| Author |
Message |
    
HEU Brewer
Intermediate Member
Username: Heu_brewer
Post Number: 391
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 02:22 pm: | 
|
Go back about 28 years...
The Iranian hostage situation was on the everyones mind, (the "liberal media" launched "Nightline" to remind everyone of our hostage situation) oil prices were at record highs for the time, inflation was on a rampage. The question was asked... Are you better off now than what you were 4 years ago?
Flash back to today
Osama bin ladin is still at large (Where is the "liberal media's"Nightline equivalent reminding us daily of that). Oil prices are at near record highs, the two largest mortage companies have essentially went under requiring a taxpayer bailout. Inflation is running rampant (not excluding energy and food). We are in a war that started out of lies and misinformation.
A question shoud be asked. Are you better off now than what you were 4 (or 8) years ago?
(Message edited by HEU_Brewer on September 10, 2008) |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1705
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 02:41 pm: |
|
Yes,
I just got a new job where I earn 28% more gross annual. I am 22 miles closer to home and saving tons on gas. I no longer work off shifts. Now that I work regular hours, I am re-connecting with my family. I have been riding my bicycle to work. I am in better shape. I have been paying down my credit cards and am about 24 months from being debt-free except for my house, this includes student loans, car loans, and credit cards.
In all, I am doing pretty damn good. And I have myself to credit for it. I suggest you take a look at yourself and see where you can make your own improvements...don't count on the government to do it. I would have had the same retort to Reagan some 30 years ago, but I was still chomping crayons at the time... |
Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver
Post Number: 1830
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 03:45 pm: |
|
It's about a wash for me.
I guess by asking the question, HEU, your point is that we should vote for Obama to magically "change" things if we're not better off? Let's examine that.
Do you think the president controls the economy? If so, how? If not, who does? The congress? Any politician or political appointee?
I ask these questions rhetorically because the answer is, "He doesn't." He can set the tone and the agenda, but there is no mandate for the congress to enact it. Congress can hurt the economy through confiscatory taxation, or it can hurt is less through reasonable and fair taxation. The Federal Reserve is important in that it sets interest rates and thus stimulates or stifles economic activity, but it doesn't operate in a vacuum. (Ever hear of LIBOR?) Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Sally Mae, and the various other quasi-governmental lenders (or consolidators, if you will) indirectly control lending and thus stimulate or stifle economic activity.
And then there's the market itself, which is far greater than the government, and it doesn't operate in a vacuum, either. It's a big world out there, and we're just part of it.
The president (any president) gets far too much credit when things go well and far too much blame when they don't.
Our current crisis is complex in its origins, but the oversimplified culprit was too much easy money for too long, and people loading up on debt they couldn't handle. The apolitical Federal Reserve is mostly to blame for the easy money, but the ultimate blame lies with the borrowers themselves - personal irresponsibility.
Congress has been spending far more than it takes in. The debt has weakened our dollar, although the basis for that is far more complex than the deficit. At any rate, for this, both parties share the blame. (Good for exports, though.)
If you're a Democrat and you pretty much always vote that way, fine, vote for Obama. But don't play on economic ignorance. Whether or not an individual person is better off is largely a function of their own behavior and initiative (or lack thereof.) We as indivuals can't control the macro, but we can control the micro. It isn't the government's fault if you fail to hold up your end of the bargain. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 5814
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 03:51 pm: |
|
Graham, what are the odds that we would be at war with Iraq if Bush was not president? |
HEU Brewer
Intermediate Member
Username: Heu_brewer
Post Number: 392
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 04:07 pm: |
|
"I guess by asking the question, HEU, your point is that we should vote for Obama to magically "change" things if we're not better off? Let's examine that"
Isn't McCain and Palin are also running on a ticket of "change" and being a "Maveric"?
I do not rememmber one speach at the RNC that mentioned how great the times are now and that we should continue this economic "prosperity." I also find it interesting that a sitting 2 term President did not even show up in person nor did the VP even give a speach at the RNC.
The GOP realizes that if they have a chance at the Whitehouse they must distance themsleves from the 8 years of Bush/Cheaney. Why do they think that is?
But a GOP controlled Whitehouse and Congress resulted in record deficites, a larger and more intrusive government and higher "taxes" ( record energy prices due to a weak dollar is essentially a "tax")
(Message edited by HEU_Brewer on September 10, 2008) |
Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver
Post Number: 1831
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 04:10 pm: |
|
We're not at war with Iraq, Dan. That lasted about three weeks. We've been at war with terrorists and insurgents there, but now they're throwing in the towel and moving to Afghanistan. Victory is within reach. God bless our troops.
Your quesion, however, seems to suggest a convoluted logic. "We shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq, therefore we should elect Obama five years after the fact." I don't see the connection.
Regardless, what was done there is done. Electing Obama isn't going to change history. No matter who is elected president, troop levels will come down and the war will end, it's just a question how and when. |
HEU Brewer
Intermediate Member
Username: Heu_brewer
Post Number: 393
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 04:14 pm: |
|
Other than in political speaches at the RNC, when did the MILITARY leaders state that that "Victory is within reach" in Iraq? |
Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver
Post Number: 1832
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 04:18 pm: |
|
HEU, once again, you're missing the point.
The "GOP controlled Whitehouse and Congress" don't control the economy. They don't control energy prices. To the extent that congress can influence energy prices, the Democrats have been blocking domestic oil exploration for decades in deference to the environmentalist whacko wing of the party. And what have the Democrats done to improve things in the last two years that they've been in charge of Congress? Hmmmm? Zip. Zero. Nada.
It's pointless trying to discuss this with you if you're going to cling to the false premise that it's all the government's fault. It isn't. Partisan politics are no substitute for a rudimentary understanding of basic economics. |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 6918
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 04:18 pm: |
|
Graham, it seems the pres. has the ability to change the economy at least to the point of controlling deficit spending. |
Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver
Post Number: 1833
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 04:22 pm: |
|
Other than in political speaches at the RNC, when did the MILITARY leaders state that that "Victory is within reach" in Iraq?
Doom, gloom, defeatism... "The war is lost." -Harry Reid, Senate majority leader. If you listen to the mainstream media, that's what you get because they are invested in defeat.
Good news is coming in every day, HEU. Lowest level of violence in years, turning over entire provinces to the Iraqi security services, troop reductions just announced yesterday... open your eyes, man, and quit being so negative. |
Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver
Post Number: 1834
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 04:25 pm: |
|
I agree with you fully, Denny, Bush should have been far more aggressive with his veto pen. I will be the first to tell you that the six years of a Republican president with a GOP-controlled congress were largely squandered, and that is the biggest political disappointment of my lifetime. They had the opportunity to do great things for this country. In fairness, Bush inherited a big •••• sandwich economically and 9/11 just made it worse.
It's been a difficult decade with plenty of blame to go around. |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 6919
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 04:27 pm: |
|
Yeah, we turned over Anbar province a few days ago and immediately 7 policemen were beheaded...that's progress....I guess it's OK, though, since they were Muslim policemen and we KNOW how dangerous they are! ;)
(Message edited by denny on September 10, 2008) |
Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver
Post Number: 1835
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 04:35 pm: |
|
Yeah, we turned over Anbar province a few days ago and immediately 7 policemen were beheaded...that's progres....
How are things going in your own state, Denny?
Small Oregon town shaken by violent murder
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_082908_news_goble_murder.249ac11c.html
Arrest made in La Grande (OR) shooting death
http://www.ktvz.com/Global/story.asp?S=8974720
Amtrak passenger stabbed
http://www.ktvb.com/news/regional/stories/ktvbn-sep3008-amtrak_stabbing.3d6f9ca5 .html |
Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver
Post Number: 1836
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 04:39 pm: |
|
Gee, this is fun, but I have to actually go get some work done today.
God bless and have a good day, guys. |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 6921
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 04:44 pm: |
|
Point taken, Graham, but we don't often have 7 policemen beheaded in a single day.... |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1708
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 04:48 pm: |
|
That's cause there's too many lazy old hippies living there. If they'd stop smoking all that kind bud, maybe they'd have more initiative...
 |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 599
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 06:30 pm: |
|
Denny, move to Oakland, CA. Very safe there..... |
Denny Conn
Senior Member
Username: Denny
Post Number: 6924
Registered: 01-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 06:39 pm: |
|
The point you guys are missing is that Oakland doesn't have sectarian violence going on just after it's been touted how safe it is.... |
Tim Wi
Senior Member
Username: Riverkeeper
Post Number: 1008
Registered: 03-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 06:57 pm: |
|
I wonder how safe the southern U.S. was at the end of the civil war.
The fact that 600,000+ died must mean that the struggle to free slaves wasn't worth the country's blood and treasure.
Surely we would be better off now as two countries, rather than to have invaded the soveirgnity of the united confederate states. It would have been better to let them continue to enslave millions without challenge.
Surely it wasn't worth it because obviously it didn't work right away since there were lynchings of freed slaves for say... a hundred years or more after. And African Americans were oppressed, with the sacntion of official ordinances and laws, until the 1960's. And were killed. And couldn't get justice in the courts. And those from the north who tried to help were killed and wound up in levees.
Freedom for African Americans probably wasn't worth it because the war didn't immediately bestow a perfect system right away and there was violence for a long time after.
Freedom couldn't have been worth it, ecause there was violence. And it wasn't perfect.
And lots of it.
Tim |
HEU Brewer
Intermediate Member
Username: Heu_brewer
Post Number: 394
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 07:10 pm: |
|
I did not realize that Iraq was the 51st state and it tried to succeed from the Union! Now that makes a big difference
(Message edited by HEU_Brewer on September 10, 2008) |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 600
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 07:22 pm: |
|
HEU Brewer, are you old enough to remember Tip O'Neil telling the Nation that Reagan's budget was dead on arrival? Congress controls spending more so than the Executive branch. It is Chumley's Senator that wants to build that mining tunnel from Helena to Chicago....
Denny, murder is murder. Sectarian violence is no different than gang violence yet the mayor of Oakland will argue all day how safe his city is - point is that there is no differences to the dead nor should there be to the living. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1709
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 07:23 pm: |
|
And Tim...Lincoln was an evil Republican. You forgot to mention that. |
HEU Brewer
Intermediate Member
Username: Heu_brewer
Post Number: 395
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 07:37 pm: |
|
You are correct Ron.. and a GOP controlled Whitehouse and Congress increased our debt from
5.7 trillion to 8.7 trillion (Jan 31. 2001) to (Jan 31, 2007)
Go to the U.S. Treasury website if you do not believe me
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2001/2001_jan.htm
Edited to correct spelling of Treasury and add the website
(Message edited by HEU_Brewer on September 10, 2008) |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 601
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 07:48 pm: |
|
HEU Brewer, I believe you. You might be a trillion or so off but what it that amount between friends? However are you implying that it is only Republicans that are responsible for deficit spending? They inherited the deficit and made it larger. I distrust Republicans as much as Demoncrats. |
HEU Brewer
Intermediate Member
Username: Heu_brewer
Post Number: 396
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 08:05 pm: |
|
Every modern admin inherited a debt and made it larger, that goes without saying.
I find it ironic that the largest increases have come under GOP rule, Reagan/Bush and now Bush/Cheney.
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html |
Ron Siddall
Advanced Member
Username: El_cid
Post Number: 604
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 - 10:02 pm: |
|
It's not ironic to me, just hypocritical. Either party will run a deficit. Clinton was calling for a deficit for as far as the eye could see until the Repugs took control in '95. They forced his hand and the result was a somewhat balanced budget (didn't include SS) but the Repugs let their power get to their head and they blew it.
Your beloved Democraps are just as evil as the Repugs...just be careful of the high horse. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 5816
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 05:31 am: |
|
We are not at war with Iraq? We have been doing something over there for a long time and it certainly looks a lot like war.
OK let me rephrase my original question.
Graham, what are the odds that we would be at doing whatever we have been doing with Iraq if Bush was not president? |
Graham Cox
Senior Member
Username: T2driver
Post Number: 1839
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 06:27 am: |
|
Dan, how am I supposed to answer that question? I'm not a Vegas oddmaker. Do you know Gore so well that you could say definitively what would have happened had he won the election? Would 9/11 have even happened? Would it have happened, but not on 9/11? What would Gore's response have been?
I don't know. You don't either. So there's no point in speculating. "What might have happened" is childish and unhelpful. "What did happen" is reality. Again, I ask you, what does that have to do with the choice we face today, 5-1/2 years after the liberation?
Looking through the lens of 20/20 hindsight disqualifies one from assuming the moral high ground regarding the outcome of any endeavor. We can only act on what is known at the time.
I underpitched my first batch of porter and it stuck. I had a little too much knowledge without any practical experience and added some amylase enzyme to it. It worked, in that it lowered the FG dramatically, but it ended up being rocket fuel and not very drinkable. What are the odds that I would have made a great porter had I only not underpitched it and never added the amylase enzyme? |
Joakim Ruud
Senior Member
Username: Joques
Post Number: 1080
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 08:15 am: |
|
I said I'd step away, but this is just plain stupid. Suggesting that Al Gore would ever consider invading Iraq, with all the lies and media manipulations that were required to corral the public and international opinion beforehand, is as disingenious as saying: "So, you're saying the Earth is round, huh? Can you prove that?" You can't possibly say that with a straight face.
Afghanistan is one thing, Iraq something else enttirely.
(Message edited by joques on September 11, 2008) |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 9216
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 10:56 am: |
|
Actually, I can prove the Earth is round, but of course that's not the point. I agree with you, Joakim: had Gore been president there would have been no invasion of Iraq. Even at the time, it took an incredible manipulation of the evidence to generate a rationale for the action. No one but the group who exercised the behind the scenes control of Bush's foreign policy would have attempted such a thing. History has and will continue to judge them very sharply for this.
Graham also has his point: the invasion occurred, ill-advised and ill-founded as it was, and five and a half years later it certainly can't be undone. Nor could anyone reasonably have predicted 9/11 and its profound effect on almost everything that has occurred since. It's all the more reason to carefully examine those around the candidates who will likely be the architects of future policy decisions, and to vote accordingly. Interminable talk about pigs and lipstick is just plain silly in comparison. |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1711
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 12:58 pm: |
|
You guys seem to be neglecting the CIA's role in the mis-information that was given to Bush. Had Bush been given the real intel, He may have chosen to hold off.
However, the invasion should have happened many years BEFORE 9-11 when Hussein kicked out the weapons inspectors. That to me is reason enough. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 5819
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 01:36 pm: |
|
Graham, my point is that who is president can be critical to what the government does. If Bush was not president, there is little chance that whatever we have been doing in Iraq for these long years would have been necessary. "Necessary" is probably the wrong word.
Bob, trying to blame the CIA for the "sexed up" intelligence Bush used to start whatever he did in Iraq is laughable. The only blame they hold is not adequately resisting giving Bush (really Cheney) the intelligence he wanted to rationalize the invasion if that is what we are going to call it here.
And nice attempt to conflate Iraq with 9-11!
(Message edited by listermann on September 11, 2008) |
Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce
Post Number: 9217
Registered: 01-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 01:39 pm: |
|
The real battleground was, is and should have been Afghanistan all along. There is no dispute about the intimate connections between the Taliban and al Qaeda. They are extremely well entrenched and understand all too well that the US will tire of paying the price for its involvement. They are willing to wait decades to achieve their goals. Pay close attention to what the candidates are saying about Afghanistan (and Pakistan) because it could have profound effects. |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 5822
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 02:23 pm: |
|
McCain has announced that he intends to defeat evil. That will pretty much take care of things, right? |
Bob Wall
Senior Member
Username: Brewdudebob
Post Number: 1714
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 02:55 pm: |
|
What's Obama's plan? Surrender? |
Chumley
Senior Member
Username: Chumley
Post Number: 5560
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 11, 2008 - 04:31 pm: |
|
Al Gore would have kicked the Taliban and Al Queda's ass, hung Osama bin Laden on a stick, and let the buzzards peck his eyes out!
He then would have made a treaty with Iran, and used their troops to overthrow Saddam Hussein!
North Korea would be a province of South Korea by now.
Why oh why don't I live in that perfect alternative universe? |
Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann
Post Number: 5827
Registered: 03-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, September 14, 2008 - 04:03 am: |
|
So Bob, you are impressed with someone who simply announces that he intends to defeat evil? |
World Expressions