analysts said, not only will there be little if any flexibility for any new initiatives, but the entire four-year term could be spent figuring out how to accommodate the long-range cost of Bush's policies.

"It's almost like you've got a budget, and you've got a shadow budget coming in behind that's a whole lot more expensive," said Philip G. Joyce, professor of public policy at George Washington University.

 

[Korgoth]

So now one has a counter to this?.... Nothing at all? I want to hear the other side of the coin here, come on guys don't dissapoint.

 

[gh0st]

Im the 'other side' and I hate that bush has bankrupted our government, unsurprising though considering our nations circumstances.

 

[Pesmerga]

It's a far fetched idea to think that Bush alone has "spent" the US. There are much deeper parts of our government than you will ever know of, who will do anything to ensure the longevity of our great free nation.

 

[Korgoth]

It's a far fetched idea to think that Bush alone has "spent" the US. There are much deeper parts of our government than you will ever know of, who will do anything to ensure the longevity of our great free nation.

That sounds very conspiracy theoryish... Shoes on the other foot now eh?

Im the 'other side' and I hate that bush has bankrupted our government, unsurprising though considering our nations circumstances.

I never ruled out that he had a lot of help I can understand some of the circumstances leading up to it... I cannot however justify tax cuts followed by a spending orgy... That just doens't work logically

 

[gh0st]

I never ruled out that he had a lot of help I can understand some of the circumstances leading up to it... I cannot however justify tax cuts followed by a spending orgy... That just doens't work logically

It works logically because a conservative administration seeks to cut down the bureaucracy that clinton totally perpetuated throughout his term. In this way you minimize waste, and can give back to the people. Thats why bush is cutting wasteful government organizations.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I think people love to underestimate Bush, looking ahead, that could be their biggest mistake.

 

[Stigmata]

I'm content to simply laugh at Homeland Security. Billions of dollars to X-ray 4% of a flight's baggage and decide that four books of matches is okay, while five is a terrorist threat.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

It works logically because a conservative administration seeks to cut down the bureaucracy that clinton totally perpetuated throughout his term. In this way you minimize waste, and can give back to the people. Thats why bush is cutting wasteful government organizations.

Exactly. Tax cuts need to be done. But then after you give the tax cuts, you don't build bigger government... that's what we were working against. Hence the good reason for cutting back on wasteful program.

Although I really dislike some of Bush's government building policies. I just feel it's gotten a little bigger in all areas. Not just security which is the one that needed to be bigger (bigger but efficient, though)

 

[GhostFox]

followed by a spending orgy

Did someone say orgy?........Oh....ummmm....really sorry about this guys....got confused for a moment there...won't happen again....*puts my pants back on*



lol

 

[GhostFox]

Although I really dislike some of Bush's government building policies.

I agree. I would like to see the administration take on a policy of tax cuts, balanced by more efficient govt. I think most areas could be streamlined and run much more efficiently, saving the country countless billions.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

It makes me somewhat sad that 200 billion dollars were spent on Iraq instead of much more pressing concerns.
Since the donations for the average 'christian children's fund' type of organization are 1 dollar a day per child, that money could have provided aid to support 54794521 kids in the third world (2X the entire population of Iraq), for 10 years each.
Such a humanitarian effort probably even would have had the ironic side-effect of combatting terrorism by eliminating the root causes: poverty and poor education.

Of course, that's somewhat idealistic.
But I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy, and that seems much less far-fetched than my assertion that that $200 000 000 000 could have built a space-faring robot with railguns for eyes that can pinpoint individual members of Al-Qaeda with its mind.

 

[GhostFox]

It makes me somewhat sad that 200 billion dollars were spent on Iraq instead of much more pressing concerns.

25,000,000 people in Iraq aren't worthwhile? Their freedom because they are middle eastern is meaningless? What if Iraq spreads democracy to the entire middle east? What if millions of lives are saved because of the war? My point is, at what point do you deem the money spent worthwhile?

 

[MjM]

It works logically because a conservative administration seeks to cut down the bureaucracy that clinton totally perpetuated throughout his term. In this way you minimize waste, and can give back to the people. Thats why bush is cutting wasteful government organizations.

Bush's admin isnt exactly small-government, under bush the government has increased in scope and burden on the tax payer.
Clinton spent less relative to GDP than bush has.

http://www.economist.com/surveys/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2172181

 

[MjM]

25,000,000 people in Iraq aren't worthwhile? Their freedom because they are middle eastern is meaningless? What if Iraq spreads democracy to the entire middle east? What if millions of lives are saved because of the war? My point is, at what point do you deem the money spent worthwhile?

No i think the point was more, alot of the 200Bn went into dropping bombs rather than providing aid. There has also been a recent admission that money allocated for aid and reconstruction of Iraq has been used very wastefully, i think the phrase "wild-west" was used.

 

[Korgoth]

I think people love to underestimate Bush, looking ahead, that could be their biggest mistake.

Looking ahead is a big mistake? Is that what you're saying.. Because if so, I agree, the future is rather scary with this administration at the helm.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

25,000,000 people in Iraq aren't worthwhile? Their freedom because they are middle eastern is meaningless?

First of all, Eh? At what point did I say that iraqis are worthless? I did not use the word 'meaningless' either. Second, I in no way implied anything even remotely close to that. It's like your read a completely different post.

Third, calling me a racist makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe you missed the part of my post where I said we should have given 200 BILLION DOLLARS to MIDDLE-EASTERN CHILDREN. Durrr.

What if Iraq spreads democracy to the entire middle east? What if millions of lives are saved because of the war?

Wait, so you're calling me some sort of freedom-hating crazy person just because I don't believe in some "what if" speculation on the distant future?
What if my 55000000 kids grow up, start their own country, and are so inspirational in their message of peace that all war ends forever? Literally infinite lives would be saved!
If ifs and buts were sugar and nuts, I posit to you that we may very well might have had no more or less than one party.

My point is, at what point do you deem the money spent worthwhile?

Err, it's fairly obvious, I think.
The only successful goal of the Iraq war has been the removal of their dictatorship.
Of course, many other countries also have dictators, or similarily corrupt governments. Why aren't we spending 200 dollars on them? Why was, say, North Korea less of a target?
The basic effect was akin to picking a dictatorship out of a random hat and then throwing 200 billion dollars at it. There was nothing about iraq that made it a higher priority target than anything else.
In fact, higher priority targets did and still do exist. Al-Qaeda, North korea. Immediate threats, both. Focus on Iraq has done more harm than good. So much so, that my simplistic and naive idea is brilliant by comparison.

How many people die from my plan? None.
How many WMDs does it get rid of? The exact amount the war has.
My plan doesn't give the middle-east any reason to hate america, while the war gives plenty.
My plan would also do infinitely more to combat terrorism, by actually saving children from eventual terrorist recruitment.

I'm not opposed to 'freedom' but democracy really isn't going to change the quality of life of most iraqis. Yeah, they can vote. That's good, but it is it more important than keeping twice as many children fed, educated and healthy for their entire childhoods?
The war could have been done for much, much less. But instead it was rushed into with reckless abandon. The simple fact that it is now something like 197 billion dollars over budget makes it a massive failure.
There is absolutely no reason why they couldn't have waited, or devised a better plan. As bad as Iraq was, it wasn't getting any worse. Whereas Al-Qaeda was blowing up buildings left and right.
It's like buying a 1000$ can-opener to open your Chunky chicken soup (the soup that eats like a meal). A more sensible plan could have saved over 950$, and done just as good a job. And the remainder could've been spent on, say, charity? Or a superior meal?
Imagine if 200 000 000 000 $ were spent on AIDs or cancer research? Or just on fighting Al-Qaeda?

The point is, just because something good happened it certainly doesn't mean the best thing happened. Quite the opposite in fact. But don't take my word for it:

http://users.rcn.com/skutsch/wastedironycom/nytimes.html
(Note: The Iraq war 'cost bar' in that graph, adjusted to today's cost, should be 35% longer. Enough to add an additional 80 000 personnel to the army, or 800 000 police officers.)

 

[GhostFox]

Godzillia, you missed my point completely. I was serious about those questions, I wasn't attacking you, not calling you a racist. You want the money to be spent on aid. That is fine. But at which point would you say the money was better spent on the war. I.E. Is it now because Iraq is free? Or is it 20 years from now if Iran and Syria are democratic as well because of it? etc.

Basically, do you have a point in your mind where you would ever say the money did more good in Iraq then if it went to aid.

 

[Sprafa]

Godzillia, you missed my point completely. I was serious about those questions, I wasn't attacking you, not calling you a racist. You want the money to be spent on aid. That is fine. But at which point would you say the money was better spent on the war. I.E. Is it now because Iraq is free? Or is it 20 years from now if Iran and Syria are democratic as well because of it? etc.

Basically, do you have a point in your mind where you would ever say the money did more good in Iraq then if it went to aid.

Iraq could've been done without invasion. Killing Saddam Hussein and the entire Baa'th Party could be easy. Thing is, the new Rulers would probably be less Western-sided than Saddam. That wouldn't fullfill anyone's interests, now would it ?

 

[GhostFox]

Iraq could've been done without invasion. Killing Saddam Hussein and the entire Baa'th Party could be easy. Thing is, the new Rulers would probably be less Western-sided than Saddam. That wouldn't fullfill anyone's interests, now would it ?

Do you ever have a point to your posts or do you just blather on inanely?

 

[gh0st]

Iraq could've been done without invasion. Killing Saddam Hussein and the entire Baa'th Party could be easy.

Unilateral state sanctioned assassination? Thats a mouthful but... what the hell are you talking about, shouldnt that be something youre against?

Bush's admin isnt exactly small-government, under bush the government has increased in scope and burden on the tax payer.
Clinton spent less relative to GDP than bush has.

http://www.economist.com/surveys/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2172181

I was talking in an ideological sense. The reasons why bush's burearocracy has increased are obivous. We have had a massive upsurge in security, so I understand the increase. Thing is, he can also work to cut down on the needless programs instituted by clinton during his administration, as well as cutting it down in general. I would say security is a necessity though, and one that needed to be increased after 9/11.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

That sounds very conspiracy theoryish... Shoes on the other foot now eh?

Four years from now I want you guys to recall reading this article, when a new administration takes office and you are up to your eyeballs in taxes and the economy is flushing itself down the toilet, remember that you read this and remember what it said please... Thank you, and good day.

Sounds a little Conspiracy theorish, eh?

 

[Korgoth]

kerberos, no it doesn't, you make absolutely no sense sometimes. I swear trying to comunicate with you is one of the hardest things I've ever done. Try again please. I think you just randomize whatever you say to try and make yourself sound like you won an argument, its not working on me lol

 

[RZAL]

The reasons why bush's burearocracy has increased are obivous. We have had a massive upsurge in security, so I understand the increase. Thing is, he can also work to cut down on the needless programs instituted by clinton during his administration, as well as cutting it down in general. I would say security is a necessity though, and one that needed to be increased after 9/11.

Well said, I'll buy that for a dollar.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

kerberos, no it doesn't, you make absolutely no sense sometimes.

Course thats the trade-off when discussing with an idiot ... see, we speak two different languages: Smart (me), Idiot (you) ...

I mean, the only two groups of people that have mastered the art of idiot are milk gurgeling babies and the Charismatic Church.

 

[RZAL]

Four years from now I want you guys to recall reading this article, when a new administration takes office and you are up to your eyeballs in taxes and the economy is flushing itself down the toilet, remember that you read this and remember what it said please... Thank you, and good day.

Bush's extensive tax cuts, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit his plan to redesign Social Security….

Bush's extensive tax cuts, ….

Government's responsibility is to represent the taxpayer and not spend immense amounts of money. Americans expect the government to do so. The New Deal era of social programs has grown too old. Government has to help the impoverished, but they have to do so in a fiscally sound manner. Throwing taxpayer money at unsuccessful initiatives simply does not work.

"Common sense told us that when you put a big tax on something, the people will produce less of it. So, we cut the people's tax rates, and the people produced more than ever before." Ronald Reagan.

the new Medicare prescription drug benefit

The Medicare Modernization Act and the final rule use market competition under Medicare’s oversight to keep quality high and cost low for Medicare beneficiaries and the American taxpayer. To ensure that beneficiaries have access to both prescription drug plans and Medicare advantage plans, the plans will be paid base on competitive bids for the region or country. Lower tax, lower cost, higher quality with supply and demand under competitive bidding.

Prescription Drug Benefit (Title I) and Medicare Advantage (Title II):
Detailed Papers on Major Issues

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicarereform/issuepapers/title1and2/

to redesign Social Security

My money, my account, my future..not the government’s money, government’s account, government’s future.

"'If you are going to move to private accounts, which I approve of, you have to do it in a cautious, gradual way,' Greenspan said in response to intense questioning from both Republicans and Democrats in an appearance before the Senate Banking Committee. I think it's a good thing to do over the longer run,' he said because something must be done to fix the system.

"'Benefits promised to a burgeoning retirement-age population under mandatory entitlement programs, most notably Social Security and Medicare, threaten to strain the resources of the working-age population in the years ahead,' Greenspan said. Real progress on these issues will unavoidably entail many difficult choices. But the demographics are inexorable and call for action,' he added." Alan Greenspan.