shakran

Now we switch to the "fake attack on the tactic" tactic. Let's falsely classify my response as an emotional rant rather than a valid retort. Unfortunately for you the majority of people who post here are far too smart to fall for these parlor tricks.


1) they didn't. They voted to give him the authority to take the necessary steps to defend this country from the terrorists. Bush then lied his way into trying to make it look like Iraq was a necessary step in that defense.

2) Despite the fact that republicans are extremely good at screwing up the government, democrats are not immune from mistakes themselves. They (meaning the collective congress - let's not forget that the republicans voted for this crap too) should never have placed that much authority in the hands of one branch of the government. We have a system of checks and balances for a reason - short circuit that and. . well, this happens.

Yes

To a point, yes.

Of course not. They assumed he would. Where they went wrong was assuming he would use it honestly, competently, and only when necessary. Especially given the man's track record, that was an appallingly stupid decision on the part of both republicans, and democrats.

Well if you'd bother to pose them, perhaps we would answer them.

You'll have to work much harder than that to offend me. You and your insulting comments are merely an annoyance, and an impediment to real debate and discussion.

No. Why? Are you one?

No, I certainly have never hurled insults at people who don't follow Bush.

No, and no.

I appreciate your candor in admitting that.


Yeah, I have. But in this case what you thought was hyperbole was actually the sad truth. Iraq is all Bush is thinking about right now, because he knows full well that his entire presidential legacy rests on the outcome in Iraq. If Iraq turns into a shining example of democracy, his reputation will be salvaged. If it doesn't, he'll go down in history as an abject failure - possibly the worst president to date. He KNOWS that and he's terrified of it. That's why much of the funding for his presidential library will go to pay a think tank to try and justify what he's done in Iraq. He's gonna keep pouring resources down the rathole that is now Iraq until he finally triumphs or has to leave office. I don't feel I'm stepping out on much of a limb here when I say he's going to be disappointed with the results.

Of course it will. Unfortunately it'll be going down in a nosedive. Remember the Great Depression. Yeah, neither do I - fortunately I'm not that old, but I've read plenty about it and ya know what? The situation was pretty similar. A different mechanism brought it down (asinine stock trading practices that resulted in a lot more money being thrown around than people actually had, instead of the current situation - asinine credit practices which are resulting in a lot more money being thrown around than people actually have) but the end result could well be the same. The economy is all about confidence, and once people realize they're in debt up to their eyeballs they'll stop spending - either by choice or because they simply can't get any more credit extended to them. Once that happens on a large scale, the economy will collapse.

You have a good point in that people are responsible for their own finances. Of course you're right, and I don't want you to think that I want the government to sweep in and magically erase all the credit card debt out there. Not only can the government not afford it, but it'd just teach people they can spend whatever they want and get bailed out later.

BUT, we have to look at WHY credit card spending is up so much. One reason is the economy. You're a middle class executive, you get downsized, now you work at walmart. But you still have the mortgage and the car note on a car that's not worth as much as the loan is for, gas prices are up more than 100%, natural gas and electricity prices are through the roof as well, and you still somehow have to eat. It's VERY easy to whip out that credit card not to buy the HDTV, but to buy bread and milk. Since the downsizing scenario has been happening left and right since Bush took the economic reins, it's not hard to see that the US economy is now chugging along largely because of credit card debt.

While the credit card companies will come out on top by charging obscene interest rates on their loans, the rest of the economy will collapse. If I can't get any more credit, and all of my money is going to pay off my debt, then I don't have any money left to actually buy anything. Repeat that over millions of people and voila, instant stalled economy.

We can play the "Fuck 'em, it's their fault, they can dig out of it" if we want, but we have to realize that if that many people stop spending money, it's going to depress the economy, which will effect OUR wealth as well.

List them, and show me how there are more good jobs requring higher education now than there were 6 years ago?

And more of those who are working in those offices are at risk of getting downsized. And once you're downsized it's damn hard to get back into one of those clean offices. You're far more likely to find yourself in a dirty walmart wearing a blue vest.

SOME people work less for more and better goods. Others barely scrape by. I find it disingenuous to compare this to historical times. Sure, we're better off now than we were in the middle ages, but that doesn't mean we're where we want or ought to be.


This demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the economy. We can also declare that the leaf is legal tender and everyone will now be stinking rich. But if you just print money, you devalue the money out there. If everyone's a millionaire, then things will cost a lot more. It wasn't at all uncommon in Germany after the first world war for people to have piles of money in their house. But when it takes 2 wheelbarrows of it to buy a loaf of bread, that doesn't do much good.

The government goes apeshit on counterfeit currency cases not because they don't want the counterfeiter to have more money, but because that counterfeit currency artificially lowers the value of everyone's money.

Low interest rates mean Treasury hasn't adjusted them upwards yet. And they're in a bind there, because if they do, it's not just the interest rates on the money we loan the government that goes up, but more importantly the interest rates on the money we have borrowed from the bank also goes up. If you want to bankrupt everyone in the nation real quick, spike the rates real high and then wait for the mortgage to be due.


No, not 100%, but he gets a big ol' chunk of the blame. I would expect him to try and help fix it too, but then he's not real interested in fixing things that are broken - - look at New Orleans.


Really? I want to win this argument. If I kill you, you can't argue back and therefore I will win. Would that end justify the means?


Depends entirely on who gets elected. Don't for a minute think I won't be hard on a democratic president. If TFP had been around during the Carter administration I'd have been kicking his butt on here too. And don't think I won't support a republican president who has the right ideas - unfortunately we haven't had one of those in decades.


Yes, he absolutely has.

. . .

No, he should have spent less money.

Funny thing about neocon republicans (which are unfortunately the only ones to hold office since Reagan started it in 1980) is that they have this idea that lowering taxes (cutting income) while spending more money is a good way to lower the debt. That's insane. If that worked I'd quit my job, buy a ferarri, and have the house paid off in no time.