How would you spend the rebate?

[GUS]

The front page of the Statesman has an economy article called 'Sugar for the Economy' which I cannot find in the Idaho Statesman web page-Edition Date: 01/20/08

The article says our dumb president is considering mailing rebate checks this spring of maybe $800 for each adult. It goes on to say that if the consumer banks the money or uses it to pay down debt then the economy will not get stimulated and it will be a waste of money. If the money is spent at local businesses this would create more jobs and help the economy which bush has wrecked in the first place with his oil war. If we end up getting this cash windfall, how would you spend the rebate?

I would probably take a trip to Europe which would be wasting money or maybe I would give it away to PLANNED PARENTHOOD, the ACLU or ADA COUNTY FISH & GAME LEAGUE. SO-----If you found a check for $800 in your mailbox this spring, what would you do with the money?

[JIMV]

Try to rebuild my savings so as to be more ready for the growing recession.

[Drivesme]

Didn't bush the loser buy votes this way back in 2000??

Didn't stimulate the economy then and it won't now.
Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is what??

But to answer your question Gus, I would give the money to any of the Democrats that are running for office, that way I know it has gone to better the country.

[JIMV]

Didn't bush the loser buy votes this way back in 2000??

Didn't stimulate the economy then and it won't now.
Doing the same thing over and over expecting different results is what??

But to answer your question Gus, I would give the money to any of the Democrats that are running for office, that way I know it has gone to better the country.

He couldn't have as the left has been squeaking 'tax cuts for the rich' since 2001. No, you confuse Bush with the dems who want to use tax dollars in their vote buying effort...heck, just look at this proposal. Bush has to promise welfare for non tax payers to get the dems to give tax payers a dime. Nope, vote buying is a gold medal sport for the dems.

[Robbo]

I'd probably use the money to take my lumpy dog to the vet. Sucks when they get older and cysts keep appearing.

[Drivesme]

You are wrong, of course jim.
bush the loser ran, and sort of won, with the promise of rebates, he bought your vote and you all sold it cheap. Now he is trying to do it again, and lemmings will fall for it...again.
The republicans have had control for 8 years, in that short time we have heard nothing but 'tax cuts, tax cuts and tax cuts', well the economy is in shambles because of the tax cuts, why would we let they try to fix what they have broken with more of the same?

Tax cuts are not the answer and never have been.

[freewolf46]

Ammo-canned goods

[Bruce McAuley]

I bet their dollar will cost us $1.25 to buy next year at this time.:cool:

Bruce

[JIMV]

Ammo-canned goods

Might be wise. I bought more emergency supplies today and ordered silver last week. heavens knows how bad things could get if the dems win.

[Drivesme]

Not as bad as if the con's win.
republican fascism isn't working out very well is it?

Less than one year left and we will get our country back!
You can almost feel the anticipation, can't you!:D

[freewolf46]

Less than one year left and we will get our country back!


I have to wonder what you think you may get back as far as your country goes?

Integrity in politics? Not likely
A sound economy? Not likely
Less war? Not likely

A few hand-outs in the way of health care or other programs?
Possibly. But only temporarily until the system collapses under the burden and then these gains will be funded off the losses of other programs.

There is no money. Period. There hasn't been for a long time. A very long time. We make it, force others to take it, they trade it for pieces of America, and we make more until it has absolutely no value at all.

Show me the candidate who will fix that. He or she would be unelectable by virtue of the pain it would cause Americans.

No. You will not get your country back in 2009 no matter which candidate you elect from either party except for one, and if you were to get your country back, you would find it is a poor beggar living off of borrowed money on borrowed time.

The emperor wears no clothes.

[Erika]

The shame is on them. W's done the damage he's done and they now see he has no clothes? Excuse me, why didn't the bushbots see this years earlier.

Only 365 days left of W and his insanity.

[Drivesme]

I have to wonder what you think you may get back as far as your country goes?

Integrity in politics? Not likely
A sound economy? Not likely
Less war? Not likely

A few hand-outs in the way of health care or other programs?
Possibly. But only temporarily until the system collapses under the burden and then these gains will be funded off the losses of other programs.

There is no money. Period. There hasn't been for a long time. A very long time. We make it, force others to take it, they trade it for pieces of America, and we make more until it has absolutely no value at all.

Show me the candidate who will fix that. He or she would be unelectable by virtue of the pain it would cause Americans.

No. You will not get your country back in 2009 no matter which candidate you elect from either party except for one, and if you were to get your country back, you would find it is a poor beggar living off of borrowed money on borrowed time.

The emperor wears no clothes.

It's a "big picture" sort of thing free, we will get the country back and then we can begin to repair the damage that has been done to it by the rightwing fascist agenda.

[GUS]

The ecnomic problems the USA has are very numerous and will be difficult to fix. The import export deviation is disasterous. The massive importing we are engaged in with China and third world countries is indicitive of our manufacturing shut down/outsourcing. INspite of what we are told the unemployment of factory personel is REALLY a problem. The money we have borrowed through our sale of treasury bills has cast a hideous economic load on our children/grandchildren. We cannot just keep printing money or it will become even more valueless and our marketable good prices will continue to shrink sales profits. The ratio between the rich and the middle class grows stronger in favor of the wealthy....rich get rich and the poor/middle class get larger and poorer. The dollar and the workweek hours are less favorable to the employee than the economy has seen in years.

[lenny]

This was a good idea for a thread topic Gus.

I think that I'd be another one of those economic stimulator's, I'd spend it. I don't have any debt to pay (how incredibly un-American of me), so I'd probably spend it on a few things over a month or so.

I like to buy things that are useful and practical so it would probably be some combination of tools in the form of gardening/yardwork, supplies for working (window cleaning), and although I don't really need too many power tools I really want a bandsaw. :D I might also buy some biking supplies. I'd also buy a few books to add to the collection.

Oh, I just thought of a great "big-ticket" item. I'd buy a Silky Hayate Pole Saw (http://www.wesspur.com/saws/silky-pole-saws.html), the 21' one that is $270 before shipping. I find that I use a pole saw to cut quite a few limbs every year, and mine is old and sucks compared to that thing. I want it! :D

Oh yeah, another thing I want is a nice cider press. I was going to get one last year and it just never happened. It was a slow year for apples anyway so...

[lenny]

I have to wonder what you think you may get back as far as your country goes?

Integrity in politics? Not likely
A sound economy? Not likely
Less war? Not likely

A few hand-outs in the way of health care or other programs?
Possibly. But only temporarily until the system collapses under the burden and then these gains will be funded off the losses of other programs.

There is no money. Period. There hasn't been for a long time. A very long time. We make it, force others to take it, they trade it for pieces of America, and we make more until it has absolutely no value at all.

Show me the candidate who will fix that. He or she would be unelectable by virtue of the pain it would cause Americans.

No. You will not get your country back in 2009 no matter which candidate you elect from either party except for one, and if you were to get your country back, you would find it is a poor beggar living off of borrowed money on borrowed time.
The emperor wears no clothes.

Ding, Ding, Ding! We've got a winner here.

This country is compleletly bankrupt, and most of its citizens completely batshit insane. We might as well just stick a fork in it.

[Drivesme]

The ecnomic problems the USA has are very numerous and will be difficult to fix. The import export deviation is disasterous. The massive importing we are engaged in with China and third world countries is indicitive of our manufacturing shut down/outsourcing. INspite of what we are told the unemployment of factory personel is REALLY a problem. The money we have borrowed through our sale of treasury bills has cast a hideous economic load on our children/grandchildren. We cannot just keep printing money or it will become even more valueless and our marketable good prices will continue to shrink sales profits. The ratio between the rich and the middle class grows stronger in favor of the wealthy....rich get rich and the poor/middle class get larger and poorer. The dollar and the workweek hours are less favorable to the employee than the economy has seen in years.

Nonsense, all we need to do is cut taxes to business and the top 1%.
Problem solved!:D

You know that the top 1% pays 80% of all taxes, right?
It's "self evident" as to what needs to be done.

[JIMV]

I have to wonder what you think you may get back as far as your country goes?

Integrity in politics? Not likely
A sound economy? Not likely
Less war? Not likely

A few hand-outs in the way of health care or other programs?
Possibly. But only temporarily until the system collapses under the burden and then these gains will be funded off the losses of other programs.

There is no money. Period. There hasn't been for a long time. A very long time. We make it, force others to take it, they trade it for pieces of America, and we make more until it has absolutely no value at all.

Show me the candidate who will fix that. He or she would be unelectable by virtue of the pain it would cause Americans.

No. You will not get your country back in 2009 no matter which candidate you elect from either party except for one, and if you were to get your country back, you would find it is a poor beggar living off of borrowed money on borrowed time.

The emperor wears no clothes.

It is not that there is no money, it is that there is less money than we print. say we devalue the dollar 20% , that will mean the actual value of the dollar is 80% of what it is now...the issue is not a lack of money by an excess of promises and pandering. No country has an unlimited economic base. We have printed money past that limit and that devalued money is coming home to bite us.

The country needs to really sit down and decide what is to be funded and what is fluff, pork, or simply stupid. Then cut government and the situation will fix itself.

[Erika]

That is where the money is going.

[freewolf46]

It is not that there is no money, it is that there is less money than we print. say we devalue the dollar 20% , that will mean the actual value of the dollar is 80% of what it is now...the issue is not a lack of money by an excess of promises and pandering. No country has an unlimited economic base. We have printed money past that limit and that devalued money is coming home to bite us.

The country needs to really sit down and decide what is to be funded and what is fluff, pork, or simply stupid. Then cut government and the situation will fix itself.

I guess I could agree, technically. I say no money, because even though we may have more money than we ever had, (we make as much as we need), when it has little or no value, it is not really money in any form other than name. The main ingredient that would actually make it "real money" is missing.

I agree that we need to bite the bullet and do the suffering required to address the problem. I am well aware also of the fact, that Iraq is only a small percentage of the financial problem. Social Security is still the biggest expense by far and growing. However, If we took that money from Iraq as well as much of the other money we spend and give away overseas, we could use it to offset the cost of some of these domestic programs while we bite the bullet and develop more rational approaches to retirement and economic stability for families and individuals. We would have much cutting to do domestically to be living within our means again.

This can not be done overnight, but we need to start weaning people off the system that we used to make them dependent.

A point that Paul made the other day, and has sound reasoning, is that bringing the troops that we have scattered around the world to the tune of 700 bases, home and make those bases in our country instead. We would have every penny of money those people spend, as well as any other economic benefits, invested in our own economy rather than the economies of the 130 countries that they now spend their money in.

If we stop building their economies plus the additional aid we give them for free, it would go a long way to start the process of rebuilding our own. That would not solve the problem entirely, but it is by far the easiest first step, giving us some room to maneuver. We still have to shift the burden of government in everyday life back to the citizens with new alternatives to the dependency they have become so used to, but that takes much more time than the first step I just laid out and offers breathing room during the process so that no one is left out in the cold. It is essential, or it will all collapse around us due to lack of funding for ANY of it.

There is not a front running Republican who is willing to take those drastic foreign steps, nor is there a front running Democrat who is willing to take the necessary steps domestically. As a matter of fact, the two side are so distraught over the sacrifices needed that even the Republicans will not take steps to curb the domestic spending, and the Democrats will not take the drastic steps needed in foreign aid. Both sides would much rather see us collapse than to have to tell us the truth that we must drastically cut in BOTH areas.

[JIMV]

That is where the money is going.

Iraq....Max $150 Billion a year
SS......$608 billion

I could go on. The war is expensive but that is not where the money is going, actually, less than 9% of the budget is for the war. The other 91% is for other spending.

[Drivesme]

Iraq....Max $150 Billion a year
SS......$608 billion

I could go on. The war is expensive but that is not where the money is going, actually, less than 9% of the budget is for the war. The other 91% is for other spending.

Again jim I have to ask if 150 billion couldn't be better spent elsewhere?

[GUS]

The oil war has cost over $485,937,212,996 which is about 5 trillion and over a 5 year period comes out to $97,187,442,599. But then so many pockets have been lined and many large fortunes made over the rich boy's search for those pesky weapons of mass destruction.....which no doubt will be found under the oil wells once the pipe line is run to USA ports.

[JIMV]

The oil war has cost over $485,937,212,996 which is about 5 trillion and over a 5 year period comes out to $97,187,442,599. But then so many pockets have been lined and many large fortunes made over the rich boy's search for those pesky weapons of mass destruction.....which no doubt will be found under the oil wells once the pipe line is run to USA ports.

Uh Gus....your numbers are Billion's, not trillion.'s The cost of the war has been about 150 Billion a year...no trillions.

[Bruce McAuley]

And we're financing it.
The interest?
For our kids to pay off.
Bush is doing his level best to devalue the hell out of the dollar, though, so that debt won't be worth sh!t and neither will be the dollar itself.:eek:
On edit, look how our stock market is tanking, kinda makes ya wonder about the dollar...

Bruce

[JIMV]

And we're financing it.
The interest?
For our kids to pay off.
Bush is doing his level best to devalue the hell out of the dollar, though, so that debt won't be worth sh!t and neither will be the dollar itself.:eek:
On edit, look how our stock market is tanking, kinda makes ya wonder about the dollar...

Bruce

That is not political, just economic...

[Drivesme]

Uh Gus....your numbers are Billion's, not trillion.'s The cost of the war has been about 150 Billion a year...no trillions.
Your lack of response the question is answer enough.

[JIMV]

Simply noting that the numbers were a few figures short of Trillions. I am not saying we are not spending moeny, just that the number in the real world is way less than advertised and less than the money we waste on earmarks and welfare, both individual and corporate.

[McGyver]

Iraq....Max $150 Billion a year
SS......$608 billion

I could go on. The war is expensive but that is not where the money is going, actually, less than 9% of the budget is for the war. The other 91% is for other spending. (THAT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE BUSH/CHENEY HAVE NOT "BUDGETED" FOR THE WAR. THEY ARE KEEPING THOSE FIGURES OUT OF THE BUDGET AND RUNNING THIS WAR ON "SUPPLEMENTALS.")
Jim,
Do you have a "link" to your figures above? All the figures I find appear to be quite a bit larger than that? Of course, even IF your figures were correct, that's 3/4 of a TRILLION DOLLARS spent on the War in Iraq Jim. Not exactly chicken feed!

Do your figures include any of these:

Consider the costs...

Almost 4,000 U.S. soldiers killed and more than 60,000 wounded
700,000 Iraqis killed and 4 million refugees
What Does Iraq Cost? Even More Than You Think.

Subject: The Hidden Costs of Iraq

You may recall that Bush got rid of his loyal White House economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey back in 2002 after, among other sins, he claimed that a war in Iraq might cost as much as $200 billion. At the time, White House staffers sneered that Lindsey was being alarmist. Hardly. One commonly cited estimate of Iraq's cost, based on an August analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, is $1 trillion, and that's probably on the low side. A report released last week by the Democratic staff of Congress's Joint Economic Committee put the war's 2002-08 tab at $1.3 trillion.

But all these figures don't quite get at Iraq's real cost. Indeed, we usually don't even frame the question the right way. We'd do better to recognize what we've lost, rather than focusing only on what we've paid.

We often think of cost simply in terms of dollars spent, but the real cost of a choice -- what economists call its "opportunity cost" -- consists of the forgone alternatives, of the things we could have had instead. For instance, the cost of seeing a movie is not just the dollars you plunked down for the ticket, but also the subtler cost of missing a dinner at home or a cocktail party at work. This idea sounds simple, but if applied consistently, it requires us to rethink and, yes, raise the costs of the Iraq war.

Set aside the question of what we could have accomplished at home with the energy and resources we've devoted to Iraq and concentrate just on national security. Here, the hidden cost of the war, above all, is that the United States has lost much of its ability to halt nuclear proliferation.

Mr. President, when the war started, I was convinced by your arguments that we had to stop Iraq's dictatorship from getting the bomb. No longer. Let's look at some of the opportunity costs the United States has incurred so far:

1. We still haven't secured our ports against nuclear terrorism. The
$1 trillion we've probably spent on the war could have funded the annual budget of the Department of Homeland Security 28 times over.

2. The human toll of the war is dreadful: more than 3,800 U.S. soldiers dead and more than 28,000 wounded, plus more than 1,000 private contractors killed and many more injured. It's harder to know how many Iraqis have died; some estimates claim that the war has caused a million or more Iraqi deaths, and even if that's an overstatement, the toll is still very high. But it's not just the lives that are gone; we've also lost the contributions that these people would have made to their families and to humanity at large.

3. Another major hidden cost: Many of the wounded have severe brain injuries or other traumas and will never return to "normal" life. Furthermore, Washington will find it far harder to recruit and retain quality troops and National Guardsmen in the future.

4. Don't forget the small statistics, which are often the most striking. According to John Pike, the head of the research group GlobalSecurity.org, an estimated 250,000 bullets have been fired for every insurgent killed in Iraq. That's not just a waste of ammunition; it's also a reflection of how badly the country has been damaged and how indiscriminate some of the fighting has been. Or take another straw in the wind: The cost of a coffin in Baghdad has risen to $50-75, up from just $5-10 before the war, according to the Nation magazine.

5. Above all, governing Iraq has, so far, been a fruitless investment. According to 2006 figures, U.S. war spending came out to $3,749 per Iraqi -- almost as much as the per capita income of Egypt. That staggering sum hasn't bought a lot of leadership from Iraq, or much of a democratic model for its Arab neighbors.

In fact, Mr. President, your initial pro-war arguments offer the best path toward understanding why the conflict has been such a disaster for U.S. interests and global security.

Following your lead, Iraq hawks argued that, in a post-9/11 world, we needed to take out rogue regimes lest they give nuclear or biological weapons to al-Qaeda-linked terrorist groups. But each time the United States tries to do so and fails to restore order, it incurs a high -- albeit unseen -- opportunity cost in the future. Falling short makes it harder to take out, threaten or pressure a dangerous regime next time around.

Foreign governments, of course, drew the obvious lesson from our debacle -- and from our choice of target. The United States invaded hapless Iraq, not nuclear-armed North Korea. To the real rogues, the fall of Baghdad was proof positive that it's more important than ever to acquire nuclear weapons -- and if the last superpower is bogged down in Iraq while its foes slink toward getting the bomb, so much the better. Iran, among others, has taken this lesson to heart. The ironic legacy of the war to end all proliferation will be more proliferation.

The bottom line is clear, Mr. President: The more you worried about the unchecked spread of doomsday weapons, the stronger you thought the case was for war in the first place. But precisely because you had a point about the need to stop nuclear proliferation, you must now realize that the costs of a failed war are far higher than you've acknowledged.

Ironically, it's probably the doves who should lower their mental estimate of the war's long-haul cost: By fighting a botched war today, the United States has lowered the chance that it will fight another preventive war in the near future. The American public simply does not have the stomach for fighting a costly, potentially futile war every few years. U.S. voters have already lost patience with the pace of reconstruction in Iraq, and that frustration will linger; remember, it took the country 15 years or more to "get over" Vietnam. The projection of American power and influence in the future requires that an impatient public feel good about American muscle-flexing in the past.

Even if the wisest way forward is sticking to our guns, the constraints of politics and public opinion mean that we cannot always see U.S. military commitments through. Since turning tail hurts our credibility so badly and leaves such a mess behind, we should be extremely cautious about military intervention in the first place. The case for hawkish behavior often assumes that the public has more political will than it actually has, so we need to save up that resolve for cases when it really counts.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/09/28/cost_of_iraq_war_nearly_2b_a_week/

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

[JIMV]

The numbers that I have read are compilations of suplemental bills for the war. As you noted, the war is outside the normal budget, which is good and bad. Good because it is easy to track, bad because we should always budget for known expenses. Those lists produce a cost of around 100 billion a year since 2004. The numbers the left produce seem to combine the normal defense budget, all the supplementals, and a bit of fairy dust to produce totals in the trillion dollar range.

I figure a real, and generous figure is about 150 billion a year since 2004.

That is a very big number, more than enough to make an argument that the war is seriously expensive. There is no need to inflate the numbers to make a case.

[Erika]

At some point in time, the GOP has to come face to face with the fact that they screwed fellow Americans to back Bush's fake war.
They also have to admit they were so naive as to pretend they didn't know the only ones who would profit is Bush's corporatist globalists.

Bush has screwed us in every way imagineable. Misuse of our military, allowing our infrastructure to crumble, devestation of the stock market.

Bush totally screwed us with the help of his backers for EIGHT years.

[NuclearShadows]

The numbers that I have read are compilations of suplemental bills for the war. As you noted, the war is outside the normal budget, which is good and bad. Good because it is easy to track, bad because we should always budget for known expenses. Those lists produce a cost of around 100 billion a year since 2004. The numbers the left produce seem to combine the normal defense budget, all the supplementals, and a bit of fairy dust to produce totals in the trillion dollar range.

I figure a real, and generous figure is about 150 billion a year since 2004.

That is a very big number, more than enough to make an argument that the war is seriously expensive. There is no need to inflate the numbers to make a case.
what about the interest on the national debt and much of the debt itself which is associated with past wars? Don't you think that rightly can be added to the moneys spent on war??

[Drivesme]

Simply noting that the numbers were a few figures short of Trillions. I am not saying we are not spending moeny, just that the number in the real world is way less than advertised and less than the money we waste on earmarks and welfare, both individual and corporate.

I'm simply asking if that money could be better spent helping Americans or do you think it is a wise use of your tax dollars to kill people in the Middle East for no reason?

[Drivesme]

The numbers that I have read are compilations of suplemental bills for the war. As you noted, the war is outside the normal budget, which is good and bad. Good because it is easy to track, bad because we should always budget for known expenses. Those lists produce a cost of around 100 billion a year since 2004. The numbers the left produce seem to combine the normal defense budget, all the supplementals, and a bit of fairy dust to produce totals in the trillion dollar range.

I figure a real, and generous figure is about 150 billion a year since 2004.

That is a very big number, more than enough to make an argument that the war is seriously expensive. There is no need to inflate the numbers to make a case.

There sure seems to be a need to under report the numbers to justify. (IE buy votes)

[JIMV]

what about the interest on the national debt and much of the debt itself which is associated with past wars? Don't you think that rightly can be added to the moneys spent on war??

If you could separate the wars protion from the total and then make a case we would not simply borrow and spend on other more useless programs, then the interest would count.

[lenny]

what about the interest on the national debt and much of the debt itself which is associated with past wars? Don't you think that rightly can be added to the moneys spent on war??

I'm pretty sure that's what he refers to as the "fairy dust."

When you hear the war expense figures that go into the trillions, people are adding in future obligations to the total. It'd be sort of like if I bought a house for $250,000, paid off $50,000 over a period of time, and then claimed that the house only cost $50,000....ignoring the future obligations of paying off everything else.

[lenny]

Remember this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU) one?

[JIMV]

I'm pretty sure that's what he refers to as the "fairy dust."

When you hear the war expense figures that go into the trillions, people are adding in future obligations to the total. It'd be sort of like if I bought a house for $250,000, paid off $50,000 over a period of time, and then claimed that the house only cost $50,000....ignoring the future obligations of paying off everything else.

That works both ways...if that house was listed at its true, and eventual cost including provisions for government greed and tax increases, no one would ever own a home. In addition, if one spoke of the cost of entitlements and future promises from SS to medicair in terms of their eventual costs, folk would shoot themselves in horror.

The bottom line is that costs are spoken of in budget terms for all programs and in a decade or so, long after the costs of the war are gone, the costs of entitlements will remain, and have grown as politicians promise vastly more than can ever be paid.

The war is a transient expense...the free lunch is forever.

[JIMV]

Remember this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU) one?

Impossible...that video is dated sept of 2001, so any missing money would have to have gone missing under the previous administration and we know that is impossible, just ask the posters on this forum;)

[NuclearShadows]

Remember this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU) one?

most excellent find..
I have spent the last years writing and posting about this but no one seems to be outraged about it.
Except the right wingers who support the perceived need for war and their outrage is that they think it's all a lie of some sort...
and when asked, as drivesme has, if they think the money could be and should be spent better on other things, they simply say NO and leave it at that.... :rolleyes:

[lenny]

That works both ways...if that house was listed at its true, and eventual cost including provisions for government greed and tax increases, no one would ever own a home. In addition, if one spoke of the cost of entitlements and future promises from SS to medicair in terms of their eventual costs, folk would shoot themselves in horror.

The bottom line is that costs are spoken of in budget terms for all programs and in a decade or so, long after the costs of the war are gone, the costs of entitlements will remain, and have grown as politicians promise vastly more than can ever be paid.

The war is a transient expense...the free lunch is forever.

I suppose that would bring us back to the old impasse of whether it's better to spend the money overseas killing people, occupying their countries, and creating future blowback (think 911 and its costs) vs. keeping the money at home and at least trying to better our own society.

In a decade or so the true costs of the war --assuming we are actually in a state of "peace" by then-- will still be with us in the form of continued long term medical care for soldiers among other things.....

...and I'm not sure how SS is a free lunch?

There's also other costs that come with neverending war that aren't necessarily monitary such as homeless vets, vets who kill themselves, the end of the Republic for which it stands....:p

[lenny]

Impossible...that video is dated sept of 2001, so any missing money would have to have gone missing under the previous administration and we know that is impossible, just ask the posters on this forum;)

Sept, 10th 2001. Coincidentally of course. ;)

Must be a typo because you forgot the "s" at the end of "administration."

...and I will ask them.

Posters on this forum, what happened to the $2.3 trillion dollars that Don Rumsfeld reported MIA on Sept, 10th 2001, and more importantly how much of that money went missing during the Clinton administration, and what is President Clinton going to do about it once she's elected? Assuming those figures go back at least to Reagan 1980-1988 (read GHWB), through GHWB 1988-1992, through Clinton 1992-2000, continuing on with GWB 2000-2008, and then back to Clinton 2008-2016(?), should we expect that these sorts of things are ever going to end?

[JIMV]

I suppose that would bring us back to the old impasse of whether it's better to spend the money overseas killing people, occupying their countries, and creating future blowback (think 911 and its costs) vs. keeping the money at home and at least trying to better our own society.

In a decade or so the true costs of the war --assuming we are actually in a state of "peace" by then-- will still be with us in the form of continued long term medical care for soldiers among other things.....

...and I'm not sure how SS is a free lunch?

There's also other costs that come with neverending war that aren't necessarily monitary such as homeless vets, vets who kill themselves, the end of the Republic for which it stands....:p

When one promises more benefits than the recipient has paid for and mopre than can be paid for, one enters the realm of the free lunch.

Don't get me wrong, folk paid for a benefit, a serious one, but the improvements and new promises are simply not possible. Medicair is the same.

[Erika]

[QUOTE=JIMV;30266]When one promises more benefits than the recipient has paid for and mopre than can be paid for, one enters the realm of the free lunch.

Don't get me wrong, folk paid for a benefit, a serious one, but the improvements and new promises are simply not possible. Medicair is the same.



To account for the baby boomers. SS is no way an entitlement. The funds were misused terribly instead.

[JIMV]

No disagreement there, politicians from both parties are spending evey dime and borrowing more. The problem is, no one is acting to stop the spending. The only issue is what we get to spend all that loot on. The left wants welfare and social spending and the right defense and business spending. Aside for defense, none of the spending is legit.

[GUS]

Defense spending, where? The government is spending money not on defending but attacking and attempting to take over Iraq and obtain oil. Legit? In whose book? Is selling billions of dollars of treasury bills to China and Japan business spending? Isn't the government suppose to represent the people and provide social programs such as improved education? Where is all the road building and other public services or are those things welfare now? Welfare is what the government is giving to corporations in the form of tax breaks. Here in Idaho our health care mess is running off business. The government can't fix the road to Caldwell or the bus service, yet is pushing to install a mass transist cluster cluck.

[McGyver]

Well Said Gus!

Just another case of Republicans campaigning on "TAX CUTS" to get elected, and then Borrowing money, until we are up to our necks in debt, in order to pay for all their spending! In other words, The Republican Party survives on their Credit Cards! What kind of economic plan is that????

Democrats may be the "Tax and Spend" Party, but Republicans are DEFINITELY The "Spend and Borrow" Party. And of the two, I'd much rather pay for what I spend now, instead of leaving all that debt to my heirs!

PS: BTW, When are we all going to have to pay back this "Stimulous" money? If I recall, last time I got a "free" check from the government, they ended up taking it back so time in the future?



************************************************** ************************************************** *

[Old Round Guy]

The last time the rebates were offered I didn't get one because my income is "unearned". In other words, I didn't earn my military pension by serving my country for 20 years.

I'm still not a "wage earner", which seems to be the criteria brought forward in the press.

Also, and I wish I could find the reference for this but I think it was in the Statesman, it was said that since the money for the bush stimulus package is again "borrowed" money it could cause further recession rather than a stimulus as intended.

Reading back, it's on the front page of today's Statesman, titled "stimulus plan could push deficit higher

[NuclearShadows]

January 24, 2008
Tentative Deal on Economic Stimulus Plan
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/washington/24cnd-econ.html?hp)

WASHINGTON — House leaders and the White House on Thursday reached a tentative agreement on an economic stimulus package of roughly $150 billion that would pay stipends of $300 to $1,200 per family and provide tax incentives for businesses to encourage spending.

A House aide close to the negotiations said that Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and the Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, reached an “agreement in principle” after Ms. Pelosi agreed not to include two proposals that had broad support among Congressional Democrats: an extension of unemployment benefits and a temporary increase in food stamps.

In exchange for those concessions, the Bush administration and House Republicans agreed that the stipend of at least $300 would be paid to all workers who earned at least $3,000 last year, even those who did not earn enough to pay taxes last year.

“The vast majority of low-income people are going to get a minimum of $300,” said a White House official familiar with the outlines of the accord.

Workers who paid income taxes could receive more than $300, and families with children would receive an additional $300 per child, up to a cap of $1,200. The stipend, which some lawmakers were calling a “tax rebate,” would be subject to income limits so that the wealthiest taxpayers would not receive it. The White House official familiar with the outlines of the accord said that payments would go to individuals earning up to $75,000 and couples earning up to $150,000. He said roughly two-thirds of the overall package would be aimed at individual taxpayers and one-third at businesses.

Senators Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican minority leader, have yet to give their approval to the accord. But, while there may be some wrinkles to iron out between the House and Senate, there was nothing to suggest any disagreement so severe as to be a potential deal breaker.

Republicans immediately cheered the deal as “tilted toward taxpayers” and avoiding “extraneous spending” on unemployment benefits, food stamps, or infrastructure projects, which some Democrats had said should be included in a stimulus package.

But it was unclear how the package, without extended unemployment benefits or increased food stamps, would be received by Democrats in the Senate, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who have said that those proposals offered the best prospects for quickly injecting added spending into the economy.

Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who is chairman of the Finance Committee, reiterated his interest in extending unemployment benefits at a hearing on Thursday morning, where he said his committee would mark up a fiscal stimulus bill next week.

“There are reports that a deal may be close on the House side,” Mr. Baucus said. “The Senate will want to speak, as well.”

That announcement of potential action by the Finance Committee could jar Democratic leaders who have been striving for a carefully coordinated effort on the economy. Earlier this week, Mr. Reid announced that the House would take the lead in developing the stimulus package and would conduct the immediate negotiations with the White House and Congressional Republicans.

Noting that tax rebates were one potentially cost-effective method to spur new spending, Mr. Baucus said: “Another example would be expanding unemployment insurance benefits. In recent recessions, Congress has extended the number of weeks that unemployed workers could receive benefits. We could do that again. We could provide a further extension for recipients in high unemployment states. And we could also temporarily increase the dollar amount of benefits to help unemployed workers to pay their bills.”

“Unfortunately, under current law, fewer than 4 in 10 unemployed workers receive unemployment insurance benefits,” Mr. Baucus continued. “To address this problem, we could extend eligibility. For example, we could extend benefits to part-time workers.”

Mr. Schumer, at the same hearing, also lamented Ms. Pelosi’s concession on unemployment benefits, but said he hoped that cooperation on a quick stimulus plan would continue. “While I may not agree with every element of the package — such as the decision to leave out extended unemployment benefits, which economists say would give us the greatest bang for the buck — there are some very positive developments around the tax rebate for families,” he said. “I encourage everyone to keep working in a bipartisan way.”

Ms. Pelosi met three times on Wednesday with Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and Mr. Boehner, who have served as chief architects of the plan in a rare show of bipartisanship.

Ms. Pelosi declined immediate comment Thursday morning, but told reporters she would have something to say later in the day.

On her way into a meeting Wednesday evening, Ms. Pelosi signaled that a deal might be close when she said there had been “tremendous” progress during the day.

“I’m hopeful,” she said. “We’re still working through.”

Mr. Bush, after meeting on Wednesday with mayors from across the country, said he was optimistic about reaching swift agreement on a stimulus plan.

“I talked to them about my desire to work with the Congress to get a stimulus package passed, one that’s going to be robust enough to affect the economy, simple enough for people to understand it and efficient enough to have an impact,” Mr. Bush said. “And I’m confident that we can get something done.”

Democratic leaders said that to speed the economic rescue package they would mostly bypass the usual committee process. Lawmakers said that they hoped the plan could be approved by mid-February and that it would be sufficient to soften an economic downturn and forestall a recession.

“One of the principal tenets of the administration and of ourselves is we have got to do this fast,” Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, said Wednesday. “To go through the regular process and have hearings and have mark-ups and subcommittee mark-ups, obviously we would be to some degree twiddling our thumbs while the economy burns.”

While Mr. Paulson, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Boehner were the chief negotiators, other lawmakers have sought to take a strong hand in the process.

Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, was said to be lobbying intensively for any payment to be sent to all low-income Americans, including those who did not pay any taxes last year. Some Republicans say benefits should be only for taxpayers.

In a statement Mr. Rangel said, “We must follow the guidance of so many economists who have said, with great clarity, that this package must put money back into the hands of the middle- and lower-income families who will then spend it directly into our economy.”

The progress toward a stimulus plan came as the Congressional Budget Office revised its economic projections to give a gloomier assessment of the economy, including a widening budget deficit and the first decline in corporate tax revenue since 2003.

The grimmer outlook prompted Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, chairman of the Budget Committee, to declare that a short-term stimulus package was insufficient.

“In addition to developing a bipartisan stimulus package,” Mr. Conrad said, “we also must work together to tackle the long-term fiscal challenges we face with the coming retirement of the baby boom generation. The American people rightly expect that we will come together to address these two significant challenges.”

House conservatives raised alarms about the emerging economic legislation, saying they feared it would focus too much on tax rebates and not enough on tax incentives to encourage businesses to create jobs.

They said any package should include provisions that would reduce the corporate tax rate, adjust capital gains for inflation and lower the capital gains rate for corporations.

“Giving temporary tax rebate checks to families, as important as that is, is not the same as economic growth,” said Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, chairman of the Republican Study Committee. “If you’re going to have an economic stimulus package, it ought to contain some economic stimulus.”

Steven Lee Myers contributed reporting.

[Old Round Guy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080124/ap_on_go_co/economy_stimulus

Excerpt

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Congressional leaders announced a deal with the White House Thursday on an economic stimulus package that would give most tax filers refunds of $600 to $1,200, and more if they have children.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress would act on the agreement — hammered out in a week of intense negotiations with Republican Leader John A. Boehner and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson — "at the earliest date, so that those rebate checks will be in the mail."

The rebates will go to 117 million families, according to a Democratic summary. That includes $28 billion in checks to 35 million working families who wouldn't have been helped by Bush's original proposal, the analysis estimated.

End excerpt

[JIMV]

Defense spending, where? The government is spending money not on defending but attacking and attempting to take over Iraq and obtain oil. Legit? In whose book? Is selling billions of dollars of treasury bills to China and Japan business spending? Isn't the government suppose to represent the people and provide social programs such as improved education? Where is all the road building and other public services or are those things welfare now? Welfare is what the government is giving to corporations in the form of tax breaks. Here in Idaho our health care mess is running off business. The government can't fix the road to Caldwell or the bus service, yet is pushing to install a mass transist cluster cluck.

This is mostly pure opinion and not fact so I'll skip rebuttal on most. You do raise an interesting point about the bus service. I will begin by noting I know little of the treasure valley system, but I suspect it has the same problems most bus systems have, buses way to big and riding half empty, schedules a joke and stops simply on unprotected corners.

In short, a big money eater. Is the bus publically run or is it private enterprise? If publc, that in itself explains most of the problems. Perhaps a system of smaller, more energy efficient vehicles on a real schedule would help.

As to a rail line, that only works if the rails go where folk want to go and the stops are where folk live or work. A run from the mall to downtown and then out to caldwell with stops in nampa and Meridian might make sense, but, again, politics ends up screwing up the idea more often than not. Everyone wants stops in their patch and too many stops makes the service too slow and expensive to attract riders. No one wants to take 2 hours to get from the Mall to Caldwell.

[JIMV]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080124/ap_on_go_co/economy_stimulus

Excerpt

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Congressional leaders announced a deal with the White House Thursday on an economic stimulus package that would give most tax filers refunds of $600 to $1,200, and more if they have children.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress would act on the agreement — hammered out in a week of intense negotiations with Republican Leader John A. Boehner and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson — "at the earliest date, so that those rebate checks will be in the mail."

The rebates will go to 117 million families, according to a Democratic summary. That includes $28 billion in checks to 35 million working families who wouldn't have been helped by Bush's original proposal, the analysis estimated.

End excerpt

Sounds like a good measure of welfare in the plan so the dems will support it. I expect it to pass quickly.

[NuclearShadows]

No disagreement there, politicians from both parties are spending evey dime and borrowing more. The problem is, no one is acting to stop the spending. The only issue is what we get to spend all that loot on. The left wants welfare and social spending and the right defense and business spending. Aside for defense, none of the spending is legit.

And I would argue that much of the military spending is for offense, not defense. The Bush doctrine of offensive military intervention and preemptive first strikes don't look defensive in my eyes.

[JIMV]

And I would argue that much of the military spending is for offense, not defense. The Bush doctrine of offensive military intervention and preemptive first strikes don't look defensive in my eyes.

The best defense is a good offense, especially in war. There is no provision in the constitution that separates out offensive and defensive war with one legit and the other not...that is politics, not law.

[NuclearShadows]

The best defense is a good offense, especially in war. There is no provision in the constitution that separates out offensive and defensive war with one legit and the other not...that is politics, not law.

well if you wish to follow constitutional law then congress must officially declare war, otherwise, with your logic it would appear that the Bush administration is illegally spending billions of dollars on an illegal war in regard to Iraq. It can be argued that "war on terrorism" cannot have an official declaration because there is no entity to give it to. But in regard to presidential power to make war, traditionally it was wars where the financial and time commitments were minimal... Iraq does not qualify for that. Doesn't this waste ruffle your conservative feathers??

[NuclearShadows]

well if you wish to follow constitutional law then congress must officially declare war, otherwise, with your logic it would appear that the Bush administration is illegally spending billions of dollars on an illegal war in regard to Iraq. It can be argued that "war on terrorism" cannot have an official declaration because there is no entity to give it to. But in regard to presidential power to make war, traditionally it was wars where the financial and time commitments were minimal... Iraq does not qualify for that. Doesn't this waste ruffle your conservative feathers??

And as far as “the best defense is a good offense” that is a really great saying… for football. But not if you want to have peace in the world.

“Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies. From these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, debts and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the dominion of the few.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” James Madison

[JIMV]

well if you wish to follow constitutional law then congress must officially declare war, otherwise, with your logic it would appear that the Bush administration is illegally spending billions of dollars on an illegal war in regard to Iraq. It can be argued that "war on terrorism" cannot have an official declaration because there is no entity to give it to. But in regard to presidential power to make war, traditionally it was wars where the financial and time commitments were minimal... Iraq does not qualify for that. Doesn't this waste ruffle your conservative feathers??

There is nothing in the Constitution that elaborates on what such a declatration must look like. The congressional votes in support of the Iraq are all the approval and declaration one needs.

What ruffles my feathers is having an entire political party siding with terrorists and our enemies and demanding we lose a war we are in. As I have posted before, we waste vastly more money un useless social programs and pork every year and those programs are forever....

[JIMV]

And as far as “the best defense is a good offense” that is a really great saying… for football. But not if you want to have peace in the world.

“Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies. From these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, debts and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the dominion of the few.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” James Madison

""Our enemies are worms. I saw them in Munich." - Adolf Hitler to assembled generals late August 1939.

Appeasemetn never, ever works.

[NuclearShadows]

As I have posted before, we waste vastly more money un useless social programs and pork every year and those programs are forever....
And you don't think that the "war on terror" doesn't promise to be an endless war?

[NuclearShadows]

""Our enemies are worms. I saw them in Munich." - Adolf Hitler to assembled generals late August 1939.

Appeasemetn never, ever works.

The thesaurus says that some of the other words for appeasement are compromise, conciliation, pacification and reconciliation... These things do work.... HAve you ever heard of South Africa's Truth & Reconciliation Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_(South_Africa) )? A bit of truth, listening, understanding and forgiveness can change the world better than a cluster bomb.

[GUS]

Well perhaps we should offensively attack Japan because we covet their electronic devices and good cars and then offensively attack all the European nations one by one and sieze their perfume, wooden shoes, olive oil, knit sweaters, lieb fraumilch,etc. Remember when the USA seized Hawaii because we coveted their sugar and the money they were making in export? How much lower can a government sink? What happened to the honorable good guys and what are so many terrorists doing in DC?


The best defense is a good offense, especially in war. There is no provision in the constitution that separates out offensive and defensive war with one legit and the other not...that is politics, not law.

[NuclearShadows]

Well perhaps we should offensively attack Japan because we covet their electronic devices and good cars and then offensively attack all the European nations one by one and sieze their perfume, wooden shoes, olive oil, knit sweaters, lieb fraumilch,etc. Remember when the USA seized Hawaii because we coveted their sugar and the money they were making in export? How much lower can a government sink? What happened to the honorable good guys and what are so many terrorists doing in DC?

Well, JIMV said "What ruffles my feathers is having an entire political party siding with terrorists and our enemies and demanding we lose a war we are in." Would that give him patriotic license to go on up there to Washington and preemptively strike all those evil liberal dems with his .45? His justification would be he is just a patriot doing his duty protecting the constitution....

[JIMV]

Thanks but I prefer to simply watch them lose in November, despite all the machinations to seize power. Could be wrong but the tea leaves are not looking good for the dems right now and the trend is toward the republicans. The only issue is of time and the unforseen. The dems are losing vots every month...do we have enough months to save the day? Will the economy or some otehr factor sway the vote at the last minute.

[JIMV]

The thesaurus says that some of the other words for appeasement are compromise, conciliation, pacification and reconciliation... These things do work.... HAve you ever heard of South Africa's Truth & Reconciliation Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_Reconciliation_Commission_(South_Africa) )? A bit of truth, listening, understanding and forgiveness can change the world better than a cluster bomb.

South Africa is not the finest example of success. Half the white population has fled, the economy is not nearly as healthy as it had been and the death count from crime and disease is many times higher than was the apartied death count. Still better than Rhodesia, an unmitaged disaster.

[JIMV]

Well perhaps we should offensively attack Japan because we covet their electronic devices and good cars and then offensively attack all the European nations one by one and sieze their perfume, wooden shoes, olive oil, knit sweaters, lieb fraumilch,etc. Remember when the USA seized Hawaii because we coveted their sugar and the money they were making in export? How much lower can a government sink? What happened to the honorable good guys and what are so many terrorists doing in DC?

Opinion again, not fact...

[NuclearShadows]

Thanks but I prefer to simply watch them lose in November, despite all the machinations to seize power. Could be wrong but the tea leaves are not looking good for the dems right now and the trend is toward the republicans. The only issue is of time and the unforseen. The dems are losing vots every month...do we have enough months to save the day? Will the economy or some otehr factor sway the vote at the last minute.
I think the real trend is to dump both parties but people just don't know how to get rid of the old tar baby....

[JIMV]

I believe the danger in November is to incumbents of both parties. As I type republicans are in a huddle about earmark reform. The reforers want the party to fight all earmarks and let the dems explain all the pork. The establishment is fighting the idea as they (and the dems) believe pork is a perk for reelection. I do not think the elected republicans will do the right thing so...in november, all politicians in office will face the disgust of the populace, both parties.

[McGyver]

I believe the danger in November is to incumbents of both parties. As I type republicans are in a huddle about earmark reform. The reforers want the party to fight all earmarks and let the dems explain all the pork. The establishment is fighting the idea as they (and the dems) believe pork is a perk for reelection. I do not think the elected republicans will do the right thing so...in november, all politicians in office will face the disgust of the populace, both parties.

You might be right Jim. However, I keep thinking that with Democrats and Republicans alike keep going around saying how "Government is Broken!" Then you can't help but think...Yeah, Well Republicans have been In Charge of government for the last 10 years....Are THEY the ones who broke it? I, of course would say Yes, But for the sake of argument, let's say No...... Then why didn't they "Fix It" when they had control of all three branches of government for so long? So while the American People are probably not thrilled with either party at the moment, unfortunately they have to choose one over the other, and I just can't see them NOT choosing to get rid of the party that's caused all the chaos for the past 10 years, that started with the "Over The Top" Impeachment of a sitting President, based on his private life.

I may be a total partisan on this subject, but I just can't believe that with a FIVE YEAR (Unnecessary) War costing a TRILLION DOLLARS, with all of the Incompentancy of the War and Hurricane Katrina, and now with a Recession on the horizon, I just don't see how ANY Republican gets elected under those circumstances?? Call Me Crazy! :rolleyes:



************************************************** ************************************************** *

[GUS]

This Iraq war is a real step into the past, a going backwards---not FORWARD. The USA has not had a WAR OF AGRESSION since the Spanish American War which ended in Feb. 1899....Vietnam and Korea were broken treaty wars. Except for Ron Paul, the GOPers all declared they want to keep this war going....oil hungry, greedy bastards who want to spend our country into a depression. CUT TAX and SPEND that is their MANTRA!

[JIMV]

This Iraq war is a real step into the past, a going backwards---not FORWARD. The USA has not had a WAR OF AGRESSION since the Spanish American War which ended in Feb. 1899....Vietnam and Korea were broken treaty wars. Except for Ron Paul, the GOPers all declared they want to keep this war going....oil hungry, greedy bastards who want to spend our country into a depression. CUT TAX and SPEND that is their MANTRA!

except for the numerous wars in central america in the 1930's, Grenada in the 1980's and Panama..

Don't you folk ever bother to fact check?

[McGyver]

Ya know Jim, you use to complain CONSTANTLY about how Drivesme would post such "drivel." But you NEVER ONCE failed to respond to that "drivel." Why is it that everytime I respond to one of your posts and make some fairly substantial comments and questions....I NEVER get a response from you? Is it because you CAN ONLY respond to Drivel? Or is because I make such GREAT Points, that you have No Comeback??? :rolleyes:

I believe the danger in November is to incumbents of both parties. As I type republicans are in a huddle about earmark reform. The reforers want the party to fight all earmarks and let the dems explain all the pork. The establishment is fighting the idea as they (and the dems) believe pork is a perk for reelection. I do not think the elected republicans will do the right thing so...in november, all politicians in office will face the disgust of the populace, both parties.

You might be right Jim. However, I keep thinking that with Democrats and Republicans alike keep going around saying how "Government is Broken!" Then you can't help but think...Yeah, Well Republicans have been In Charge of government for the last 10 years....Are THEY the ones who broke it? I, of course would say Yes, But for the sake of argument, let's say No...... Then why didn't they "Fix It" when they had control of all three branches of government for so long? So while the American People are probably not thrilled with either party at the moment, unfortunately they have to choose one over the other, and I just can't see them NOT choosing to get rid of the party that's caused all the chaos for the past 10 years, that started with the "Over The Top" Impeachment of a sitting President, based on his private life.

I may be a total partisan on this subject, but I just can't believe that with a FIVE YEAR (Unnecessary) War costing a TRILLION DOLLARS, with all of the Incompentancy of the War and Hurricane Katrina, and now with a Recession on the horizon, I just don't see how ANY Republican gets elected under those circumstances?? Call Me Crazy! :rolleyes:



************************************************** ************************************************** *

[NuclearShadows]

I just don't see how ANY Republican gets elected under those circumstances?? Call Me Crazy! :rolleyes:



************************************************** ************************************************** *[/QUOTE]

Mac, you're Crazy! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=q566ys0sqVQ)

[Bruce McAuley]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BhTZ_tgMUdo
This was made in 2000 by the CBC, one of my faves. Watch the whole hour on YouTube if you have the time and broadband, it's excellent. It also has George Bush looking stupid.:D

Bruce

[GUS]

WOW! Your comments are so true McG--I read your stuff and eagerly await Jim's response but all I get is ZILCH....let Drives make a comment and JIMV is on it like a bee to chicken liver....incesently!


Ya know Jim, you use to complain CONSTANTLY about how Drivesme would post such "drivel." But you NEVER ONCE failed to respond to that "drivel." Why is it that everytime I respond to one of your posts and make some fairly substantial comments and questions....I NEVER get a response from you? Is it because you CAN ONLY respond to Drivel? Or is because I make such GREAT Points, that you have No Comeback??? :rolleyes:



You might be right Jim. However, I keep thinking that with Democrats and Republicans alike keep going around saying how "Government is Broken!" Then you can't help but think...Yeah, Well Republicans have been In Charge of government for the last 10 years....Are THEY the ones who broke it? I, of course would say Yes, But for the sake of argument, let's say No...... Then why didn't they "Fix It" when they had control of all three branches of government for so long? So while the American People are probably not thrilled with either party at the moment, unfortunately they have to choose one over the other, and I just can't see them NOT choosing to get rid of the party that's caused all the chaos for the past 10 years, that started with the "Over The Top" Impeachment of a sitting President, based on his private life.

I may be a total partisan on this subject, but I just can't believe that with a FIVE YEAR (Unnecessary) War costing a TRILLION DOLLARS, with all of the Incompentancy of the War and Hurricane Katrina, and now with a Recession on the horizon, I just don't see how ANY Republican gets elected under those circumstances?? Call Me Crazy! :rolleyes:



************************************************** ************************************************** *

[JIMV]

Ya know Jim, you use to complain CONSTANTLY about how Drivesme would post such "drivel." But you NEVER ONCE failed to respond to that "drivel." Why is it that everytime I respond to one of your posts and make some fairly substantial comments and questions....I NEVER get a response from you? Is it because you CAN ONLY respond to Drivel? Or is because I make such GREAT Points, that you have No Comeback???

No, its because the moderator precludes responding to personal attack. I also am avoiding response to little more than personal opinion posts.

Now you second point is worth of comment. I believe the problem with politicians is universal. They all stretch the truth a good bit and act in their own personal self interest and not in the interest of the country. They pay margnal attention to the folk who elected them and will always give some folk more importance than others. This is true of both parties.

As all politicians are flawed, one must look to what their followers ask and demand to measure their value. I am not a socialist, not a race baiter, and not a big believer in stealing from the competent to give to the less competent for votes, and I believe demanding surrender in war is treason so I cannot vote democrat. I also KNOW what spending the dems proposed in 2000, 2002 and 2004 when they were in the minority in the form of new spending. It was 4 to 20 times more than the republicans. I also noted the dems promosed to clean up the corruption in Congress, something the majority party always has complete power to do and I note they did zip. Pork this year is as bad or worse than under those evil corrupt republicans. The President promised vetos and administrative actions but so ar that is also just a promise.

so, blaming the republicans for behaving like politicians when all politicians behave the same, I consider disingenuous, to be charitable.

[McGyver]

No, its because the moderator precludes responding to personal attack. I also am avoiding response to little more than personal opinion posts.

Jim, WHAT personal attack? I didn't call you a name. I am merely stating a fact! You complained incessantly that all Drivesme EVER posted was "Drivel." And Yet, You responded to each and every "Drivel" post with more of your own Drivel! I am posting legitimate questions that have been raised due to your "opinion" posts, and you say you won't answer, because I have stated my "personal opinions!" Give me a Break!

Jim, If all of us on this Forum NEVER responded to "personal opinion," it would be a very dull forum....void of any conversation. Since 98% of what everyone on this forum posts, IS "opinion," and that most certainly INCLUDES YOU! It is an OPINION FORUM, Jim. None of us have any "true" facts when it comes to government. We're armchair quarterbacks, at best! So when YOU say you don't respond to "Personal Opinion Posts," that is disengenuous, because that is basically ALL You EVER post as well. Face it Jim, it's what we all post. And, it's a topic for discussion. You flatter yourself much to much to believe that the majority of what you post on this forum is Proven Fact! NOT TRUE! Your comment below is again another PRIME example of YOU ONCE AGAIN SHARING YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS:

JIMV QUOTE:

"As I type republicans are in a huddle about earmark reform. The reforers want the party to fight all earmarks and let the dems explain all the pork. The establishment is fighting the idea as they (and the dems) believe pork is a perk for reelection. (CAN YOU PROVE THAT ONLY DEMS FEEL PORK IS A PERK FOR REELECTION?.....I DIDN'T THINK SO....JUST ANOTHER OF YOUR "PERSONAL OPINIONS RIGHT JIM?) I do not think the elected republicans will do the right thing so...in november, (OPPPS YET ANOTHER PERSONAL OPINION JIM?) all politicians in office will face the disgust of the populace, both parties. (AND AGAIN ANOTHER PERSONAL OPINION FROM JIM!) See what I mean Jim?

This is in no way a personal attack. It is merely asking WHY you have no problem responding to Each and Everyone of Drivesme's "Drivel" Posts, and yet, when you are asked a "Tough" question, (not drivel) you run away and hide...saying "You don't respond to Personal Opinions!" So, you respond to "drivel" but NOT to Personal Opinions?? How Dumb is that? Well Jim, You're on an "Opinion Forum." That's what we do here. We share our ideas and opinions, and then we discuss them. If you don't want to do that, then why are you here? To "Educate" us? Give Me a Break! Teacher, Teach Thyself!

[McGyver]

I just don't see how ANY Republican gets elected under those circumstances?? Call Me Crazy! :rolleyes:



************************************************** ************************************************** *

Mac, you're Crazy!

SAD!

Oh My God! I think there should be a Literacy Test before you can vote! Of course, what are the chances that these people vote anyway? Slim to None?
:(:confused:

[McGyver]

I believe the danger in November is to incumbents of both parties. As I type republicans are in a huddle about earmark reform. The reforers want the party to fight all earmarks and let the dems explain all the pork. The establishment is fighting the idea as they (and the dems) believe pork is a perk for reelection. I do not think the elected republicans will do the right thing so...in november, all politicians in office will face the disgust of the populace, both parties.

SO JIM...PLEASE TELL US WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THIS POST, THAT YOU RAN AWAY FROM WITHOUT ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS ASKED OF YOU? AND DON'T BOTHER TELLING ME IT'S BECAUSE I OFFERED BY "OPINIONS," BECAUSE IN YOUR POST ABOVE, YOU OFFERED MANY OF YOUR OWN OPINIONS AS WELL!

You might be right Jim. However, I keep thinking that with Democrats and Republicans alike keep going around saying how "Government is Broken!" Then you can't help but think...Yeah, Well Republicans have been In Charge of government for the last 10 years....Are THEY the ones who broke it? I, of course would say Yes, But for the sake of argument, let's say No...... Then why didn't they "Fix It" when they had control of all three branches of government for so long? So while the American People are probably not thrilled with either party at the moment, unfortunately they have to choose one over the other, and I just can't see them NOT choosing to get rid of the party that's caused all the chaos for the past 10 years, that started with the "Over The Top" Impeachment of a sitting President, based on his private life.

I may be a total partisan on this subject, but I just can't believe that with a FIVE YEAR (Unnecessary) War costing a TRILLION DOLLARS, with all of the Incompentancy of the War and Hurricane Katrina, and now with a Recession on the horizon, I just don't see how ANY Republican gets elected under those circumstances?? Call Me Crazy! :rolleyes:



************************************************** ************************************************** *

[JIMV]

You might be right Jim. However, I keep thinking that with Democrats and Republicans alike keep going around saying how "Government is Broken!" Then you can't help but think...Yeah, Well Republicans have been In Charge of government for the last 10 years....Are THEY the ones who broke it? I, of course would say Yes, But for the sake of argument, let's say No...... Then why didn't they "Fix It" when they had control of all three branches of government for so long? So while the American People are probably not thrilled with either party at the moment, unfortunately they have to choose one over the other, and I just can't see them NOT choosing to get rid of the party that's caused all the chaos for the past 10 years, that started with the "Over The Top" Impeachment of a sitting President, based on his private life.

For the same reason the democrats who control the congress today cannot get anything done, the minority won't let them. Now add to that my previous comments on politicians in general and you see the problem...Now add in RINOs.

The rst is just opinion.

I may be a total partisan on this subject, but I just can't believe that with a FIVE YEAR (Unnecessary) War costing a TRILLION DOLLARS, with all of the Incompentancy of the War and Hurricane Katrina, and now with a Recession on the horizon, I just don't see how ANY Republican gets elected under those circumstances?? Call Me Cra

You vastly overestimat the cost of the war and the rest is simply partisan opinion not worthy of comment.

[Erika]

Jim talks about this being a democratic war. LMAO. It's all the democrats fault. Guess what Jim, we hold the blood on YOUR hands for enabling this sob.

Have a nice day,

[freewolf46]

Guess what Jim, we hold the blood on YOUR hands for enabling this sob.

Have a nice day,

And would you hold the blood on the soldier's hands for enabling him by enlisting? What about their moms for not talking them out of it? What about yourself for not refusing to pay taxes because you are afraid of the personal consequences? For not running for office? And who is we? Are your we's more than his we's? Did they get out and elect someone who would have no blood on their hands?

Will you hold the blood of those lost, on your own hands when Hillary or Obama gets elected and we switch the fight to Northern Pakistan or Iran?

[NuclearShadows]

And would you hold the blood on the soldier's hands for enabling him by enlisting? What about their moms for not talking them out of it? What about yourself for not refusing to pay taxes because you are afraid of the personal consequences? For not running for office? And who is we? Are your we's more than his we's? Did they get out and elect someone who would have no blood on their hands?

Will you hold the blood of those lost, on your own hands when Hillary or Obama gets elected and we switch the fight to Northern Pakistan or Iran?

War tax resistance has a long history (http://www.warresisters.org/history_wtr.htm) in our country. There is a sense of real urgency about it this year and the work is being done to resist (http://www.nwtrcc.org/) The Quakers have always been on the forefront of this. Here is their view of the state of the union address. (http://fcnl.org/index.htm) Unfortunately it is has been hard for a secular person who wishes to resist war taxes to do it without getting in big trouble. Goes back to that thing about morality being tied into religion. Religious people seem to think that if you don’t have a belief in a god you can’t be a moral person… Hmmm….

[JIMV]

I am sorry but you misunderstand my point. I do not see the war as a democrat war...I see the war as an American war. Both parties voted for it and both parties got it going. As it was also a very becessary war, those who continue to support the effort are doing America's work while those who adocate surrender and running away are in the enemies camp. While the dems did their duty in supporting the start of the war, politics trumped honor for them and now they are almost entirely with the enemy. Doesn't matter much as the war is about won and will not go away in defeat regardless of what the left wants.

Hope this is more clear.

[Bruce McAuley]

Because we're winning, right?:rolleyes:

Bruce

[JIMV]

I nver expected anyone to remain there forever. It is expensive and at time dangerous. I just expect folk in my own country to support a war we are in and not our enemy....

[lenny]

I nver expected anyone to remain there forever. It is expensive and at time dangerous. I just expect folk in my own country to support a war we are in and not our enemy....


You never expected anyone to remain there forever? Pull your head out Jim (see below for location). Why would we build permanent bases (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Permanent+Bases+in+Iraq), and why would we build this? (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=giant+us+embassy+in+Iraq&btnG=Search) Iraq is the crown jewel of our empire; we won't be going anywhere.

As far as supporting an illegal and immoral war for profit and empire, it's our duty as Americans to make it stop and give those responsible a quick trial and public hanging as far as I'm concerned. Americans who oppose criminal wars for rich war profiteers and scoundrels aren't Muslim's and don't belong to or support Al Queda. Your head seems to be stuck in 2003.

[GUS]

YES, YES those cut-tax-for-the-rich and SPEND SPEND SPEND Republicans have no idea what the word conserve means as shown as they build their embassy/palace far greater than any Saddam ever dreamed of.

Just to show the world the USA superiority this 104 acre complex is "the size of about 80 football fields — will include two office buildings, one of them designed for future use as a school, six apartment buildings, a gym, a pool, a food court and its own power generation and water-treatment plants. The average Baghdad home has electricity only four hours a day....The current U.S. Embassy in Iraq has nearly 1,000 Americans working there, more than at any other U.S. embassy."

We'll show the Arab Nations like we showed Chile back in the early 70s what Republican power is all about.

[JIMV]

You never expected anyone to remain there forever? Pull your head out Jim (see below for location). Why would we build permanent bases (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Permanent+Bases+in+Iraq), and why would we build this? (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=giant+us+embassy+in+Iraq&btnG=Search) Iraq is the crown jewel of our empire; we won't be going anywhere.

As far as supporting an illegal and immoral war for profit and empire, it's our duty as Americans to make it stop and give those responsible a quick trial and public hanging as far as I'm concerned. Americans who oppose criminal wars for rich war profiteers and scoundrels aren't Muslim's and don't belong to or support Al Queda. Your head seems to be stuck in 2003.

I was not clear...I shuld have said I did not expect allies to stay forever. Your last paragraph is simply opinion.

[JIMV]

YES, YES those cut-tax-for-the-rich and SPEND SPEND SPEND Republicans have no idea what the word conserve means as shown as they build their embassy/palace far greater than any Saddam ever dreamed of.

Just to show the world the USA superiority this 104 acre complex is "the size of about 80 football fields — will include two office buildings, one of them designed for future use as a school, six apartment buildings, a gym, a pool, a food court and its own power generation and water-treatment plants. The average Baghdad home has electricity only four hours a day....The current U.S. Embassy in Iraq has nearly 1,000 Americans working there, more than at any other U.S. embassy."

We'll show the Arab Nations like we showed Chile back in the early 70s what Republican power is all about.

Sounds a lot like Al Gore or John Edwards home....

[Bruce McAuley]

I nver expected anyone to remain there forever. It is expensive and at time dangerous. I just expect folk in my own country to support a war we are in and not our enemy....

Was our enemy the 1.2 million(more or less) people we've killed?
Likely very few of those were Saudi Jihadists, the MAJOR source of suicide bombers.
Let's get clear about this mythical "enemy" you keep referring to.
A never-ending war is VERY expensive, Jim.
Is Exxon's bottom line worth it so far, and also another 10 to 20 years in the future while Exxon drains them dry? Even MORE expensive, we ain't seen NOTHIN' yet.
Is it worth it?
You ever driven an electric car, Jim?
You think it might be worth it to tell the Saudis to stick their oil where the sun don't shine?:cool:
I do.

Bruce

[McGyver]

I nver expected anyone to remain there forever. It is expensive and at time dangerous. I just expect folk in my own country to support a war we are in and not our enemy

I was not clear...I shuld have said I did not expect allies to stay forever. ....

Jim, Why is it OK for our Allies to pull out of Iraq, but it's not OK for America to pull out of Iraq?? Why is it OK for America to accept the cost and the danger, but NOT our Allies?



************************************************** ************************************************** *

[lenny]

I was not clear...I shuld have said I did not expect allies to stay forever. Your last paragraph is simply opinion.

Yeah, I wasn't sure exactly what you were talking about. So you did expect us to stay in Iraq forever then? That's nice.

You said: I just expect folk in my own country to support a war we are in and not our enemy....

This is just opinion too. Sorry, but it's a pretty stupid opinion (you're entitled to it) to suggest that Americans support Al Queda. You throw your opinion around on every post you make, and then anytime someone else expresses theirs, you point out that "it's simply opinion." You can't see the arrogance and hypocrisy in that? Like what, were all so stupid that we can't tell the difference between an opinion and another factoid? (http://www.onelook.com/?w=factoid&ls=a) We need you to help us along? What if every time you or anyone made a post, everyone highlighted the parts of the post that were opinion, and then told the person who wrote it what part of their statement was their opinion? Just imagine how incredibly stupid, pointless, and annoying that would be. Think about it.

[McGyver]

Yeah, I wasn't sure exactly what you were talking about. So you did expect us to stay in Iraq forever then? That's nice.

You said: I just expect folk in my own country to support a war we are in and not our enemy.... End Quote:

This is just opinion too. Sorry, but it's a pretty stupid opinion (you're entitled to it) to suggest that Americans support Al Queda. You throw your opinion around on every post you make, and then anytime someone else expresses theirs, you point out that "it's simply opinion." You can't see the arrogance and hypocrisy in that? Like what, were all so stupid that we can't tell the difference between an opinion and another factoid? (http://www.onelook.com/?w=factoid&ls=a) We need you to help us along? What if every time you or anyone made a post, everyone highlighted the parts of the post that were opinion, and then told the person who wrote it what part of their statement was their opinion? Just imagine how incredibly stupid, pointless, and annoying that would be. Think about it.

WOW....I had just written Jim a Post that is almost an exact repeat of your post above Lenny. Thank You for letting me know that I am not the ONLY one on this forum who is getting pretty sick and tired of JimV's arrogance, and his making every other poster feel like THEY are Idiots and He is the "Master of the Universe!"

JimV complained incessantly about Drivesme posting "Drivel" but, JimV also responded to every single one of Drivesme's "Drivel" Posts, with his own brand of drivel, but if I ask him a "tough" question to back up his statements, he replies with "the rest of this post is opinion, and therefore "not worthy of response!" What Blatant Hypocrisy and Arrogance, when just about EVERY Single Post that JimV puts on this forum is 98% His Own Personal Opinion....But of course, I'm sure he would be the first to tell us, that HIS opinions are valid, while ours are not! :rolleyes:

I happen to enjoy hearing other poster's opinions. That's why I'm on this Forum! I think you had a wonderful idea. I think we should all "highlight" every post that JimV posts "his own personal opinion." This forum would be lit up like a Xmas Tree!

[GUS]

Or the 11,000sq.ft. house that warhawk McCain gave up a couple of years ago because as he whinned, it was toooooooooooo big.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/1029mccainsale-ON.html


Sounds a lot like Al Gore or John Edwards home....

[Old Round Guy]

Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level, then beat you with his experience.

[JIMV]

You said:

This is just opinion too. Sorry, but it's a pretty stupid opinion (you're entitled to it) to suggest that Americans support Al Queda. You throw your opinion around on every post you make, and then anytime someone else expresses theirs, you point out that "it's simply opinion." You can't see the arrogance and hypocrisy in that? Like what, were all so stupid that we can't tell the difference between an opinion and another factoid? (http://www.onelook.com/?w=factoid&ls=a) We need you to help us along? What if every time you or anyone made a post, everyone highlighted the parts of the post that were opinion, and then told the person who wrote it what part of their statement was their opinion? Just imagine how incredibly stupid, pointless, and annoying that would be. Think about it.

True, but I do not claim my opinion is a 'fact' as do others. I never pretend my opinion is anything other than what it is and I link to evidence when I am stating an opinion backed by data. I see this as a giant difference between my posts and those of some others.

There are opinions, opinions back by data, and opinions backed by...opinion.

I believe I make the stronger argument when I can back what I say.

The moderators have advised me in no uncertain terms that pointedly noting the astounding weakness in the posts of others in terms that such post often deserve is a big no-no on this forum so I am trying to avoid commenting on posts that simply are too weak to merit significant response. I have also been advsed that I cannot note a specific poster's (any specific poster's) astounding or even in my face doltishness so I am avoiding responding with more than a polite pinion or a reasoned argument backed by data. I will post my opinion of issues and candidates. I will not note other stupidity when I see it but will and can post counter argument and I will link like mad where needed to make a point.

For example, the reference to a poll was flawed as it did not link to that poll. I countered by details as to why the poll was wrong and why it was biased and why the resulting argument was wrong.

That is good debating, not arogance. Anyone on this forum can do exactly the same thing.

You have to understand that this a a very moderated forum with a lot of folk on it with very sensitive feelings. I will try very hard not to insult any individual but I will post the strongest argument I can when I do respond.

[Bruce McAuley]

Even when your country is at war for one reason or other, usually economic or resource caused.
What's best for us is PEACE, Jim.
MOST of us and the rest of the world want us to mind our own business.
Read The Art of War, Jim. It's over 2,000 years old, but still relevant today.
No nation can long stand an invasion of another for long before bankruptcy looms.
Sound familiar?
Will it take us as long as Vietnam did to figure it out?

Thank you for your explanation of certain ideas passed between the forum moderators and yourself, it explains some things.:cool:

Bruce

[JIMV]

Bruce, it is always treason to advocate our defeat when in war...always.

[Bruce McAuley]

Us civilians live by a different law, bud.:p
We don't live under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
We don't quite live under the heel of the dreaded SS Waffen, now do we?
It's not called treason, it's called advocating the alternative to war.
It's dumb to waste your troops on an unwinnable expensive invasion of a hostile country, even The Art of War would agree.
To point this out is the height of patriotism.:cool:

Bruce

[McGyver]

Bruce, it is always treason to advocate our defeat when in war...always.

That's such Crap! How the hell can The U.S. surrender or be defeated when we already WON this War several years ago??? We removed a Cruel Dictator, Saddam Hussein, we have Regime Change. We ensured that Irag no longer has WMD....The Iraqi People have voted several times now, and Bush himself told us "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!" Therefore, how the Hell can we LOSE this War? We Can't! It's already been won! NOW it's time to bring our brave troops HOME, and let them start to rebuild THEIR lives, and let Iraqis start to rebuild their own!



************************************************** ************************************************** *

[JIMV]

Us civilians live by a different law, bud.:p
We don't live under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
We don't quite live under the heel of the dreaded SS Waffen, now do we?
It's not called treason, it's called advocating the alternative to war.
It's dumb to waste your troops on an unwinnable expensive invasion of a hostile country, even The Art of War would agree.
To point this out is the height of patriotism.:cool:

Bruce

Look up the laws on sedition under title 18 US Code...we all live under that law.

[NuclearShadows]

Bruce, it is always treason to advocate our defeat when in war...always.

Okay mister "show my sources".
Show me a comment by anyone that says they advocate we "LOSE" the war in Iraq.

What does winning the "war on terror" look like?

[lenny]

True, but I do not claim my opinion is a 'fact' as do others. I never pretend my opinion is anything other than what it is and I link to evidence when I am stating an opinion backed by data. I...........

.............. why the poll was wrong and why it was biased and why the resulting argument was wrong.

That is good debating, not arogance. Anyone on this forum can do exactly the same thing.

You have to understand that this a a very moderated forum with a lot of folk on it with very sensitive feelings. I will try very hard not to insult any individual but I will post the strongest argument I can when I do respond.

Jim, believe it or not, I understand the point you are making, albeit I think your effort to really comprehend where the other sides argument comes from might be a little slack, at best...but that's alright.

You wrote the opinion that Americans who are against the war support the enemy. It's a silly opinion to suggest that someone like me, an "atheist", supports the agenda of fundamentalist muslims. It's nothing more than a personal attack and it shouldn't surprise you that I responded to your "opinion" with my own. So you write a quick response to the previous part, and then dismiss the rest with the snobby, "the rest is just opinion." Hello, where did you think it came from? It was a direct response to the opinion you just threw my way...

Anyway, it's not that big a deal, I don't mind opinion being pointed out from time to time in the right scenario, but if you go back and read the short dialog between us on this thread you might see what my point is here. It's pretty clear.

[Bruce McAuley]

Look up the laws on sedition under title 18 US Code...we all live under that law.

The Sedition Act of 1918 was an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917 passed at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, who was concerned that dissent, in time of war, was a significant threat to morale. The passing of this act forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to deny mail delivery to dissenters of government policy during wartime.

Freedom of speech in the United States is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or the press". The United States Supreme Court upheld the Sedition Act at the time it was in effect in Debs v. United States, but subsequent Supreme Court decisions (such as Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969) make it less likely that a similar law would be considered constitutional today.

The Espionage Act made it a crime to help wartime enemies of the United States, but the Sedition Act made it a crime to utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States' form of government.

Socialist Eugene V. Debs was sentenced to 10 years in prison under this law.[dubious – discuss] U.S. citizens including members of the Industrial Workers of the World union were also imprisoned during World War I for their anti-war dissent under the provisions of the Sedition Act. Anti-war protesters were arrested by the hundreds as speaking out against the draft and the war became illegal under this law.

In his 1941 book Censorship 1917, James Mock noted that most U.S. newspapers "showed no antipathy toward the act" and "far from opposing the measure, the leading papers seemed actually to lead the movement in behalf of its speedy enactment."

Congress repealed the Sedition Act in 1921.
From Wikipedia

You got something newer?
Cite it.:D

Bruce

[JIMV]

Okay mister "show my sources".
Show me a comment by anyone that says they advocate we "LOSE" the war in Iraq.

What does winning the "war on terror" look like?

In my world advocting unilateral and immediate withdrawal is not conducive to victory. Put another way, its hard to win a war one is running away from. Almost everyone on this forum advocates exactly that one way or another, though often covered with a fig leaf of noble words to describe an dishonorable act.

Winning the war (I note you shifted to 'terror') means reducing barbarian attack to as low a level as possible coupled with local governments being able to deal with the worst of it and control its spread while not coddling or supporting the trash carrying it out.

To me that is victory and we are getting there pretty quickly.

[JIMV]

You wrote the opinion that Americans who are against the war support the enemy. ... It was a direct response to the opinion you just threw my way...

I have no problem with you responding to my opinion with your opinion. I jusrt do not see a need to respond as you have not disproved my opinion, only countered it. I did not direct my original post to any individual, just to a psition held in common by MANY individuals. If you do not adocate fleeing the battle, it does not apply. If you do then perhaps you need to rethink your position.

Again, advocating losing a war one is in is always treason, or at the least, sedition. It is not simply a difference of opinion, it is not politics nor is it an example of exercising ones first amendment rights. One does not have a right under the 1st to advocate treason or commit sedition. The history of the case law is long and detailed. Until Vietnam folk doing what the left does today ended up fined, silenced, jailed or exiled.

Just because we no longer have the stomach to deal with such behavior does not make the activity moral, legal or honorable.....just unpunished.

I understand your point, I just do not agree with it.

[McGyver]

True, but I do not claim my opinion is a 'fact' as do others.

Got a link to prove that "others" on this forum "claim their opinions are fact," or is that just another one of "Your Own Personal Opinions?" You sure make it sound like a fact.

"The moderators have advised me in no uncertain terms that pointedly noting the astounding weakness in the posts of others in terms that such post often deserve is a big no-no on this forum

REALLY? Well, maybe that's because they are a lot smarter than you are, and they realize that "astounding weakness in posts" is merely YOUR OPINION!

I will post my opinion of issues and candidates. I will not note other stupidity when I see it but will and can post counter argument and I will link like mad where needed to make a point.

Baloney....We're not idiots Jim! When you come back with a comment like, "your post is unworthy of a response" do you really freaking think that is a "polite response?" Hell no, it's just your subtle way of saying the poster is too stupid for you to waste your time responding. Plus, I still say it's a cop out that you often use when you are asked a "tough" question, that you don't believe you can answer in your own favor!

You have to understand that this a a very moderated forum with a lot of folk on it with very sensitive feelings. I will try very hard not to insult any individual but I will post the strongest argument I can when I do respond.

Jim, you don't try hard not to insult any individual....what you do is try hard to "subtlely" insult every poster (without the Moderators noticing) who happens to disagree with you. You are no better than Alias or Drivesme, the only difference is you are much more devious and subtle with your insults....but they are still arrogant insults none the less, and I'm sure the Moderators on this forum see that as well.

It's a very Passive Agressive pattern....You don't get IN the accident, you just CAUSE the accident!

[JIMV]

The Sedition Act of 1918 was an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917 passed at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, who was concerned that dissent, in time of war, was a significant threat to morale. The passing of this act forbade Americans to use "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States government, flag, or armed forces during war. The act also allowed the Postmaster General to deny mail delivery to dissenters of government policy during wartime.

Freedom of speech in the United States is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or the press". The United States Supreme Court upheld the Sedition Act at the time it was in effect in Debs v. United States, but subsequent Supreme Court decisions (such as Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969) make it less likely that a similar law would be considered constitutional today.

The Espionage Act made it a crime to help wartime enemies of the United States, but the Sedition Act made it a crime to utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States' form of government.

Socialist Eugene V. Debs was sentenced to 10 years in prison under this law.[dubious – discuss] U.S. citizens including members of the Industrial Workers of the World union were also imprisoned during World War I for their anti-war dissent under the provisions of the Sedition Act. Anti-war protesters were arrested by the hundreds as speaking out against the draft and the war became illegal under this law.

In his 1941 book Censorship 1917, James Mock noted that most U.S. newspapers "showed no antipathy toward the act" and "far from opposing the measure, the leading papers seemed actually to lead the movement in behalf of its speedy enactment."

Congress repealed the Sedition Act in 1921.
From Wikipedia

You got something newer?
Cite it.:D

Bruce

Well, as we are not talking about the Sedition Act of 1917 but the current laws against sedition, yes I do have something more current:



TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 115 > § 2388Prev | Next § 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war (a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. (b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).
(c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States.

There are other sections that deal with seditious behavior in peacetime. The cite I provide above is current as of 2 Jan 2006...

You will note that a good bit of the behavior of the left is in direct violation of US law...they do it anyway and the government makes the political decision not to prosecute.

If you say the law is not enforced, you would be right. When you say the behavior is legal, you are wrong.

[Bruce McAuley]

"Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies;"

I can read too, and the operative words are "False reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation of the military...or promote the success if its enemies."
In fact, "success of the military" can also be defined as "Peace".
Obviously Patriot Act stuff.
Sorry, doesn't apply, and I haven't had the goons knock on my door yet.
You gonna rat us off?:eek:

Bruce

[JIMV]

Oh it applies...I have read too much of the case law where folk were prosecuted under the laws to buy your argument. Advocating and acting to cause the loss of a war is what the law was written to cover. Again, we are not enforcing the law...that does not make the actions legal, moral or honorable, just common. Sedition is most assuredly against the law.

[Bruce McAuley]

Will the "Thought Police" descend on the BW staff offices to close them down for being "accessories" to us obvious Neo-Seditionists???
Just wondering.
Bush has the power to take over the entire government by declaring an emergency, too.
He hasn't done it.
Yet.
Will you welcome it when it comes, Jim?
Do those who support the Reich get an official armband?
Don't mind me, I'm a tin foil hatter from way back.:cool:

Bruce