republicans... explane this to me

[GT40FIED]

Originally posted by ChrisCantSkate
i just read we are gonna be running a 300 billion dollar budject deficet BEFORE going to war, and will be larger if we do (source: http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.ps...11518203813419 ) then bush declines affermative action (source: http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.ps...11518231713429 ) and we're giving 30billion to africa, and selling our military helicopters to turkey(almost an enemy) in hope of persuading them to fight iraq (source: http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.ps...11519175613714 ) im sorry, WTF is bush doing? trying to run us into the ground? we should impeach him

Alright man...I'm by no means a Democrat and I despise that bumpkin podunk retard of a president we have some of that stuff is relevant. As far as a war goes...what crap. We haven't declared war on anyone...including the countries we've bombed already. Anybody here wanna fight a war against a country that has no chance of directly doing America any harm? And as far as indirect harm...does anyone think leveling Iraq will stop those threats? Bush is just pissed that Saddam tried to kill his dad and he wants the pleasure of finishing a job his dad couldn't. So pay no attention to the weapons of mass distraction.

As far as affirmative action...good riddance. It's called survival of the fittest and the best man for the job. If you can't cut it, you don't deserve it solely because your skin is darker than beige on the color wheel. What if (like in American History X) you were a fireman and two minorities were hired in place of two more compitent white guys simply because of affirmative action? Would you want them watching your back knowing they weren't the most qualified? Or how'd you like to not get into the college you want to go to because a minority kid with worse grades got in solely based on his skin color? That decision in question I believe, however, was limited to one school's admissions policies, wasn't it? That's a shame since, if all men are truely created equal, then why do you get preferential treatment just because you're black or mexican or whatever? Affirmative action can do little help to blacks (or mexicans, etc.) and, in fact, serves no purpose but to promote racial tensions and let the government hand another crutch to the black community (or mexican or whatever) that they don't need. If I were on the receiving end of affirmative action, I'd be offended that someone would think I needed a handout or that I needed an unfair advantage simply based on the color of my skin. Everyone wants to live in a colorblind society (well almost everyone) but how can you if you stack the cards in one races favor? Affirmative action should never have come about and I'll dance on it's grave when it's gone.

As far as giving money to Africa....Africa's a big place. I dunno where they're sending money to, but it all goes back to survival of the fittest. Know why AIDS is so huge in Africa? I part because the people lack proper education and protection (condoms), but also in part because those dumbasses actually listen to the f*cking pope when he says that using birth control is basically a sin. So does that mean all the intelligent, cautious people who wanna have sex are going to hell? I'm in no means in favor of people needlessly dying, but why are we always the ones bailing them out? Why not Canada or China or something? Or how bout the french? Those ****ers haven't done anything for anyone.

Selling choppers to Turkey...what's new there? We always sell countries weapons in hopes that they'll do our bidding which will invariably come around to bite us in the ass when they turn those weapons against us. How long have you lived here man? Key example: Afghanistan. We sold them stingers and guns during the Soviet invasion and now they hate us so who do they turn those missles on? If you guessed us then you get a cookie. Sure, it's wrong but the American government can't be wrong and you'd be a fool and a communist to say otherwise. Anyone remember what happened during the Bay of Pigs? We have the CIA train a bunch of Cuban exiles and defectors and attempt to stage a revolution in Cuba to overthrow Castro. But, as Kennedy so conveniently forgot, Castro had come to power through a revolution assited by Che Guevara. Wow...what genius startegists we have here (or, if you're George Bush, it's "strategery").

So there you have it. We live in a retarded country that will always make the wrong decisions at the wrong time. You have to learn to expect it or leave. Either way I'll be happy.

[silver]

Originally posted by highlander
Thats because democrats wallow in self-pity worrying about every little detail of social reform at home, blinding the population to the real, larger problems of the world. As for the new deal? That was a DISASTER when it started, then WW2 came along and production was pushed up and economy started moving... the Cuban Missle Crisis wasn't caused by a republican, it was caused by the Cold War, and Russia realizing it could use Cuba to F*** with the US... As for reagan destroying the economy, do you have any idea what the misery index is, and what it was before reagan was elected? Misery index is unemployment+rate of inflation... it was running 20-25% before Reagan... the stock market grew more than 70% during his tenure in office. Sure he ran a deficit, but he had to keep the economy moving foward instead of stagnating, which it was doing before he came into office.

Many advocates argue that Reagan "proved that when you reduce taxes, you spur the economy...." Yet that supply-side credo is simplistic. Mainstream economists can show you in detail why Reagan's 1981 tax cuts had little or no effect on the recovery of 1983-89. That recovery reflected lucky developments that had nothing to do with tax cuts.

For one thing, strong recoveries normally follow severe recessions. Reagan happened to come into office during a bad recession; naturally, it ended. His timing was great, not his tax policy. For another thing, he lucked out with respect to oil prices. They skyrocketed in the 1970s, thanks to the OPEC cartel, and again in the early 1980s, thanks to Iraq attacking Iran. Few stresses hurt the economy like a spike in oil prices, and few things help like oil prices coming back to earth, as they did in Reagan's presidency - but not because of anything he did. Finally, Reagan lucked out with respect to Fed policies. A lot of the early-80s slowdown was caused by the double-digit interest rates that Fed Chairman Paul Volcker used to whip runaway inflation. But by the mid-80s the Fed had started to lower interest rates again. That made it easier for businesses to borrow, invest and create jobs.

So what did the tax cut contribute to the recovery? Not much. How do we know? Because if the Reagan recovery had been caused by a true supply-side surge of productivity, we would have seen productivity rates increase in the 1980s. They didn't.

How about people's claim that Reagan's tax cut actually "increased tax revenues"? Again, it doesn't hold up. A close look shows that what boosted Federal tax revenues during the 80's was not individual income taxes but payroll taxes - whose 4% average revenue growth resulted from a tax hike, the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. Besides, corporate tax revenues plummeted after Reagan's tax cut, and surged only after the 1986 tax-reform law raised corporate taxes again. Try explaining that with supply-side theory.

If you still believe the theory, remember what supply-siders predicted in 1993, when Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy by 40%. Newt Gingrich told us the tax increase was sure to bring on a severe recession. The Wall Street Journal told us the budget deficit would go through the ceiling. Forbes told us to take our money out of the stock market, because it was headed for a deadly crash.

The predictions couldn't have been more wrong, of course - but if supply-side economics were true, all these disasters are exactly what should have happened. See why mainstream economists consider supply-side theory a joke?

The real legacy of Reaganomics was a near-tripling of the budget deficit. Cleveland tries to pin the blame on Congress, but Congress added only 10% to Reagan's own budget proposals.

So do not tell me that he kept the market moving, it moved by itself, he just spent all the money.

As for the new deal do another history check, check the timeline and the economy between the years of 1929 and 1940.

I am not your average 21 year old. I am currently working on my masters for english literature, I have a minor in history and I am almost done with my bachelor of economics. I am not biased, I merely spout history.

As I understand it, the economist's objection to the Bush administration's tax plan is not the money it spends on tax cuts, etc over the next 2 years. When you're in a recession, you spend money to support the economy. The problem is uses the economy now as an excuse to make changes to the tax law until 2010 or 2011 - when someone else will take the blame.

Changing the tax structure for a year makes a little bit of sense. Using that to push for a we-love-rich-white-men policy at the expense of the economic strength of the country in the future is dirty.

I've said it before. Think about where you want the world to be in 100 years, after you're dead and gone. When I think about it that way, I feel pretty liberal.

Originally posted by Daviso27
I understand that, but it is still bullying...In the schoolyard, the bully controlled sh!t...until a scrawny little nerd stuck up for the other nerds and wupped the bully's ass...

And as for your comment about a government protection blanket...Hell, I've been ready for Armagedon since 1999, niether Dubya, nor The Gub'ment can protect us from the wrath of GOD.

Reply to first comment. Lest you forget. America is surrounded by water, Canada and Mexico. How will the "little nerds" stick up for each other? Swim across the Atlantic? As long as America makes sure other countries don't have nukes and stay out of Russia and China's way it can pretty much do what ever it wants. Because after all might makes right.


Reply to the second comment. I believe you have strayed from a politcal debate to a religious debate, one which I don't care to take up.