How to be a Liberal

[J Jones]

Clinton at least was able to get a government surplus going, now Bush II has squandered it away and pushed us towards record defecit levels.

Point of order. Clinton got a "surplus" going based on unrealistic projections of economic growth. Hard to say there was really a surplus when the government still carries a national debt.

Bush II didn't "squander" it because it was non-existent to begin with. Bush isn't even responsible for the current economic downturn, as the economy started cooling in the last year or so of Clinton's second term. You are right that we are spending money that we don't have at a greatly increased rate under GWB.

 

[TaurusCIA]

from DTLoken - "Whatever, you can call me a liberal all you want. I'll just in turn call you a right wing, bible thumping, redneck conservative."

I'm not calling you anything. I just pointed out that you & I may perceive ourselves as whatever we want but that does not make it so. You can call me anything you want but again that doesn't make it true.

Yeah, It made me feel so much better to have a surplus by cutting out so much of the military and intelligence budget.

I see we do have some common ground. I don't think any major political party has it right and every politician I have seen cares less about the right thing and more about the self promoting thing. The motivation for some is money for others it's power but the thing that's sure is it's NOT to care for me and mine.

Would I have pushed a big tax cut while war was looming? No. But the argument that it should be targeted at a certain group is ridiculous. Make it a flat across the board cut. Each person gets relief based on their contribution not on class envy.

I don't often thump my Bible but I do read it...at least while I still can. I don't know why I still bother since I can't use it in public. The Declaration of Independence is a very religious document. "Creator" was not referring to Darwin. Liberals say it's ok to be openly religious as long as you are not a white male Christian. Then you are a right wing bigot.

The separation of church and state fairy tale "Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." It means that government should not force a religion, not that religion will not influence government. The Separation of Church and State position is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

"The Declaration of Independence - IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,---That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."


Redneck? Well maybe you got me on that one.:banghead:

 

[bountyhunter]

Bush II didn't "squander" it because it was non-existent to begin with. Bush isn't even responsible for the current economic downturn, as the economy started cooling in the last year or so of Clinton's second term.

I agree the bubble burst started during Clinton, but GWB is responsible for irresponsible fiscal policies which will have long term catastrophic effects. The tax cut he promised would "invigorate" the economy has been a dismal failure. Ther has been no job growth, in fact steady job loss. Most business people have a guarded outlook because of this. The rpoblem is, Bush, Reagan and all republicans only know one trick: cut taxes. They think it will cure anything, and it's BS. But as my boss used to say, when the only tool in your bag is a hammer, the whoe world starts to take on the shape of a nail. The other point is that the massive loss of tax revenue from that tax cut will raise the deficit an additional $500Billion in the next five years, taking the national debt above a trillion dollars for the first time. Just like Reagan, Bush claims tax cuts increase revenue by stimulating business. Somehow in a republican's mind, $1 of reduced taxes to the wealthy is supposed to generate $2 worth of increased tax revenue from the "economic stimulation effect", eventually resulting in no national debt and happiness for all. Look at what the national debt did under Reagan and what it is currently doing and you will see how well that fantasy aligns with reality.

The second point no republican will mention (like the elephant sitting in the living room) is that the war in Iraq will end up costing us at least $300 Billion and maybe twice that or more... and that is all borrowed money which will spike directly onto the deficit. We have no hope of ever recovering it, and it will shoot the deficit to a point where the government may finally admit there is no hope of ever returning to balance....

 

[J Jones]

Tax cuts would increase prosperity, but not in the short-term and you can't increase spending while cutting tax revenues - that much is obvious. I don't believe the increased prosperity would be enough to offset the loss of revenue either. Still, I argue that much of the tax revenue went for things the government has no business doing and that folks should learn to wean themselves from the govt.'s teat.

As to the war, I have no doubt the cost estimates are vastly under-reported, but I still think we, in the short-term, did ourselves a fovor by getting rid of Saddam, WMDs or not. I see political instability in Iraq's future, but civil war could make it a backwards theocracy, another dictatorship, or, hopefully, a shining example of real democracy in the Middle East. This last point would boost the US's image and give hope to all these repressed and impoverished persons who believe shouting "Allah" while blowing up the 'infidel" is life's greatest achievement. Our money would be well spent if it would end up increasing our security my solving the fundamental instability of the region. It's a long shot, unfortunately.