What's the Magician's Other Hand Doing While we're All Watching the War?

[Uryoces]

Well, we could be the Whore of Babylon.

BUT...

This all might be better served in the perpetual religion thread. Religion is very important, and not to be lightly cast aside with snide remarks. Ask Salman Rushdie about religion. When you ask a scientist about what ocurred before Planck time, and how the universe will end, they get vary starry-eyed and speak of faith.

[spinningfetus]

Originally posted by tw

If this song does not bring a chill down your back, then you probably did not learn the lessons of VietNam. About every 30 years we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of history because youngsters (those less than 30) didn't learn from history. It is easy to make a war monger. Hype him on explosive weapons and righteousness rather than the realities in non-fiction. We are at war in Iraq for the same reasons we attacked VietNam. Number one reason in that list - preemption. The need to attack another before he can be a threat. Just as the Nazis did. Same reason we got into VietNam.
.

Umm last I looked you have to be over thirty to be a member of Congress and over 45 to be President. As for the lessons learned I feel that Bush learned them rather well: The poor and the non-white go die. What better way to lower the unemployment rate. Its not like his kids (or those of anybody he is connected to) are going to be put in harms way.

So I'm thinking I'm going to start a pool to see which countries are next... My bet is Iran, Syria, Cuba, N. Korea...

Quite honestly I think if Saddam can hold out a month he may save the world. I figure thats about how long it going to take for people to really start to feel some sort of loss close to home and realize that this version of reality tv is really real for that kid down the street who used to cut through thier yard everyday on the way to school. If that doesn't happen and this is over next week there will still be enough flag wavers out there to make Bush think he can keep doing this over and over for the next six years.

As far as the ELF is concerned, the FBI has paid that guy (too lazy to figure out his name) a couple two three visists. But there is nothing that they can do! There is no organization to take down. He just posts this shit on is website and sits back to watch the fires burn. Basically the activists are falling for the same shit they are protesting about the rest of the time. Dumb.

As for the biblical and other references to the end of the world, I'm sure we can always find another one to ruin...

It's 35 to be President, last I checked.

(Incidentally, it's 25 to be a member of the United States House of Representatives and 30 to be a member of the United States Senate. The former requires seven years of citizenship; the latter, nine. Both require residency in the state for which you are elected.)

[elSicomoro]

And if I'm not mistaken, you have to be native-born to be President. Hmmm...I wonder how that applies to PR, VI, etc.

[spinningfetus]

Our youngest president was 43. But thats beside the point. My point was the ones who are creating the situations that we find ourselves in today are not the ones who were not alive for the last quagmire, but rather the ones that lived through that time. Its cyclical, everybody screws thier children.

[azion]

Originally posted by spinningfetus
Our youngest president was 43. But thats beside the point. My point was the ones who are creating the situations that we find ourselves in today are not the ones who were not alive for the last quagmire, but rather the ones that lived through that time. Its cyclical, everybody screws thier children.

Actually, I'd say that the people who are getting us into this current quagmire both dodged the previous one (King George II dodged the draft during Vietnam, as opposed to Al Gore, who did serve), and were wealthy enough to not be horribly affected by the last budget disaster (the Bushes were rich as hell during the Reagan budget woes, and so seemed to benefit from them).

Funny, isn't it: we need another Tax-and-Spend Liberal (booga! booga! booga!) to balance the budget (a la Clinton) that the Fiscally Responsible Conservatives have blown out of the water (a la Reagan, King George I, and King George II).

And that's a fact, Jack,
Z

we need another Tax-and-Spend Liberal (booga! booga! booga!) to balance the budget ... And that's a fact, Jack

It is? Perhaps you'll show me where that's proven?

The world today is a different place than it was for much of the 90's. The recession had already started by the time Clinton left office, and then our military budget suddenly grew one day in September.

You cannot prove the influence of X on Y unless you have observed Y in the absence of X. We haven't observed the "world after 9/11" without Bush as president, so we really don't know how it would be different without him. Was the tax cut doomed from the start? We'll never really have any idea, because the world changed.

[azion]

Originally posted by dave


It is? Perhaps you'll show me where that's proven?

The world today is a different place than it was for much of the 90's. The recession had already started by the time Clinton left office, and then our military budget suddenly grew one day in September.

You cannot prove the influence of X on Y unless you have observed Y in the absence of X. We haven't observed the "world after 9/11" without Bush as president, so we really don't know how it would be different without him. Was the tax cut doomed from the start? We'll never really have any idea, because the world changed.

Pretty simple, really. Follow me, if you would.

Fact: under Clinton, the US ran consistent budget surpluses.

Fact: Bush won selection in 2000.

Fact: After taking office, one of Bush's first priorities was to propose dramatic tax cuts, especially geared towards the wealthy.

Fact: Those budgets changed the budget from being in surplus to being considerably in deficit long before 9/11.

Conclusion: blaming the war on terror and on Saddam (the two are not one and the same) for the deficits is entirely and demonstrably false.

Check,
Z

[Bitmap]

All budgets and monetary adjustements DO not take affect, And/or no affect can be "felt" untill Time passes. There Is a delayd reaction.
How much of a delay depends on how big of a change was made, In the case where The United states had a surplus under Clinton was all leftovers From The previous President. As far as i Know (and i'm not that politicaly savy) I don't think Clinton did to much with the budget.







<i>----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just talking out my ass on subjects i know little about</i>

[Elspode]

The US budget deficit is due to causes too complex to blame on *any* single entity, including GWB. His tax cuts alone cannot possibly be held liable for the current deficit. The general downturn in the economy is mainly responsible as unemployment creates greater need for public assistance and fewer incoming taxes to our coffers. Low interest rates and poor stock market performance result in less money moving around and therefore less money being taxed.

I will concede that GWB probably could have picked a better time to propose tax cuts, but then it is the Republican party line that tax cuts put more money into the hands of those most likely to invest it and benefit the economy overall.

I'll believe it when I see it. Right now, the war itself is the biggest threat to the economy as it is draining off billions that could be spent on things right here (and yes, I know that American contractors in certain sectors are making out like bandits, but others are suffering...and so it goes).

Originally posted by azion
Fact: under Clinton, the US ran consistent budget surpluses.

I dare you to back this up.

You can't, because it simply isn't true. We had a surplus in '99 and '00, and <b>that was it</b>. This is reported by the Congressional Budget Office, and I have the following numbers from them: a deficit of $255 Billion in '93, a deficit of $203 Billion in '94, a deficit of $164 Billion in '95, a deficit of $107 Billion in '96, a deficit of $23 Billion in '97 and a deficit of $29 Billion in '98.

If by "consistent" you mean "it happened a total of two times over his eight years in office, for a total of 25% of those years, during which the dot-com era was at its height and therefore boatloads of cash was flowing into the government via taxes and it therefore would have been pretty fucking hard to run a deficit", well then yes, the US ran consistent budget surpluses under Clinton.

Conclusion: blaming the war on terror and on Saddam (the two are not one and the same) for the deficits is entirely and demonstrably false.

That is stunning, considering that it isn't the challenge I posed. I also never said anything about Saddam, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up in our discussion, as if I had implied that the two <b>were</b> one and the same.

What I'm asking is where it's proven that, to have a balanced budget, we <b>need</b> a "Tax-and-Spend Liberal".

My contention is that we can't entirely blame Bush for the current clusterfuck because a lot of other shit happened too.

[azion]

Originally posted by dave

What I'm asking is where it's proven that, to have a balanced budget, we <b>need</b> a "Tax-and-Spend Liberal".

That's my way of poking fun at the way that Clinton, the tax-and-spend liberal (booga! booga! booga!) was able to balance a few budgets while the three fiscally-responsible conservatives before and after him were not even to come even close to submitting a single one which was either balanced or even less in the red than the one before it. Hence my suggestion that perhaps tax-and-spend liberals are better at balancing budgets than fiscally-responsible conservatives.

I thought it was pretty insanely obvious,
Z

[Elspode]

I have to agree with Dave, here. It is difficult to underestimate the impact that the dotcom boom had on this country, nor to overestimate the resultant plunge upon its demise.

Everyone thought they had something, but it was smoke and mirrors. People spent money like it was water and then found out there was nothing (and I mean *nothing*) there to support it all.

Imagine yourself going out and spending thousands of dollars because you'd been promised a big raise, and instead you lost your job. That's what happened to the whole damn country.

Clinton just happened to be sitting (or something) in the Oval Office when it occurred. This is not a defacto cause and effect based on his presidency.

Insane? Maybe. Obvious? No.

[Whit]

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;On the subject of things that happened, remember OPEC? It was towards the election time that they began restricting sales to drive up prices. My memory is a little fuzzy on the details but I remember maybe four or five economists on NPR saying that every time oil prices have shot up it's hurt the economy greatly. I remember gas prices hitting $1.70 or so per gallon of regular around here not long after that. I think I even heard Alan Greenspan giving warnings of this nature. Yet, that's the one thing I never heard Bush making a lot of noise about. I've heard 9/11 blamed a lot, and a few other things, but not the oil situation. Am I the only one that thinks it's odd that these guy's say the economy is going to tank, give a reason for it, it does tank and nobody on the Hill seems to notice they said anything? Did I miss it?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Also I understand the opposite is true, cheap oil gives immediate boosts to our economy. I've said elsewhere that the cheap oil we get from Iraq after the war will do wonders for the economy. And I think Bush will credit his tax breaks. Am I running with conspiracy theory of the week or does this make sense?