# President bush set a record deficit of $482 billion US money



## xxManBeaterxx (Jul 29, 2008)

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

Im no genius when it comes to american politics and government.  I've heard "things" by folks who are no experts in this topic either, "things" such as it takes a president years to see its effects on the economy, so what we are seeing today is the result of former president clintion, whattt~?? How? Who could let this happen!? Gas prices are up, Food prices in the super market are rising, people are getting laid off left and right hence unemployment is up up up, the stock market recently hit a HUGE plumage downward... ok anyways

My question is HOW!? I know its a mixture of problems such as the war which everyone knows the US is spending $1 billion a day on it, etc... so who would you vote for now? Mccain or Obama?


----------



## Shimmer (Jul 29, 2008)

Considering Obama and McCain both aren't Bush, and neither has a concretely outlined platform, I'm reserving judgment.


----------



## lanslady (Jul 29, 2008)

I agree with Shimmer.  But I'm always the one who says during local elections when asked who i'm voting for  i'll say "the lesser of 2 evils".  My husband is republican, I know shocking..hehe..but he's voting for Obama, and I'm leaning toward him too because I believe in more of what he has to say.


----------



## Shimmer (Jul 29, 2008)

But what exactly does Obama have to say? 
Change for the sake of change because our change needs changing? o.0


----------



## Beauty Mark (Jul 29, 2008)

I vote third party.

Besides, it was a group effort to get ourselves into this mess. House and Senate, too. 

I think whoever is the next president probably can make things better or worse, but I'm not expecting a miracle in terms of the economy.


----------



## lanslady (Jul 29, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_But what exactly does Obama have to say? 
Change for the sake of change because our change needs changing? o.0_

 
The main thing he's for is getting our troops out, and that means a lot to me for personal reasons.  But like I said for the elections here where I live, it is the lesser of  2 evils in the end.  In my experience here in Louisiana, they say what you want to hear then get into office and bam, change opionions/views.  Which is what happens everywhere.  And heck, Obama could change his mind on removing the troops, I know in the past he supported the war.  So yeah, like I said, say what they want to hear, hook them in to vote then change when you get elected.  It's a sad thing, but it happens.


----------



## Shimmer (Jul 29, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *lanslady* 

 
_The main thing he's for is getting our troops out, and that means a lot to me for personal reasons._

 
Can't mean anymore to anyone on this site than it does to me.


That said, I'm not particularly fond of destabilizing the entire area, opening it up to Iran to seize control through the domino effect, then have to deal with a land mass roughly the size of North America with bad intentions and ICBM capability. 

I'm far more concerned with _stabilizing the area_ than I am with troop withdrawal.  The area needs to be stabilized, and a solid plan of action defined to make that happen, before anyone considers removing military presence.


----------



## lanslady (Jul 29, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_Can't mean anymore to anyone on this site than it does to me.


That said, I'm not particularly fond of destabilizing the entire area, opening it up to Iran to seize control through the domino effect, then have to deal with a land mass roughly the size of North America with bad intentions and ICBM capability. 

I'm far more concerned with stabilizing the area than I am with troop withdrawal. The area needs to be stabilized, and a solid plan of action defined to make that happen, before anyone considers removing military presence._

 
I totally agree with the need to stabilize, then remove troops.  I want that done, not the troops just taken out, trust me I totally understand what needs to be done.   Just looking at the end product, I didn't explain myself properly, sorry about that.


----------



## TUPRNUT (Jul 29, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Beauty Mark* 

 
_ 
Besides, it was a group effort to get ourselves into this mess. House and Senate, too._

 
Very important (and often forgotten) point!

I'm not 100% decided on my vote, yet.  A big concern of mine is the political history of these two candidates... McCain has a long political history and Obama is kinda new to the game.  But, is that a negative for Obama?  Right now, it is a negative for me... he doesn't have a long political past which means I can't really feel out what it is he stands for, except for "change", which in my mind is just politcal talk.

I respect McCain's military background... he gave up a lot for his country, which means to me that he (at least at one time) has a strong commitment for the US' successful future.  I'm more in line with McCain's plan for Iraq.  Like Shimmer, I have personal connection in this area.  I'd rather my husband help to stabilize a region then fight in a much larger war with a lot more at stake.

We have a lot to learn about these two candiates.


----------



## rbella (Jul 29, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_But what exactly does Obama have to say? 
Change for the sake of change because our change needs changing? o.0_

 
I agree.  I'd like to see what his ideas are for actually "instituting change" and in what specific areas.  He is way too vague.

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Beauty Mark* 

 
_*I vote third party*.

Besides, *it was a group effort to get ourselves into this mess*. House and Senate, too. 

I think whoever is the next president probably can make things better or worse, but I'm not expecting a miracle in terms of the economy._

 
I second this, strongly.

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_That said, *I'm not particularly fond of destabilizing the entire area, opening it up to Iran to seize control through the domino effect, then have to deal with a land mass roughly the size of North America with bad intentions and ICBM capability.* 

I'm far more concerned with stabilizing the area than I am with troop withdrawal.  The area needs to be stabilized, and a solid plan of action defined to make that happen, before anyone considers removing military presence._

 
Exactly what would happen if we pull out too early.  I know it sucks ass that we are in this situation, but we can't deny that we are in it.  We inserted our troops to institute a major change in Iraq, we can't just leave without finishing what we started.  JMO.


----------



## Beauty Mark (Jul 30, 2008)

Well, I'm personally a fan of make it an international effort to stabilize the area. What goes on there isn't just going to affect the US.

I think both candidates know/should know that immediate withdrawal is foolish (I wasn't even for Iraq in any sense, and I don't think it's smart). I think the bigger question is how they plan on doing it.


----------



## concertina (Jul 30, 2008)

Obama has pretty clearly outlined plans; one has to be willing to do the research or listen to his speeches. 

Considering McCain will do more of the same shit we've been dealing with for the past 8 years and who wants to keep my currently deployed husband continuously deploying for at least the next 10 years does not get my vote.


----------



## rbella (Jul 30, 2008)

I must first state that I was never a fan of going into Iraq. But, we have done so & cannot & should not abandon them.  

I have researched both candidates & am not very thrilled with either.


----------



## depecher (Jul 30, 2008)

I wonder if those who voted for Bush are happy now? We are going to be in a financial mess for years to come. Sigh! Neither Presidential candidate impresses me. I am going to write in a name come November. What a mess!


----------



## user79 (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Beauty Mark* 

 
_Well, I'm personally a fan of make it an international effort to stabilize the area. What goes on there isn't just going to affect the US._

 
The international community except for a few countries, some of which have already jumped ship, are going to steer clear of Iraq for a long time to come. It's such a mess down there, the invasion and occupation has created more problems than it has solved, the MIddle East has become less stable. I mean, it's pretty much a bloody civil war with terrorist insurgency and sectarian violence by now. Iraq has never had anything close to democracy, or even sectarian peace, since its inception, what makes people think it can turn into a stable democracy within a few years? Yes, stability in the Middle East affects us all, but I don't see why the UN should have to clean up the mess the Bush admin (and I say that because I know many Americans were also against this war) caused down there, _when the UN was originally against the invasion with a clear position, yet the US went in there anyway._ Sorry, but I don't see why the rest of the world should clean up this mess, when their opinions were _clearly _disregarded during the decision to go to war in the first place.


----------



## Shadowy Lady (Jul 30, 2008)

I'm Canadian but if I had a right to vote in the US, i would stay clear of McCain. It may for personal reasons though. I saw a video of him on Youtube saying he will kill Iranians and he thought it funny. 

My parents came from Iran to this country (Canada), I still have so many relatives back there. We are all against Iranian Government's policies but how is killing the people funny and how is it going to help anybody? 

Sorry if it was slightly off topic, it's just a subject that always gets me....


----------



## *Stargazer* (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Beauty Mark* 

 
_I vote third party.

*Besides, it was a group effort to get ourselves into this mess. House and Senate, too.* 

I think whoever is the next president probably can make things better or worse, but I'm not expecting a miracle in terms of the economy._

 
Ding ding ding! Beauty Mark is right as always! Plus, there is definite truth to the cycles of the economy and the idea of delayed consequences to some economic policies. I don't believe, though, that everything happening right now is a result solely of policies from the Clinton days. Nor do I sign on to the popular current opinion that George Bush caused the sub-prime mortgage mess. 

As for who I'm voting for, it won't be Obama. I had not ruled him out until very, very recently. That doesn't necessarily mean I'll vote for McCain, though. I'm still pondering the third party option.


----------



## xxManBeaterxx (Jul 30, 2008)

Someone is selling this obama button online, joke or not, this is pretty pathetic.  You know the other day my guy friend PMed me on skype and out of the blue said I f--king hate Christians, i just broke up with my girlfriend because i found out shes christian and i f--king hate all Christians.  I asked why.. He said he was bullied as a child his whole life until he finally attempted suicide and had to be home schooled, and you all guessed it, a group of christian boys emotionally scarred him for life.  I was really shocked when he said this... I cant believe there are still people out there ignorant enough to say that.  Just because a group of young christian boys bullied you, doesn't mean everyone who is christian acts that way.  No matter what ethnicity, nationality, religion, orientation, or sex, there are good people and bad people in this world.  If an asian guy treats you like shit, doesn't mean you have the right to hate on every single asian person out there, you hate that person not because hes asian, but because of who he is.  --sorry that was a little off topic, but it pissed me off

and the photo


----------



## *Stargazer* (Jul 30, 2008)

The thing about that button is that if it's supposed to be some kind of racist joke, then the person who came up with it is an idiot. It doesn't even make any sense as an "insult."

It IS pathetic because the idea of making the presidential race about race or gender is stupid. But if I'm supposed to look at that button and find some kind of enlightenment regarding Obama, well, EPIC FAIL.


----------



## Shimmer (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *MissChievous* 

 
_The international community except for a few countries, some of which have already jumped ship, are going to steer clear of Iraq for a long time to come. It's such a mess down there, the invasion and occupation has created more problems than it has solved, the MIddle East has become less stable. I mean, it's pretty much a bloody civil war with terrorist insurgency and sectarian violence by now. Iraq has never had anything close to democracy, or even sectarian peace, since its inception, what makes people think it can turn into a stable democracy within a few years? Yes, stability in the Middle East affects us all, but I don't see why the UN should have to clean up the mess the Bush admin (and I say that because I know many Americans were also against this war) caused down there, when the UN was originally against the invasion with a clear position, yet the US went in there anyway. Sorry, but I don't see why the rest of the world should clean up this mess, when their opinions were clearly disregarded during the decision to go to war in the first place._

 
It's quite easy for the rest of the world to jump ship when American soldiers are there to pick up their slack.

The problem with the UN position is quite simply that the UN proved itself an 'ineffective parent', by telling Hussein "You better stop or you'll get a spanking" for _years_ and never carried through with the threat.  The UN put the sanctions and rules down on the Iraqi regime but never ONCE enforced them in a manner the powers in that country gave a flying hoot about.

And, generally speaking, it's not 'the rest of the world' that shoulders the burden of cleaning up everywhere. It's the US.


----------



## Beauty Mark (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *MissChievous* 

 
_The international community except for a few countries, some of which have already jumped ship, are going to steer clear of Iraq for a long time to come. It's such a mess down there, the invasion and occupation has created more problems than it has solved, the MIddle East has become less stable. I mean, it's pretty much a bloody civil war with terrorist insurgency and sectarian violence by now. Iraq has never had anything close to democracy, or even sectarian peace, since its inception, what makes people think it can turn into a stable democracy within a few years? Yes, stability in the Middle East affects us all, but I don't see why the UN should have to clean up the mess the Bush admin (and I say that because I know many Americans were also against this war) caused down there, when the UN was originally against the invasion with a clear position, yet the US went in there anyway. Sorry, but I don't see why the rest of the world should clean up this mess, when their opinions were clearly disregarded during the decision to go to war in the first place._

 
I didn't think the US had business being there at all. However, I think it doesn't help anyone to just turn the back and have the US "fix" it because of the past. Much like I don't think immediate withdrawal is smart. I think the US is in over its head (as I expected), and I don't think it's going to get better without extra help from outside countries.


----------



## rbella (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by **Stargazer** 

 
_Nor do I sign on to the popular current opinion that George Bush caused the sub-prime mortgage mess._

 
Please don't get me started on my high horse here!!  The sub-prime mess is so fucking irritating to me, especially as a Realtor.  As far as I am concerned you should RESEARCH what your loan is.  

If you don't have the money to buy the house you want, don't get it.  I am constantly shocked at the amount of people who are pissed at the government because they are now paying high interest rates for their mortgages that THEY SIGNED UP FOR.  

If you agree to an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) because your credit sucks and you don't want to wait to clean it up, then you have to agree with the fluctuations of the market.  You should do your research, understand what the consequences of having a sub-prime loan are and then live with it if YOU decide to get one.  Otherwise, friggin' rent until your credit is better.  Nobody, not even the government, can make you get a damn loan.  Sorry, done with my rant....


----------



## MxAxC-_ATTACK (Jul 30, 2008)

Last time I watched TV last week sometime.. I head Obama wanted to send MORE troops Immediately to Afghanistan ? ( I think thats the correct place) 

And I have not seen that button, but I think what it is getting at, is that Obama has played the "race card" several times in this election, and I think it will hurt him in the long run. 

He did refer to his grandmother as a "typical white woman" because she used racial terms.


----------



## rbella (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_It's quite easy for the rest of the world to jump ship when American soldiers are there to pick up their slack.

The problem with the UN position is quite simply that the UN proved itself an 'ineffective parent', by telling Hussein "You better stop or you'll get a spanking" for years and never carried through with the threat.  The UN put the sanctions and rules down on the Iraqi regime but never ONCE enforced them in a manner the powers in that country gave a flying hoot about.

And, generally speaking, it's not 'the rest of the world' that shoulders the burden of cleaning up everywhere. It's the US._

 
I completely agree with everything you've said here.  I just don't know if I agree with the route that Bush took to get us in there.  We went in looking for WMD's because of the situation related to 9/11.  Not, solely for the good of the Iraqi's or for the complete lack of compliance from Hussein with regard to UN violations.  I would be less irritated about our insurgence if it were not under false pretenses.  That being said, we still need to finish the job and it would be nice to see the other countries help.  It would be easier to withdraw if others would help with the re-building of Iraq.  

And, I totally agree, the US almost always carries the burden of the world.


----------



## Shimmer (Jul 30, 2008)

Oh agreed, the reasoning for the invasion is faulty, at best.  

That said, there's a LOT of good being done there because of American military presence. It's just overshadowed by rhetoric. :/


----------



## rbella (Jul 30, 2008)

^^^True, I have plenty of friends over there who are so happy with the changes that are being made.  One friend, who died there recently, would send us pics and updates on all the milestones they were accomplishing.  Like the electrical plants they were building and the schools.  It was really good to see that so much was being accomplished.  I do miss my friend dearly, but, he was adamant about the importance of our presence in Iraq and I'll always remember that.


----------



## Shimmer (Jul 30, 2008)

I don't want to turn this into an Iraq war discussion, so I won't. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





A really good point was made earlier, people need to remember that it's not JUST the President handling affairs, there's a House and a Senate and processes etc., Checks and Balances, that take place.  Just because the President decides he wants to fly to the moon and hand out pixie sticks doesn't mean he's going to get to do it.


----------



## ratmist (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_And, generally speaking, it's not 'the rest of the world' that shoulders the burden of cleaning up everywhere. It's the US._

 
Like we can't be criticised for our foreign policies because we send more aid across the world than any other country?  It's also the US that is to blame for a lot of the problems in the world it ends up trying to "clean up".


----------



## Shimmer (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *ratmist* 

 
_Like we can't be criticised for our foreign policies because we send more aid across the world than any other country?  It's also the US that is to blame for a lot of the problems in the world it ends up trying to "clean up"._

 
It certainly doesn't exclude us from criticism. It's simply something that's ignored.


----------



## ratmist (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_It certainly doesn't exclude us from criticism. It's simply something that's ignored._

 
If we were doing it to be thanked, we were approaching it wrong.  Anyway, part of me thinks we don't really get any brownie points for sending out the most aid because well, we're the richest in the world.  Our global policies have made it so that we're rich off the back of the poor.  So we give a bit back when we can, but does that mean we're really great for doing so?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




*sigh*  On a related tangent, I just wish we'd help our own people more.  The gap between the rich and the poor in America has never been higher.  According to the latest US Census Bureau figures (2006), 12.3% of Americans are classified as living in poverty.  That's about 36.5 million Americans.  How the hell has it come to this?

Poverty USA -- Catholic Campaign for Human Development -- A hand up, not a hand out.


----------



## Shimmer (Jul 30, 2008)

I believe in Hand Ups. I hate Hand Outs. I hate when people depend on hand outs, generally speaking. :/ Probably a bit judgmental, but I can look myself in the eye and be okay with that. 

I grew up in poverty. I didn't know it at the time but, there it was.  For whatever reason, my brothers and I were all three able to claw our way up into this world and manage to not be dependent upon anyone for pretty much anything. 

How did it come to this?
Rather easily really.

We have the kids of the 80s & 90s who have grown up being sorely enabled by the previous generations.  The Baby Boomers didn't want their kids to do without, or to have to work for anything, and so those kids didn't. 
As a result, those kids have no idea, as adults, how to handle the valleys in life as well as the peaks, and they're raising the next generation of children the same way.


----------



## ratmist (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_I believe in Hand Ups. I hate Hand Outs. I hate when people depend on hand outs, generally speaking. :/ Probably a bit judgmental, but I can look myself in the eye and be okay with that. 

I grew up in poverty. I didn't know it at the time but, there it was.  For whatever reason, my brothers and I were all three able to claw our way up into this world and manage to not be dependent upon anyone for pretty much anything. 

How did it come to this?
Rather easily really.

We have the kids of the 80s & 90s who have grown up being sorely enabled by the previous generations.  The Baby Boomers didn't want their kids to do without, or to have to work for anything, and so those kids didn't. 
As a result, those kids have no idea, as adults, how to handle the valleys in life as well as the peaks, and they're raising the next generation of children the same way._

 
I'm a kid of the 80s.  My parents didn't want me to do without so when they needed to, they borrowed left, right and centre.  We were saddled with extremely high payments for my brother's healthcare so we were very poor.  My mother, an RN, became disabled while working at a VA hospital when I was very young and has been on federal workman's compensation ever since.  You could say that's a hand out, but I absolutely would disagree.

My father worked various jobs but never made much money.  In general though, it was healthcare costs that killed our finances - not greed, or lack of ability to handle the "valleys of life as well as the peaks".  For so many others I know in America, it's the healthcare costs in the US that kill finances so easily - not the willingness to go without the latest it thing.  

I do think that some parents take that sentiment too far.  Others just had really poor examples of how to handle finances.  I've long thought that finances should be taught in school so that kids and teenagers can get an idea of how to save, why it's important, why it's okay to say no to consumerism, etc.

I equate "hand outs" with asking for help when you need it.  When my friend got pregnant and her employer did not provide health care, she sucked down her pride and went on Medicaid so she could get the prenatal care she needed.  I don't think there's anything wrong in asking for help when you need it.  But she still talks with shame in her voice that she had to ask for help.  There's a line somewhere.  If it's an absolute necessity, I'll take a hand out.  

God knows that after all the money I've shelled out to the UK government over the past 10 years, I'll be taking every damned benefit I can get my paws on, now that I'm a legal resident, soon to be a citizen (as opposed to a 'foreign national' on a student visa or a marriage visa).  They've squeezed so much out of me, I can't wait to claim child tax credits and anything else we can qualify for.  Do I feel bad?  Hell no.  That's what the credits are there for!


----------



## duckduck (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_I don't want to turn this into an Iraq war discussion, so I won't. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




A really good point was made earlier, people need to remember that it's not JUST the President handling affairs, there's a House and a Senate and processes etc., Checks and Balances, that take place.  Just because the President decides he wants to fly to the moon and hand out pixie sticks doesn't mean he's going to get to do it._

 
Problem is, this most recent administration has taken a TON of power for the executive branch - something I really am not comfortable with. As a result, I would really prefer a candidate who the House, Senate, and Supreme Court would all fight a lot harder against, taking some of that power away. I worry that with McCain, that may not happen.

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *rbella* 

 
_Please don't get me started on my high horse here!! The sub-prime mess is so fucking irritating to me, especially as a Realtor. As far as I am concerned you should RESEARCH what your loan is._

 
Holy crap yes. I am gonna be so damned pissed when the government bails these people out. I bought my house with a flat rate on my damn good credit with enough money coming in to pay the mortgage on time every month. With our economy already in trouble, it pisses me off so badly that we are writing up bills to hand money to the people who f*cked the system up in the first place. I will say, however, the companies who gave out and guaranteed said loans were also not terribly brilliant. I vaguely wonder if they are counting on the government bailing them out as well.


----------



## Shimmer (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *ratmist* 

 
_I'm a kid of the 80s.  My parents didn't want me to do without so when they needed to, they borrowed left, right and centre.  We were saddled with extremely high payments for my brother's healthcare so we were very poor.  My mother, an RN, became disabled while working at a VA hospital when I was very young and has been on federal workman's compensation ever since.  You could say that's a hand out, but I absolutely would disagree._

 
Not at all. I completely agree with you. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Quote:

  My father worked various jobs but never made much money.  In general though, it was healthcare costs that killed our finances - not greed, or lack of ability to handle the "valleys of life as well as the peaks".  For so many others I know in America, it's the healthcare costs in the US that kill finances so easily - not the willingness to go without the latest it thing.  

I do think that some parents take that sentiment too far.  Others just had really poor examples of how to handle finances.  I've long thought that finances should be taught in school so that kids and teenagers can get an idea of how to save, why it's important, why it's okay to say no to consumerism, etc.

I equate "hand outs" with asking for help when you need it.  When my friend got pregnant and her employer did not provide health care, she sucked down her pride and went on Medicaid so she could get the prenatal care she needed.  I don't think there's anything wrong in asking for help when you need it.  But she still talks with shame in her voice that she had to ask for help.  There's a line somewhere.  If it's an absolute necessity, I'll take a hand out.  

God knows that after all the money I've shelled out to the UK government over the past 10 years, I'll be taking every damned benefit I can get my paws on, now that I'm a legal resident, soon to be a citizen (as opposed to a 'foreign national' on a student visa or a marriage visa).  They've squeezed so much out of me, I can't wait to claim child tax credits and anything else we can qualify for.  Do I feel bad?  Hell no.  That's what the credits are there for!  
 
the difference between 'out' and 'up' is, for me, the intent behind it. I certainly believe in asking for help, and being able to receive it. I just don't believe in being dependent on it for extended periods of time.  Making a lifetime of food stamps/welfare/etc. isn't a hand up, it's a hand out.


----------



## seonmi (Jul 30, 2008)

A little off topic, do you think the US invaded Iraq for oil but failed to do so rather than to help the country?
There are a lot of places in the world that dictatorship and terrorism happen, for example Burma/Myanmar and North Korea. Does the Bush administration ever plan to help people there? Not really, because there's nothing there for them to exploit.
About the budget deficit, it's due to all the tax cut that Bush has done, which is what everyone wanted. Tax is an important source of income for the government, so cutting it means reducing government's income. With the same level of expenditure, you can't avoid debt from abroad, which is budget deficit.
Just my 2 cents.


----------



## user79 (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_It's quite easy for the rest of the world to jump ship when American soldiers are there to pick up their slack.

The problem with the UN position is quite simply that the UN proved itself an 'ineffective parent', by telling Hussein "You better stop or you'll get a spanking" for years and never carried through with the threat.  The UN put the sanctions and rules down on the Iraqi regime but never ONCE enforced them in a manner the powers in that country gave a flying hoot about.

And, generally speaking, it's not 'the rest of the world' that shoulders the burden of cleaning up everywhere. It's the US._

 
Team America World Police. Woo hoo.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	









It's odd that the States tend to get themselves into a lot of these issues in the first place due to their aggressive foreign policies. It's preposterous to say that the US is "picking up the slack" that the rest of the world negged out on in Iraq. Iraq is worse off now than it was before, there's no denying that. There's dictators the world over; Saddam used to also be an uncomfortable ally of the USA, but an ally nonetheless. So no, I don't think this the world's mess to clean up whatsoever.

The UN is not perfect by a long shot, but it's the best thing we've got at the moment of a type of global forum. If anyone thinks the US is on some kind of benign mission to rescue impoverished people from evil and malevolent dictators, simply for the good of mankind, well, that's just naive. I mean let's face it, the Iraq war was just plain unconstitutional and carried out through deceit.

This isn't me trying to be anti-USA, the US was a great crutch to Europe for example after WW2 with the Marshall Plan, and their contribution to NATO is very important, as well as other positive contributions they make to politics, but the ever-repeated statement about the USA being some kind of benign world police just gets rather irritating.


----------



## Shimmer (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *MissChievous* 

 
_Team America World Police. Woo hoo.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	









It's odd that the States tend to get themselves into a lot of these issues in the first place due to their aggressive foreign policies. It's preposterous to say that the US is "picking up the slack" that the rest of the world negged out on in Iraq. *Iraq is worse off now than it was before, there's no denying that.* There's dictators the world over; Saddam used to also be an uncomfortable ally of the USA, but an ally nonetheless. So no, I don't think this the world's mess to clean up whatsoever._

 
I'll deny it. 
The nation itself IS destabilized, but children are being fed, vaccinated, and provided with medical care, women are being protected from barbaric behavior, and infrastructure is being built.  
Those things are being done because the American military is there to stand between (as best it can, we're bound by rules and conventions the insurgents completely ignore) the civilians and the noncombatants. 
 Quote:

  The UN is not perfect by a long shot, but it's the best thing we've got at the moment of a type of global forum. If anyone thinks the US is on some kind of benign mission to rescue impoverished people from evil and malevolent dictators, simply for the good of mankind, well, that's just naive. I mean let's face it, the Iraq war was just plain unconstitutional and carried out through deceit.  
 
No one has said the US is benign.  We're certainly not, we're a materialistic capitalistic narcissistic society. 
We're also foolish enough to have hearts of gold, wherein we feel a compulsion to send our nation's protectors to other countries to try to bring about some kind of change in them, whether it's medical, material, or idealistic. 
I would LOVE for the American public to be able to look at other countries and say "eat my ass. You deal with it." when it comes to their own problems. I would LOVE, for example, to have spent the aid we sent to the tsunami area, physical and monetary, on people within our own boundaries. I would love to be in a world where we as a nation could be isolationist in our views and not have to deal with the crap other countries are doing, whether it's starving or slaughtering their own people, or raping their infants, or whatever. Why? Not because of a lack of compassion on my part because God knows I look at the situations and my heart fucking _breaks_ for all who are caught in it, but because there's a resounding lack of even the merest "Thank you." from ANYONE in the world theater who isn't a direct recipient of the aid.  And, there are quite a few times that those who DO receive the aid aren't grateful either.
I'm not talking accolades or trophies or anything like that. Just a simple "Thanks" instead of the constant diatribe from people who don't live here about how bad our country sucks.

 Quote:

  This isn't me trying to be anti-USA, the US was a great crutch to Europe for example after WW2 with the Marshall Plan, and their contribution to NATO is important, but the ever-repeated statement about the USA being some kind of benign world police _really _irritates me.  
 
It really irritates me to see soldiers deployed on 'peace keeping' missions, or 'rebuilding missions' in various countries where civil war has been rampant, and without military presence women and children are slaughtered, raped, and killed.
And, I'm sorry to point it out, but the majority of your posts on the subject of American politics and military ARE anti-American, to the point that rarely, if ever, do I see you post anything to do with the good of the American society, political system, or people.
And most of all, it _really_ irritates me to hear people who have never served in the military, have no knowledge of how it works or really what the brotherhood within it stands for, sit and lambast American military procedures, policies, and presences.  One can only observe so much, but without that direct tie, the observation is simply that, observation, not experience.


----------



## rbella (Jul 30, 2008)

My interpretation of a "handout" is someone who is not even _trying_ to do good for themselves.  Someone who has figured out the system and knows that it is easier for them to sit at home, continue to have children, not work and receive government benefits that _I _am paying for.  That, to me, is a handout.  

I have such a huge problem with the way the "rich" are viewed.  I am by no means "rich", but I don't see why those who are get type casted as "evil".  If I worked my ass off to make a shitload of money, I'd be incredibly pissed that more than 40% of it was going back to the government to pay for those who know how to work the system and get handouts.  

I am more than charitable in my life, I don't need the friggin' government deciding where my hard earned dollar goes.   As far as the poor are concerned, I grew up poor and am very familiar with struggling.  I watched my mother work 2 jobs to raise 3 kids without a single dime from the government.  I respect her immensely for this and it is why I have such a strong work ethic.  

I expect the government to stay the hell out of my business if I want to do drugs, speak freely, eat trans fat, smoke a damn cigarette, and I surely expect them to stay the fuck out of my income.  Sorry for the language.  I get a bit irritated.


----------



## rbella (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *duckduck* 

 
_Holy crap yes. I am gonna be so damned pissed when the government bails these people out._

 
Tell me about it.  I don't even have a house, I still live in an apartment.  And now I get the joy of paying for others mistakes.  Yay for me.  So glad to be paying for someone else's home while I still rent.

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *duckduck* 

 
_ I will say, however, the companies who gave out and guaranteed said loans were also not terribly brilliant. I vaguely wonder if they are counting on the government bailing them out as well._

 
I agree, but, to their credit most of the loans are sold on a secondary mortgage market within months after the initiation.  Therefore, they aren't really even affected.


----------



## Shimmer (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *rbella* 

 
_My interpretation of a "handout" is someone who is not even trying to do good for themselves.  Someone who has figured out the system and knows that it is easier for them to sit at home, continue to have children, not work and receive government benefits that I am paying for.  That, to me, is a handout.  

I have such a huge problem with the way the "rich" are viewed.  I am by no means "rich", but I don't see why those who are get type casted as "evil".  If I worked my ass off to make a shitload of money, I'd be incredibly pissed that more than 40% of it was going back to the government to pay for those who know how to work the system and get handouts.  

I am more than charitable in my life, I don't need the friggin' government deciding where my hard earned dollar goes.   As far as the poor are concerned, I grew up poor and am very familiar with struggling.  I watched my mother work 2 jobs to raise 3 kids without a single dime from the government.  I respect her immensely for this and it is why I have such a strong work ethic.  

I expect the government to stay the hell out of my business if I want to do drugs, speak freely, eat trans fat, smoke a damn cigarette, and I surely expect them to stay the fuck out of my income.  Sorry for the language.  I get a bit irritated._

 
I'd kiss you right now if I could get away with it.
My money.
I earned it.
I worked, sweat, sacrificed time with my family and kids for it.
It's mine.
Not anyone else's.

Who's got the RIGHT to tell me that I have to give my money, which *I* earned, away to someone else? I HAVE to? No, no I do not. If I CHOOSE to, that's one thing entirely, but HAVE to?
No.


----------



## elegant-one (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *seonmi* 

 
_About the budget deficit, it's due to all the tax cut that Bush has done, which is what everyone wanted. Tax is an important source of income for the government, so cutting it means reducing government's income. With the same level of expenditure, you can't avoid debt from abroad, which is budget deficit.
Just my 2 cents._

 
That simply is not a truth/fact. It has been proven, that if you CUT taxes the government actually receives more income not the other way around.
The more you cut taxes, the more money the people have, the more they spend, start new businesses, invest in existing businesses hence owners hire more people paying taxes = revenue increases.

Its the pork spending that needs to be cut.


----------



## rbella (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_I'd kiss you right now if I could get away with it.
My money.
I earned it.
I worked, sweat, sacrificed time with my family and kids for it.
It's mine.
Not anyone else's.

Who's got the RIGHT to tell me that I have to give my money, which *I* earned, away to someone else? I HAVE to? No, no I do not. If I CHOOSE to, that's one thing entirely, but HAVE to?
No._

 






  I'd kiss you too!

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *elegant-one* 

 
_That simply is not a truth/fact. It has been proven, that if you CUT taxes the government actually receives more income not the other way around.
The more you cut taxes, the more money the people have, the more they spend, start new businesses, invest in existing businesses hence owners hire more people paying taxes = revenue increases.

Its the pork spending that needs to be cut._

 
Couldn't have said that better, elegant.  I don't get why this is such a hard concept to grasp.


----------



## elegant-one (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *rbella* 

 
_





  I'd kiss you too!



Couldn't have said that better, elegant.  I don't get why this is such a hard concept to grasp._

 

I'd kiss you too! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Most times, I just get tired of trying to explain it


----------



## seonmi (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *elegant-one* 

 
_That simply is not a truth/fact. It has been proven, that if you CUT taxes the government actually receives more income not the other way around.
The more you cut taxes, the more money the people have, the more they spend, start new businesses, invest in existing businesses hence owners hire more people paying taxes = revenue increases.

Its the pork spending that needs to be cut._

 
I wasn't going to say all the technical stuff here. But as an Economics major, I've learned that cutting tax is not the optimal solution (may I say the worst one) to increase national income. When tax is cut, it still depends on how much of the tax cut people spend and how much they choose to save. So the amount they spend (which no one can control or predict) determines the income increased. While consider the government doesn't cut tax but increase their own expenditure. That money sure will be spent to generate more income. 

Anyway, I know we all want lower tax rates because that means more money directly to our pockets. But academically (not politically which usually includes manipulation for the benefit of certain groups of people), cutting tax is not the best way to go.

Macroecon is one of my favorite things. Sorry for being so nerdy


----------



## duckduck (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *ratmist* 

 
_According to the latest US Census Bureau figures (2006), 12.3% of Americans are classified as living in poverty.  That's about 36.5 million Americans.  How the hell has it come to this?_

 
Okay, so basically the US Census Bureau's version of "poverty" is crap.

To understand this, it is important to understand how these numbers are calculated. This statistic is taken from income tax forms filed by individuals, and then compared to a number based on marital status and number of dependents to see if they qualify. I have some numbers to help illustrate.

If you filed in 2007 as single with no dependents, than if your Adjusted Gross Income was less than $10,210 that year, you would be considered below the poverty line. Because the Adjusted Gross Income is used, this leads to all sorts of inconsistency. For example, I purchased a house in 2007, which was a hugeeee tax deduction. So, while I worked full time for the entire year and earned more than enough to live on, I would be counted as one of those 36.5 million below the threshold. On the other hand, people who qualify for welfare and similar federal aid programs are often considered above this poverty threshold.

There is a second component to the inaccuracy in this number - age. In fact, half of the people considered to be in poverty are under the age of 24. Working part time in high school, taking a job to pay rent through college, or starting out at the bottom rung in a career are all pretty typical activities for people in this age group, and, well, they frankly don't pay too well. In fact, most of these activities pay well below the poverty threshold. Not surprisingly, as age goes up, promotions are made, better jobs are obtained, and lo and behold, the poverty level drops off. 

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_ We have the kids of the 80s & 90s who have grown up being sorely enabled by the previous generations. The Baby Boomers didn't want their kids to do without, or to have to work for anything, and so those kids didn't._

 
Yeah, there is probably some of that too, but the truth is that "poverty" rates in the US have been between 10 and 15% since 1970, and before that they were much higher. Not saying kids with a sense on entitlement aren't assholes or anything, just saying that the poverty threshold is a poor measure of it.


----------



## rbella (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *seonmi* 

 
_I wasn't going to say all the technical stuff here. But as an Economics major, I've learned that cutting tax is not the optimal solution (may I say the worst one) to increase national income. When tax is cut, it still depends on how much of the tax cut people spend and how much they choose to save. So the amount they spend (which no one can control or predict) determines the income increased. While consider the government doesn't cut tax but increase their own expenditure. That money sure will be spent to generate more income. 

Anyway, I know we all want lower tax rates because that means more money directly to our pockets. But academically (not politically which usually includes manipulation for the benefit of certain groups of people), cutting tax is not the best way to go.

Macroecon is one of my favorite things. Sorry for being so nerdy 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 
As counter-intuitive as it sounds, you are incorrect.  It has been proven time and again that the more money people have, the more they spend.  The more that is spent, the more goes back to the government.  

What you are saying is that we need the government to control how we spend our money, not the private sector.  I STRONGLY disagree with this.  The private sector is what keeps this country strong.  The more you tax individuals, businesses and people in the higher income brackets, the more you take money out of the pockets of those who are willing to filter that money back into society.  It is unconscionable to tax the hell out of those in higher income brackets simply because they have succeeded in life.  All that taxing does is create more government programs which require more taxes which enables people who live off of handouts to be more dependent on the government.  It is a vicious cycle. 

And, I respectfully disagree with the argument that you are coming from this academically.  You are most definitely arguing based on what you have learned in school, but I would argue that the majority of your professors are definitely inserting their political opinions.  Therefore, your argument _is_ political.


----------



## TUPRNUT (Jul 30, 2008)

I'm no tax expert, but I live in Indiana where our govenment has taken a major turn over the last several years - going from a $200 million defecit to a $1.4 billion surplus.  We've had 3 years of balanced budgets, paid back over $750 million to education (past due) & removed nearly $250 million in unnecessary government spending.  We rank #1 in the midwest for business climate.

This has all happened, while reducing property taxes - significantly.  It's all been a matter of "cutting out the fat" of government, keeping government accountable, and growing business and investments.  

Indiana isn't the promised land, by any means, but I'm really proud of what's been accomplished here, economically.  And I think it goes to show that cutting out waste, while cutting taxes can add great benefit.

Education Roadmap Promises - Mitch Daniels Courage. Vision. Results.


----------



## seonmi (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *rbella* 

 
_As counter-intuitive as it sounds, you are incorrect.  It has been proven time and again that the more money people have, the more they spend.  The more that is spent, the more goes back to the government.  

What you are saying is that we need the government to control how we spend our money, not the private sector.  I STRONGLY disagree with this.  The private sector is what keeps this country strong.  The more you tax individuals, businesses and people in the higher income brackets, the more you take money out of the pockets of those who are willing to filter that money back into society.  It is unconscionable to tax the hell out of those in higher income brackets simply because they have succeeded in life.  All that taxing does is create more government programs which require more taxes which enables people who live off of handouts to be more dependent on the government.  It is a vicious cycle. 

And, I respectfully disagree with the argument that you are coming from this academically.  You are most definitely arguing based on what you have learned in school, but I would argue that the majority of your professors are definitely inserting their political opinions.  Therefore, your argument is political._

 
As much as I hate to run off topic like this, I just want to say some of my thoughts. Yes, my argument is based on what I've learned in school. But are you saying that all the Nobel prize winners inserted their political opinions into their theories which have been around for so many years? I highly doubt that. Professors don't just say what they want to say, they also have to base on researches and textbooks (these theories are widely accepted, just to make it clear). Tax cut has been proved to produce the least result (increasing national income)

And I'm not supporting a big government by any mean. All I was saying is tax cut is not the best thing in the world to increase national income. What about the role of the Federal Reserve (interest rate, required reserve for banks ...)? I mean there are much more than tax cut. But again, I do understand that we all love tax cut 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




About the question raised at the beginning of the topic. IMO, Bush is responsible for a big part of the current situation. Tax cut from the Bush administration and high interest rate is not a good combination for the economy. A lot of people had predicted this recession before it actually happened. 

My response to Tuprnut: inefficiency should be eliminated no matter where it occurs. The same goes to government expenditure. If the government spends money inefficiently and ineffectively before, the reduction of unnecessary expenditure should make some positive changes.


----------



## user79 (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Shimmer* 

 
_I'll deny it. 
The nation itself IS destabilized, but children are being fed, vaccinated, and provided with medical care, women are being protected from barbaric behavior, and infrastructure is being built.  
Those things are being done because the American military is there to stand between (as best it can, we're bound by rules and conventions the insurgents completely ignore) the civilians and the noncombatants. _

 
Well that's debatable. On a blog written by an Iraqi I followed for some time, she wrote that the situation was much worse for the civilians. Women could barely leave the house for fear of violence, rape, etc. Civilians are less safe now on a day to day basis because of sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis, car bombings, etc.

 Quote:

  We're also foolish enough to have hearts of gold, wherein we feel a compulsion to send our nation's protectors to other countries to try to bring about some kind of change in them, whether it's medical, material, or idealistic.   
 
See that's the thing though, some of the countries don't _want _to be changed. To some extent, what gives any country the right to tell another country what their ideals should be and how to run their own country? Sovereignty is something most countries value, yet this is denied them when we try to change their governments, their culture, etc. And if that were the case, how come all those African dictators like Mugabe are still in power? Probably because no one cares about Africa strategically (except maybe Egypt.)


 Quote:

  I would LOVE, for example, to have spent the aid we sent to the tsunami area, physical and monetary, on people within our own boundaries. I would love to be in a world where we as a nation could be isolationist in our views and not have to deal with the crap other countries are doing, whether it's starving or slaughtering their own people, or raping their infants, or whatever. Why? Not because of a lack of compassion on my part because God knows I look at the situations and my heart fucking _breaks_ for all who are caught in it, but because there's a resounding lack of even the merest "Thank you." from ANYONE in the world theater who isn't a direct recipient of the aid.  And, there are quite a few times that those who DO receive the aid aren't grateful either.  
 
Among Western democracies, I think the USA gives one of the smallest percent of its GNP to foreign aid. I think Norway actually gives the most of its GNP to aid. So please don't think that the USA is the only one helping out other countries, because that is simply not the case at all.


 Quote:

  And, I'm sorry to point it out, but the majority of your posts on the subject of American politics and military ARE anti-American, to the point that rarely, if ever, do I see you post anything to do with the good of the American society, political system, or people.  
 
I never claimed to not be anti-military combat. I do however _vehemently _deny being anti-American. To me there is a vast difference between society and state, of course society influences the state and vice versa, but I know how to differentiate. Being anti-war and not agreeing with many of the current US foreign policies since some of those policies have affected the entire world negatively, does not equal being anti-American.  I don't think it's fair or very articulate to lump everything together. There are a lot of Americans who share my views - does that make them anti-American? Not really, it's a voice of dissent, that's all.

Maybe slightly off topic, but I think the current US administration is one of the biggest disasters in recent decades that has happened in world politics, because whether you or I like it or not, the decisions of the US president and his admin can affect the whole world, and it has. The world has gotten _more _dangerous, and terrorism has increased since the aftermaths of 9/11. The "war on terror" is just a big farce, it's only creating more terror. So yes, I don't live there, and I can't vote (obviously) because I'm not a citizen and I'm not suggesting that anyone but Americans should be allowed to vote (duh), but the Iraq war has affected _everybody_, so yes, we at least have a right to have an opinion on it.


----------



## TUPRNUT (Jul 30, 2008)

MissChievous said:


> Well that's debatable. On a blog written by an Iraqi I followed for some time, she wrote that the situation was much worse for the civilians. Women could barely leave the house for fear of violence, rape, etc. Civilians are less safe now on a day to day basis because of sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis, car bombings, etc.
> 
> 
> This may very well be true.  But remeber that this is one individual's experience.... it has very much to do with where that person lives.
> ...


----------



## rbella (Jul 30, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *seonmi* 

 
_As much as I hate to run off topic like this, I just want to say some of my thoughts. Yes, my argument is based on what I've learned in school. But are you saying that all the Nobel prize winners inserted their political opinions into their theories which have been around for so many years? I highly doubt that._

 
No, I'm not saying that at all.  What I am saying is that this all comes down to philosophical differences.  For instance, it is possible to find research that shows tax cuts _are_ the best for the economy.  However, you will be hard pressed to find a professor who is making barely $35,000 a year tout the excellence behind less government intervention.  

I believe the money I make should stay in my pocket.  I adamantly feel that Big Control from Big Government is totally unproductive and results in a society that borders on socialism and takes us further and further from what this country is supposed to be about.

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *seonmi* 

 
_Professors don't just say what they want to say, they also have to base on researches and textbooks (these theories are widely accepted, just to make it clear). Tax cut has been proved to produce the least result (increasing national income)_

 
Well, actually, yes they do. The classroom is their platform.  I have attended college (although it was forever ago-I'm old) and it is very apparent that professors insert their opinions and use available studies, research, etc. to back up their views.  It is just like the pharmaceutical company that funds a "non-interested third party study" to obtain significant data on the benefits of their drug.  While the results of those studies can be interpreted as true, there are 10 other independent studies out there negating the results.  It is not difficult to find research to support your opinion on just about anything....

I guess what I am saying is I think you have to decide what theory you buy into?  Governmental control of your money (more taxes) or private sector (tax cuts).  In my opinion it is a no-brainer.


----------

