9/11 Report

[Shapley]

Serenity,

RE:<<What can we do about our reputation in the world? What can we do to prevent terrorism by people who are not afraid to die for the cause of their revenge? What can we do about getting our soldiers home?

Easy...vote Bush out. He has had his chance. Put someone else in. This will tell the world we have voted him out of office. The terrorists will not stop though and whoever the new president is will have to deal with it also. The House and Senate are pretty much split 50/50 anyway.>>

What makes you think our reputation is so bad? The news reports only the negative. Our reputation was tarred during the term of Ronaldus Maximus, but in reality we were well respected by the masses primarily because he stuck to his guns and was true to his word. This is precisely what President Bush is doing. Many like to say he is being led by the "Christian Right", but the fact is he stated early on that that is where he was coming from, and he has not changed. If he were being "led", then his path would be willy-nilly, as different factions led him this way or that. His path has been, largely, straight and true. even if you don't like the direction, he knows where he is heading. This is how you gain respect in the world.

Voting him out will show the world that we, as a people, do not know what direction we want go, particularly since his opponent doesn't seem to know either. What message will that send the world? Certainly not one that I would want to be sent.

V/R
Shapley

<small>[ 07-29-2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[Nicole Marie]

No, voting him out will say we don't like the direction we've been going in. Not that we have no clue. It shows that we DO have a clue. He had his shot and he blew it.

We will never have the "perfect" person in office. But Bush blew his shot... next! Remember: Regime change starts at home. And yes, our reputation abroad stinks. You can believe those news reports.

[Serenity]

I like voting people out anyway. Time is up. Give someone else a try.

I don't care for big government. I don't like Bush as a president. I do not agree with his faith based direction. I want his hands out of my pockets and his nose out of my bedroom (all politicians).

[Shapley]

Serenity,

RE:<<I do not agree with his faith based direction. I want his hands out of my pockets and his nose out of my bedroom.>>

So, when was the president in your bedroom? I would rather have thought the previous tenent would have been more likely to be found there!


As for your pockets, remember, President Bush lowered taxes. He is digging less in your pockets than his predecessor, and less than Kerry promises to dig. Kerry opposes the tax cuts, and wants to reverse them, and he needs more taxes to pay for his health care proposal.

If you want politicians out of your pockets, you'll have to vote Libertarian, and convince a lot of other people to do the same.

V/R
Shapley

[Nicole Marie]

Umm Shapley, Bush's tax cuts are for the rich. Most of us do not fall in that catagory, that cut was for the wealthy 1%. He gave a kick back to married couples with kids when he first got into office but many people did not see a check 1- because 1/3 of married couples do not have kids 2- the fund ran out of money, many did not see a check or saw it a year late. So over all when it comes to cutting taxes and tax rebates etc. I did not see any. So I don't care about his policies. Time to go.

My point is I and I feel most of the middle class, saw nothing of these supposed tax breaks. What good does it do if you can not get some benefit from it?

<small>[ 07-29-2004, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Nicole Marie ]</small>

[Shapley]

Nicole,

I'm not rich, and I'm certainly not in the top 1% of earners, but I got a tax break, and am still benefitting from it.

That "tax breaks for the rich" nonsense is lie perpetrated by Democrats and opponents of tax rate reduction.

V/R
Shapley

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

One little point about the "reputation" thing. Most of us are not even slightly interested in what "the rest of the world" thinks of us. For my entire life, the "rest of the world" has criticized the US for a variety of reasons that mostly boil down to the US being the US. That being the case, why is there so much more immigration than emigration? Eh?

We are reviled both for interfering in the health care of other countries, and for failing to do enough about AIDS in Africa. Eh? Anybody else see the problem with this logic? Same thing applies to practically every other topic you care to consider.

I'm personally inclined to ignore complaints that I'm overeducated, ignorant, aggressive, cowardly, that I interfere in others' business, and that I'm not involved enough in others' business. What "the rest of the world" thinks is gonna change every five minutes, anyway, and I'm not going to grow more grey hair worrying over it. What they do, that I might worry over.

[haggis]

Barf,

And that was why I said:

Those who supported the war, (me) in overwhelming numbers, believed there were multiple justifications for it.

Those who oppose the war, (you) in equally overwhelming numbers, weren't swayed by the WMD arguments.

In the end we, you and I, supported or opposed the war for reasons that transcend the WMD questions. I respect your opposition and I don’t expect you to demonize my support.

Serenity (and Nicole) was correct that the electorate in November would decide who they want to lead them. I was a serving NCO under President Clinton and I applauded every action he took in trying to grapple with the threats to the U.S. As a private citizen now I can say I wish he had done more.

I will equally support a President Kerry if he is elected.

I can assure you that the safety and security of the United States and her citizens has been my job and goal all my adult life, regardless who was “in” or “out” of office.

Screedy rant follows:

[rant] For many Americans, including some here, Bush is the enemy. They hate him so much, they want to see him humbled so badly they don't seem to care who does it, and very importantly, who gets hurt in the process.

The Democrats portray Ashcroft and Bush as Hitler wannabes, equating the Administration with the man responsible for tens of millions of deaths. I can’t imagine nor would I condone or support any politician who said things like that about their political opponents.

I cannot recall ever hearing such vicious and blatant name calling by prominent members of either party that I’m hearing now from prominent Democrats and that shocks and dismays me; all the more so since even more prominent Demcrats I respect will not condemn or try to reign in the hateful rhetoric[/rant]

Ahem, back to your questions.

”what can we do about our reputation in the world”

I’m sure it comes as no surprise that I can’t even begin to understand why any American would care about our reputation in the world. The “world” (mainly Europe) has hated, envied and wished evil towards the U.S. since before the civil war and nothing, including a shiny new French-speaking president, is going to change that.

And it won’t change because it not who’s president they hate, its you and me and Nicole and our life styles and our music and anything else we like, its our hamburgers and our wealth and our freedoms and our liberties.

"They" have hated us for a long time, we just didn't bother to notice before now.

I know Nicole likes to go on about the restrictions she thinks the “Patriot Act” imposes on us, but there is no other country in the world with the freedoms we have even under the dreaded “Patriot Act”.

Did you know that the copies of Bill Clinton’s “My Life” published in England was changed because the libel laws there are so stringent that he could have been sued for libel by Kenneth Starr? 'struth

I’ve advocated for years that the U.S. should eliminate any immigration limits for technically trained Europeans, the more the merrier and do you doubt they would come if given the chance?

”what can we do to prevent terrorism by people who are not afraid to die for the cause of their revenge”

1. Kill the ones we can find anywhere we can find them, hopefully away from the U.S.
2. Eliminate globally (and in the U.S.) the radical madrasas and the Saudi funding behind them
3. Give financial aid and other support to encourage Middle Eastern Islamic country to move toward more representational forms of government

Alas, reasons 4 through 100 will have to come from those more talented than I in this area.


I do have one question for you. If terrorist succeed in pulling off a terrorist attack in the U.S. before the November election, what message or what result, in your opinion, will they be trying to convey or accomplish?

[haggis]

Nicole,

"Bush's tax cuts are for the rich. Most of us do not fall in that catagory, that cut was for the wealthy 1%."

That's simple not true .

Unless a married couple’s AGI was less than $30,000 they received a tax cut under this plan.

But let’s look at that 1% claim. In 2000, before the latest Bush tax cuts, the top 1% of taxpayers (with an adjusted gross income of $269,496) paid 34.8% of federal income tax revenue and the top 5% (with an AGI of $114,729) paid 54%; In other words, 5% of all tax paying Americans paid over half of all income tax revenues collected.

Put another way, the bottom 50%--fully half of American taxpayers--paid only 4.2% of the tax take while the top half accounted for 95.8%.

Taxes on a typical middle-income family have fallen to their lowest level in more than 20 years. So, without a reduction of the payroll taxes, it would be impossible to reduce taxes more for poorer people, many who aren’t paying any income tax to start with!

Unless you want to enact a plan to re-distribute the wealth from those who pay taxes to those that don’t pay taxes there is no other way for someone to benefit from a tax cut if they don’t pay taxes!

[shostakovich]

I'll still use the expression "tax cuts for the rich". They certainly weren't "tax cuts for the poor". Our tax cut (my wife's and mine) was worth a combination DVD/VCR player. Whoopee!! By the very nature of the graduated tax, those who benefitted most needed it least. The Bush fiscal policies, cutting taxes and spending like a creditcardoholic, have produced an enormous deficit. Won't SOMEBODY be paying for this after his term(s)? He claims that he can reduce the deficit by half in his next term. Who believes that?

I'll be happy to see Kerry rescind the cuts if he gets in. Of course, he will do so only for those earning more than $100,000 (??), or some such number under which there will be a big majority of voters. There are big problems on how and where our government spends money (like on stupid, pointless political conventions), and this should be (but likely will not be) addressed. Having LESS money to piss away only exacerbates the problem.
Shos

[Serenity]

Kerry gave a good speech. I basically agreed with everything he said. Of course, it is in the details where I tend to disagree with politicians.

I think I am basically a Libertarian but I disagree with the libertarian position on guns and drugs. I don't want to limit the government to the point of having no control over private monopolies. I would rather think of myself as a political mutt. I've learned that, living in Massachusetts, it doesn't matter who you vote for, the Democrat usually wins the race. It's kind of frustrating.

Selma, you are right, I also don't care what the rest of the world thinks because we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. When I lived in Mexico there was a dual sentiment of resentment and admiration toward the US. They admire our science, ingenuity, pragmatism yet hate our "imperialism" and constant "telling everyone else what to do".

Bush has tried to base his policies on values; that's a good thing. His values, though, are heavily guided by his religious beliefs and I believe that he excludes or alienates a majority of people just on this basis. I like my laws to be just a little broader in scope. They should support beliefs of other major faiths and secular beliefs too. I think his limitations on stem cell research are too much. The abortion issue should allow individuals to commit to their own principles without the government telling us "this is right, that is wrong". As far as his tax cuts, I have not felt a major impact on my personal life or wallet (except for that one check that quickly got pissed away on expenses sitting on the tale at that moment). His environmental record is bad; ("More Trees, Less Bush").

I would like to decide where my money goes. I don't want the government "harvesting" my paycheck and aliquoting pennies to whatever is on their plate. I want to choose what government programs my money is going to. Then, whenever I have tried to get something in return from the government, I find out I don't qualify or it's too much effort to try to get.

The government always wants more. They should be cut down to their barebone essential, constitutional duties.

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by Haggis:

”what can we do to prevent terrorism by people who are not afraid to die for the cause of their revenge”

1. Kill the ones we can find anywhere we can find them, hopefully away from the U.S.
2. Eliminate globally (and in the U.S.) the radical madrasas and the Saudi funding behind them
3. Give financial aid and other support to encourage Middle Eastern Islamic country to move toward more representational forms of government


I do have one question for you. If terrorist succeed in pulling off a terrorist attack in the U.S. before the November election, what message or what result, in your opinion, will they be trying to convey or accomplish?

I agree with you 100% that these actions are necessary to creatin a more seccure world. However, they're not being pursued, correct? What I want to know is, WHY NOT? I say it's about oil/money.

As for what will happen if we're attacked(and I think it's probable we will be, and we won't be prepared for it, and it will have been preventable), we will react poorly to it. It will probably harden our resolve to reelect GWB, and it will probably trigger an invasion of Iran.

I love this country, and I value my liberty and prosperity highly. I share RC's fears about the future of both. I fear the spirit of our constitution will be lost to our children, thanks to a bunch of greedy, corrupt, busybody politicians.

Serenity, I'm with you. Maybe we should form a "Mutt" party, and elect our own candidate? I don't understand why everyone has to be so polarized/absolutist along party lines. every time someone tells me they vote the straight (whatever party here) ticket, I tend to wonder if it's because they can't think for themselves and look at each issue/candidate individually.

Shos, thank you for your comment regarding the conventions. It's comforting to know I'm not the only one who sees them as nothing more than a huge waste of money. Whatever purpose they served doesn't exsist anymore.

Maybe Saxy needs to start some more threads. I think we're having waaaaay too much political yack anymore.

How 'bout that Clara Schumann?!!!

<small>[ 07-30-2004, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[The Great Carouser]

Originally posted by shostakovich:
I'll still use the expression "tax cuts for the rich". They certainly weren't "tax cuts for the poor".

So will I:

Citizens for Tax Justice analyses of the Bush Tax cuts

[lliam]

Moved to Culture Connections.
================================

<small>[ 07-30-2004, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: lliam ]</small>

[mmichaelson]

All right OT. Let me think on what would be fun and I will try to oblige. Also depends on my workload today.

I won't let you down!

[haggis]

"I'll still use the expression "tax cuts for the rich". They certainly weren't "tax cuts for the poor".

Shos and I have discussed this before and he, at least, is intellectually honest enough to recognize that what he wants is re-distribution of wealth from the rich to the poor.

That’s not a "tax cut for the poor." If you don't PAY much taxes you can't GET much tax cuts.

GC,

one of the articles you link shouted out:

"

"Despite misleading presidential rhetoric, almost half of all American taxpayers will get less than $100 this year and next from President Bush’s just-passed tax plan. In 2005, three quarters of taxpayers will get less than $100, and in 2006 and later years almost nine out of ten will get less than $100.

That’s correct. It’s also disinformation. 5% of American taxpayers pay 54% of all tax revenues. Half of American taxpayers pay only 4% of taxes, how could they get much more back unless we give them more than they paid?

If you really want to help, ask your elected representatives to reduce the payroll tax. THAT'S where the poor would benefit.

But if you want the government to take money from who they decide is “rich” to give to whom they decide is “poor” then at least be as honest as Shos and recognize that what you want is a social benefit, not a tax cut.

[haggis]

Shos and OT,
I don't believe the U.S. government paid anything for the conventions other than indirect cost, i.e. the salaries of the Secret Service Agents protecting former Pres. Clinton, Hillary, Edwards and Kerry.

Even the federal state and local security apparatus had to be reimbursed from the DNC. If anyone else knows differently, please post it.

[Nicole Marie]

Selma, what I mean is we should care about the governments of those countries, if they like us or not. If we have good relationships we can ship US goods to them, build trade, make US workers some money. Get assistance in the search for terrorists... the list goes on. I think we all have said isolationism is a bad thing. We need to have good relationships for the benefit of the US. We should care what they think and look towards development of future good relations with other countries. Eh?

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Nicole, they don't like us. They have never liked us and they never will.

This has nothing to do with business. We do business, we have always had trade with other countries and we always will. We have stuff they want, they have stuff we want.

And it's also my observation that cooperation happens when you have something to trade, not when you are a real nice guy. Caring, sensitivity, and polite good manners carry very little weight in international affairs. On the whole, we have better relations with other countries when we make absolutely no apologies for our attitudes. We're who we are, nobody else has to like it, now on to business.

Let other countries' governments worry about whether WE like THEM.

[Nicole Marie]

I am not saying to make apologies. Don't read into it. I AM saying, we should keep up good relationships with our trading partners, develop trading relationships with others. If we do this we can only better our own country. I am also NOT saying we should change who we are. I AM saying we need to further develop and continue to develop positive relationships with other countries. We are not alone on this planet. It only serves to benefit us in the end.

There is nothing wrong with setting an example. Isolationism is not the key, it seems you are calling for that?

P.S. And who is "they". You said "they" don't like us. Who? The entire world? Well if that is the case, we're screwed. I think you are going to far in this. Yes at times the US can not always be the "popular" person at the party. But there is no reason why we then say well screw it and walk away. There is nothing wrong with extending a hand, opening a conversation, starting or furthering a relationship. Our image (or any countries image) rises and falls at times. But it's no reason for us to pull up anchor. I thought this country was better then that?

<small>[ 07-30-2004, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Nicole Marie ]</small>