AdamLanes 1 #26 October 3, 2004 Quote more people spending money for themselves means more goods and services are consumed, and therefore more are produced... which means more people are employed J You are missing the point. The government also consumes goods and services, and employs a considerable amount of people. Less tax revenue means that the government has less money to spend on defense contracts, roads, schools, office supplies, etc. So now you have more money to spend on goods and services, but the government has less. It all balances out, and there is no net economic gain! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #27 October 3, 2004 Quote "Are you better off" does NOT mean "are you making more money." Or did you only have that in mind? I guess most Americans only judge the worth of their lives by the amount of money they take home. Sad really. How true. America isn't a corporation and well-being for me isn't based on the 'bottom line'. In the last 4 years I have been laid off 3 times but have also doubled my income and bought a house. But I'm scared. I don't quite like the "America" I live in. And to anyone who would ask "then why don't you leave", I'll respond by saying that's alot of what I don't like about it. The every man for himself/I'm making money/We're the greatest so fuck you/ mentality scares me more than terrorists. But to be fair, I can't really say if my feelings are related to the Bush/Cheney rhetoric. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #28 October 3, 2004 QuoteQuote more people spending money for themselves means more goods and services are consumed, and therefore more are produced... which means more people are employed J You are missing the point. The government also consumes goods and services, and employs a considerable amount of people. Less tax revenue means that the government has less money to spend on defense contracts, roads, schools, office supplies, etc. So now you have more money to spend on goods and services, but the government has less. It all balances out, and there is no net economic gain! Why didn't you quote his ENTIRE response? Here, I'll do it for you. QuoteQuote than doesn't the government have less tax revenue? Not necessarily... more people spending money for themselves means more goods and services are consumed, and therefore more are produced... which means more people are employed (and on the tax roles)... so the government takes less from each person, but from more people... more tax revenue. With this I think it's fair to say that either you are missing the point or you're simply here for an argument. Which is it? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jib 0 #29 October 3, 2004 QuoteThe interest rates are manipulated by the Fed and have been lowered deliberately in an attempt to energize the economy. Nothing to do with Bush. Wait, I agree with Kallend and we disagree with PhillyKev? The world must be ending soon!! -------------------------------------------------- the depth of his depravity sickens me. -- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #30 October 3, 2004 QuoteQuote more people spending money for themselves means more goods and services are consumed, and therefore more are produced... which means more people are employed J You are missing the point. The government also consumes goods and services, and employs a considerable amount of people. Less tax revenue means that the government has less money to spend on defense contracts, roads, schools, office supplies, etc. So now you have more money to spend on goods and services, but the government has less. It all balances out, and there is no net economic gain! Oh. great logic. It doesn't matter if the Govt has our money to spend or whether we have it? Get real. Lets just give all our money to the Govt so we can create the ultimate Liberal Utopia. Kumbya my brother. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
complexity 0 #31 October 3, 2004 i don't really think we can blame our presidents (Whetherit be Bush or Gore) on the whole for how the economy does -- most economic turnarounds happen a few years after their economic policies are put in place... although huge events such as 9/11, the tech bubble burst, and a war can definitely impact jobs/incomes. Also jobs/income levels are not the only indicators of a strong economy -- you have to look at home ownership rates, interest rates, internaltional trade, etc. but yes, I am better off... but i don't give any credit to Bush and his policies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #32 October 3, 2004 QuoteIt appears as if there are more terrorists in the world and we, the US, gave them a very good and legitimate reason to be really pissed at us. Oh no! The terrorists are pissed at us! Terrorists have been pissed at their intended targets since the beginning of time. Maybe they're a little more pissed right now because we're hunting them down. We should have a "Befriend a Terrorist Day." After all they are a misunderstood lot. Perhaps then, they won't be so pissed anymore. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamLanes 1 #33 October 3, 2004 Quote Why didn't you quote his ENTIRE response? Quote Jim, obviously if more people are employed there will be a larger tax base to draw from. Tax breaks shift consumption from government spending to individual/business spending. Overall there is no increase in consumption, because the only thing that changes is who spends the money, and what the money is spent on, but not how much money is spent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jdhill 0 #34 October 3, 2004 Quote who spends the money, and what the money is spent on, but not how much money is spent. The government spends a lot of money of programs that do not consume goods or services... wellfare comes to mind... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AdamLanes 1 #35 October 3, 2004 Quote Lets just give all our money to the Govt so we can create the ultimate Liberal Utopia. Kumbya my brother. Money would be of no concern in a Utopia Quote Oh. great logic. It doesn't matter if the Govt has our money to spend or whether we have it? Get real. What if there were no taxes at all? Would that stimulate the economy? Hell no! We need an entirely new tax code in the USA that is fair and has no loopholes. Do I have all the answers, no. I do think that Bush's tax cuts are simply a way to buy votes. Yes, I am better off today. Not because of the war on terror, not because of any tax cuts, and not because of the Bush administration. I am better off today because I know more than I have ever known in my entire life, I try to constantly educate myself, and I work hard. Education should be the top priority. We would also be better off if drugs were treated as a healthcare issue, and not a criminal issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites free_man 0 #36 October 3, 2004 Quote What if there were no taxes at all? Would that stimulate the economy? Hell no! >> Yes it would, it would force the criminals in DC to be fiscally responsible, and allow free markets to >> determine where the peoples' money is spent. We need an entirely new tax code in the USA that is fair and has no loopholes. >> The Income Tax is legalized theft (and a scam). Not one penny collected goes to pay for any >> programs. It goes to pay the interest on the debt. Congress has to rob SS, and borrow every year >> to function. It is also (Income Tax) the second plank of the communist manifesto. >> In the forties the fed chairman stated that taxes were no longer neccessary for revenue, but >> could be used to redistribute the wealth. “…because I hope you know this, I think you do…all governments are lying cocksuckers.” Bill Hicks, Relentless Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #37 October 3, 2004 Quote Oh no! The terrorists are pissed at us! Terrorists have been pissed at their intended targets since the beginning of time. Damn boy, when you miss the point you really can't hit the broad side of a barn -- can ya? What I'm saying is . . . by doing what we've done, invading Iraq, we created a whole new group of people that are pissed at us. These are people that GWB and Cheney said would welcome us with open arms. As it turns out a lot of them turned into terrorists because we bombed the crap out of their families and now they're lookin' for a little revenge. These are people that had basically wanted to be free of Saddam, but not to the point of actually overthrowing him. They were, in a word, oppressed, but it can also be safely said that they were suppressed from acting on their terrorist tendancies simply because they had no targets. Every soldier in Iraq is now one of their targets and rightfully so. You'd do the exact same thing if somebody invaded the US.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #38 October 3, 2004 QuoteQuote Oh no! The terrorists are pissed at us! Terrorists have been pissed at their intended targets since the beginning of time. Damn boy, when you miss the point you really can't hit the broad side of a barn -- can ya? What I'm saying is . . . by doing what we've done, invading Iraq, we created a whole new group of people that are pissed at us. These are people that GWB and Cheney said would welcome us with open arms. As it turns out a lot of them turned into terrorists because we bombed the crap out of their families and now they're lookin' for a little revenge. These are people that had basically wanted to be free of Saddam, but not to the point of actually overthrowing him. They were, in a word, oppressed, but it can also be safely said that they were suppressed from acting on their terrorist tendancies simply because they had no targets. Every soldier in Iraq is now one of their targets and rightfully so. You'd do the exact same thing if somebody invaded the US. How do you know this is true? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mikkey 0 #39 October 3, 2004 The great mistake posters on this site and the Bush administration are making is not to try to understand the way the Muslim world is thinking. Kerry made a very good point during the debate about “reaching out’ to the Muslim world as a way to combat terrorism. With its actions the US is actually supporting the radicals instead of the moderates. People have to understand that the Palestinian problem is a festering wound in the Muslim “mind”. The issue and the US support for Israel has been the best recruiter for Al Qaeda for many years. If you really want to address the issue of terrorism, you need to solve the Palestinian issue – however difficult it is. If a settlement can be found, it would strengthen the moderates and take most of the wind out of the terrorists’ sails in way of general support. Iraq has become the new issue these radicals are using. Muslims – no matter how much they despised Saddam – see the Iraq issue as an occupation and an attack by the west against Muslims. So invading Iraq without a broad coalition that included Arab countries (like Gulf War 1) was a major mistake and is not combating terrorism but increasing it. The worst consequence is that the moderate forces in the Islamic world are being weakened and if you really want to combat OBL & Co. you need moderate Muslim governments to be strong and supportive. Bush talks a lot about Kerry changing positions. What he forgets is that you need to develop your position as you go along and when reality is different from what was initially assumed. Bush’s inability to adapt to changed circumstances (which he clearly demonstrated in the debate) is very bad foreign policy. I found it interesting how Iraqis blamed the US for the bomb attacks by terrorists that killed all those children a few days ago. This clearly demonstrates how failed the current strategy is faring. The Iraqi issue has to be “internationalised” and Arab countries have to be a big part of that or you have a messy situation on you hand for years to come. Bush’s inability to change position is very similar to the mistakes US administrations made during the Vietnam War. Just my 2 C looking in from the outside.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #40 October 4, 2004 QuoteThe great mistake posters on this site and the Bush administration are making is not to try to understand the way the Muslim world is thinking. Kerry made a very good point during the debate about “reaching out’ to the Muslim world as a way to combat terrorism. With its actions the US is actually supporting the radicals instead of the moderates. I disgree the "Muslim World" is thinking as you suggest. I believe there are many who do, but to suggest thats the way all are thinking is to insinuate all Muslims are terrorists. It is BS for Kerry to say he will "reach-out", all Politicians use this type of verbage when running for office. Explain exactly how Kerry will "reach-out". Remember he has also lied and told us he would be able to get "our Allies (France and Germany) to support the war. Leaders of both countries have come out recently and said it wouldn't matter who wins, they will not support the war. QuotePeople have to understand that the Palestinian problem is a festering wound in the Muslim “mind”. The issue and the US support for Israel has been the best recruiter for Al Qaeda for many years. If you really want to address the issue of terrorism, you need to solve the Palestinian issue – however difficult it is. If a settlement can be found, it would strengthen the moderates and take most of the wind out of the terrorists’ sails in way of general support. Every President since Carter has tried to solve the Palestinian problem and failed. Why?? Because Arafat doesn't want a solution. His attitude has been to walk away from all negotiations whenever a solution is near. What do you think Arafats response would be to "What would it take to satisfy you so Israel and Palestine could co-exist"? My guess is, there is no response short of all Israeli's leaving the M.E. QuoteIraq has become the new issue these radicals are using. Muslims – no matter how much they despised Saddam – see the Iraq issue as an occupation and an attack by the west against Muslims. The radicals do, most Iraqis don't have this opinion. Most want a democracy, especially women. QuoteSo invading Iraq without a broad coalition that included Arab countries (like Gulf War 1) was a major mistake and is not combating terrorism but increasing it. The reasons for GW1 were quite different. Most Arab countries didn't support invading Iraq because they felt their own power would be threatened by a democracy. QuoteThe worst consequence is that the moderate forces in the Islamic world are being weakened and if you really want to combat OBL & Co. you need moderate Muslim governments to be strong and supportive. Bush talks a lot about Kerry changing positions. What he forgets is that you need to develop your position as you go along and when reality is different from what was initially assumed. Bush’s inability to adapt to changed circumstances (which he clearly demonstrated in the debate) is very bad foreign policy. I think you are confusing changing positions with changing tactics. The criticism of Kerry has more to do with his indecisiveness on whether he support the war and our troops. Bush makes his decisions based on information he gets from is Field Commanders on the ground in Iraq and his cabinet advisors. I really don't think those who are criticizing Bushs' tactics are in much of a position to offer an alternative. All Kerry does is stand there and pontificate that he would "do things different" without any specifics. QuoteI found it interesting how Iraqis blamed the US for the bomb attacks by terrorists that killed all those children a few days ago. This clearly demonstrates how failed the current strategy is faring. I disagree. Just because the uninformed, naive, ignorant or terrorists with a political agenda use a terrorist act to incite hate against the US, does not indicate a failed policy. If anything it indicates desparation. Quote The Iraqi issue has to be “internationalised” and Arab countries have to be a big part of that or you have a messy situation on you hand for years to come. I disagree. Do you really think letting Iran, Syria etc. is going to be of some benefit considering they are creating much of the problems? QuoteBush’s inability to change position is very similar to the mistakes US administrations made during the Vietnam War. What position would you have Bush adopt? He's turned the Iraqi govt. over to the Iraqi and supported elections. What else would you have him do? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #41 October 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteEither you are spending the money or the government is spending the money. You are absolutely right... And I can best determine how best to spend my money. Quotethan doesn't the government have less tax revenue? Not necessarily... more people spending money for themselves means more goods and services are consumed, and therefore more are produced... which means more people are employed (and on the tax roles)... so the government takes less from each person, but from more people... more tax revenue. J Good theory, but according to OMB tax revenues are down each year since the tax cuts went into effect. And then there's increased government spending (1.1Million more people on government payroll) to make things worse.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #42 October 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt appears as if there are more terrorists in the world and we, the US, gave them a very good and legitimate reason to be really pissed at us. Oh no! The terrorists are pissed at us! Terrorists have been pissed at their intended targets since the beginning of time. Maybe they're a little more pissed right now because we're hunting them down. We should have a "Befriend a Terrorist Day." After all they are a misunderstood lot. Perhaps then, they won't be so pissed anymore. "Befriend a terrorist day" was the day we invaded Iraq and lost focus on the actual terrorists. All we've done is assist in Al Qaeda's recruiting program.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mikkey 0 #43 October 4, 2004 You are making exactly the same mistake Bush does – you are so damn sure you understand the “Arab street” when you don’t. You seem to know what Iraqis and other Muslims are thinking, but what is actually is happening is clearly showing that the Bush administration does not understand how these people are thinking and how they react to the US actions and policies. Do you ever try to listen to non-American sources? Have you tried to listen to Journalists and observers from the Middle East and South Asia? If you did, you would find that they are making exactly some of the points I was making. But you and Bush want only to listen to what you want to hear. That is exactly the reason why the US got it wrong on pre-war intelligence (WMD’s) and post war strategy. They only did listen to Chalabi & Co. who were saying what they thought the Americans wanted to hear and what was helping their particular agenda. The cultural, political and religious issues are far more complex then you portrait. And yes the Palestinian problem is extremely difficult, but it is still the key, and involving Muslim countries – including those in South Asia – is likewise difficult. But this is exactly the reason why the invasion was a major mistake in the way it was done and triggered the mess we are finding now.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #44 October 4, 2004 QuoteYou are making exactly the same mistake Bush does – you are so damn sure you understand the “Arab street” when you don’t. Gee Mikkey.. you are the one making all the claims about "understanding the "Arab Streeet". QuoteYou seem to know what Iraqis and other Muslims are thinking, but what is actually is happening is clearly showing that the Bush administration does not understand how these people are thinking and how they react to the US actions and policies. What policies? You mean the one that bring them a democratically elected govt? I think it's you who only listens to the negative aspects of the war. QuoteDo you ever try to listen to non-American sources? Have you tried to listen to Journalists and observers from the Middle East and South Asia? If you did, you would find that they are making exactly some of the points I was making. I'm sure if I listened only to your sources and tuned out any source which said things were progressing well, I'd have the same view you do. QuoteBut you and Bush want only to listen to what you want to hear. Nice that you know Bush and I have the same sources. Why just the other day I was saying to Colin Powell..... QuoteThat is exactly the reason why the US got it wrong on pre-war intelligence (WMD’s) and post war strategy. They only did listen to Chalabi & Co. who were saying what they thought the Americans wanted to hear and what was helping their particular agenda. Then explain how Russia, Britian and almost every other Intel Agency also got it wrong. Oh, I know... it" all part of that big conspiracy you are always telling us about. QuoteThe cultural, political and religious issues are far more complex then you portrait. And yes the Palestinian problem is extremely difficult, but it is still the key, and involving Muslim countries – including those in South Asia – is likewise difficult. I disagree. I think it's just the latest excuse to hate. QuoteBut this is exactly the reason why the invasion was a major mistake in the way it was done and triggered the mess we are finding now. Why do you think it was a mistake? Because people died? People always die during a war. Tell us how President Mikkey would have done things different. Please be specific because right now you sound like John Kerry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #45 October 4, 2004 I'm WAY better off financially. Since GWB the $ has decreased 60% against the ZAR. I've bought a Stiletto, a Safire, a Mirage G4, an S3, a cypress and I'm on my way to the DZ.com boogie for half price jumps from 2500ft more altitude! Of course, the 37 000 dead Iraqi civilians are less impressed. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Vallerina 2 #46 October 4, 2004 Yes, I'm better off, but that's because I don't make enough money for my company to include me in their lay-offs. Nobody can do my work for cheaper.There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,452 #47 October 4, 2004 QuoteBut I'm scared. I don't quite like the "America" I live in. And to anyone who would ask "then why don't you leave", I'll respond by saying that's alot of what I don't like about it. The every man for himself/I'm making money/We're the greatest so fuck you/ mentality scares me more than terrorists. What she said. I think the internet and the silly season bring out the worst in some folks -- they get more dogmatic. At least I hope that's the case. I'm a little scared of the "protect my rights first, and only give in if you fight" attitude that I see sometimes. I make more than I did 4 years ago. I'm in a great relationship now; I wasn't then. But my last overseas trip was a lot more expensive than the ones 3 1/2 years ago due to devaluation of the dollar. I also came back to skydiving after the Bush presidency. But I don't think there's much of a relationship Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #48 October 4, 2004 QuoteNot necessarily... more people spending money for themselves means more goods and services are consumed, and therefore more are produced... which means more people are employed ... ...in foreign countries, thanks to ignoring China's artificial manipulation of their currency, ridiculous free trade agreements with nations that exploit their work force, and tax breaks for US companies that outsource to other nations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #49 October 4, 2004 I am not better off. I was unemployed a few times from downsizing. On top of that I now make A TON less than what I used to...for the same exact job. The economy is recovering? HA! I just spent the last 5 months looking for a new job and the majority of the positions wanted to offer me less than what I was making because they are hurting due to the economy. I had one job tell me I would have to bring in all my own office supplies (paper, pens, etc)._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #50 October 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe interest rates are manipulated by the Fed and have been lowered deliberately in an attempt to energize the economy. Short term rates, yes. Long term rates are not tied directly to acting by the FED... How exactly are the 900K jobs that you point to tied to a Bush action or policy? J See my post above. The Bush administration has introduced numerous policies that make it easier for US companies to use cheap foreign labor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
jdhill 0 #34 October 3, 2004 Quote who spends the money, and what the money is spent on, but not how much money is spent. The government spends a lot of money of programs that do not consume goods or services... wellfare comes to mind... JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamLanes 1 #35 October 3, 2004 Quote Lets just give all our money to the Govt so we can create the ultimate Liberal Utopia. Kumbya my brother. Money would be of no concern in a Utopia Quote Oh. great logic. It doesn't matter if the Govt has our money to spend or whether we have it? Get real. What if there were no taxes at all? Would that stimulate the economy? Hell no! We need an entirely new tax code in the USA that is fair and has no loopholes. Do I have all the answers, no. I do think that Bush's tax cuts are simply a way to buy votes. Yes, I am better off today. Not because of the war on terror, not because of any tax cuts, and not because of the Bush administration. I am better off today because I know more than I have ever known in my entire life, I try to constantly educate myself, and I work hard. Education should be the top priority. We would also be better off if drugs were treated as a healthcare issue, and not a criminal issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
free_man 0 #36 October 3, 2004 Quote What if there were no taxes at all? Would that stimulate the economy? Hell no! >> Yes it would, it would force the criminals in DC to be fiscally responsible, and allow free markets to >> determine where the peoples' money is spent. We need an entirely new tax code in the USA that is fair and has no loopholes. >> The Income Tax is legalized theft (and a scam). Not one penny collected goes to pay for any >> programs. It goes to pay the interest on the debt. Congress has to rob SS, and borrow every year >> to function. It is also (Income Tax) the second plank of the communist manifesto. >> In the forties the fed chairman stated that taxes were no longer neccessary for revenue, but >> could be used to redistribute the wealth. “…because I hope you know this, I think you do…all governments are lying cocksuckers.” Bill Hicks, Relentless Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 4 #37 October 3, 2004 Quote Oh no! The terrorists are pissed at us! Terrorists have been pissed at their intended targets since the beginning of time. Damn boy, when you miss the point you really can't hit the broad side of a barn -- can ya? What I'm saying is . . . by doing what we've done, invading Iraq, we created a whole new group of people that are pissed at us. These are people that GWB and Cheney said would welcome us with open arms. As it turns out a lot of them turned into terrorists because we bombed the crap out of their families and now they're lookin' for a little revenge. These are people that had basically wanted to be free of Saddam, but not to the point of actually overthrowing him. They were, in a word, oppressed, but it can also be safely said that they were suppressed from acting on their terrorist tendancies simply because they had no targets. Every soldier in Iraq is now one of their targets and rightfully so. You'd do the exact same thing if somebody invaded the US.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #38 October 3, 2004 QuoteQuote Oh no! The terrorists are pissed at us! Terrorists have been pissed at their intended targets since the beginning of time. Damn boy, when you miss the point you really can't hit the broad side of a barn -- can ya? What I'm saying is . . . by doing what we've done, invading Iraq, we created a whole new group of people that are pissed at us. These are people that GWB and Cheney said would welcome us with open arms. As it turns out a lot of them turned into terrorists because we bombed the crap out of their families and now they're lookin' for a little revenge. These are people that had basically wanted to be free of Saddam, but not to the point of actually overthrowing him. They were, in a word, oppressed, but it can also be safely said that they were suppressed from acting on their terrorist tendancies simply because they had no targets. Every soldier in Iraq is now one of their targets and rightfully so. You'd do the exact same thing if somebody invaded the US. How do you know this is true? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mikkey 0 #39 October 3, 2004 The great mistake posters on this site and the Bush administration are making is not to try to understand the way the Muslim world is thinking. Kerry made a very good point during the debate about “reaching out’ to the Muslim world as a way to combat terrorism. With its actions the US is actually supporting the radicals instead of the moderates. People have to understand that the Palestinian problem is a festering wound in the Muslim “mind”. The issue and the US support for Israel has been the best recruiter for Al Qaeda for many years. If you really want to address the issue of terrorism, you need to solve the Palestinian issue – however difficult it is. If a settlement can be found, it would strengthen the moderates and take most of the wind out of the terrorists’ sails in way of general support. Iraq has become the new issue these radicals are using. Muslims – no matter how much they despised Saddam – see the Iraq issue as an occupation and an attack by the west against Muslims. So invading Iraq without a broad coalition that included Arab countries (like Gulf War 1) was a major mistake and is not combating terrorism but increasing it. The worst consequence is that the moderate forces in the Islamic world are being weakened and if you really want to combat OBL & Co. you need moderate Muslim governments to be strong and supportive. Bush talks a lot about Kerry changing positions. What he forgets is that you need to develop your position as you go along and when reality is different from what was initially assumed. Bush’s inability to adapt to changed circumstances (which he clearly demonstrated in the debate) is very bad foreign policy. I found it interesting how Iraqis blamed the US for the bomb attacks by terrorists that killed all those children a few days ago. This clearly demonstrates how failed the current strategy is faring. The Iraqi issue has to be “internationalised” and Arab countries have to be a big part of that or you have a messy situation on you hand for years to come. Bush’s inability to change position is very similar to the mistakes US administrations made during the Vietnam War. Just my 2 C looking in from the outside.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #40 October 4, 2004 QuoteThe great mistake posters on this site and the Bush administration are making is not to try to understand the way the Muslim world is thinking. Kerry made a very good point during the debate about “reaching out’ to the Muslim world as a way to combat terrorism. With its actions the US is actually supporting the radicals instead of the moderates. I disgree the "Muslim World" is thinking as you suggest. I believe there are many who do, but to suggest thats the way all are thinking is to insinuate all Muslims are terrorists. It is BS for Kerry to say he will "reach-out", all Politicians use this type of verbage when running for office. Explain exactly how Kerry will "reach-out". Remember he has also lied and told us he would be able to get "our Allies (France and Germany) to support the war. Leaders of both countries have come out recently and said it wouldn't matter who wins, they will not support the war. QuotePeople have to understand that the Palestinian problem is a festering wound in the Muslim “mind”. The issue and the US support for Israel has been the best recruiter for Al Qaeda for many years. If you really want to address the issue of terrorism, you need to solve the Palestinian issue – however difficult it is. If a settlement can be found, it would strengthen the moderates and take most of the wind out of the terrorists’ sails in way of general support. Every President since Carter has tried to solve the Palestinian problem and failed. Why?? Because Arafat doesn't want a solution. His attitude has been to walk away from all negotiations whenever a solution is near. What do you think Arafats response would be to "What would it take to satisfy you so Israel and Palestine could co-exist"? My guess is, there is no response short of all Israeli's leaving the M.E. QuoteIraq has become the new issue these radicals are using. Muslims – no matter how much they despised Saddam – see the Iraq issue as an occupation and an attack by the west against Muslims. The radicals do, most Iraqis don't have this opinion. Most want a democracy, especially women. QuoteSo invading Iraq without a broad coalition that included Arab countries (like Gulf War 1) was a major mistake and is not combating terrorism but increasing it. The reasons for GW1 were quite different. Most Arab countries didn't support invading Iraq because they felt their own power would be threatened by a democracy. QuoteThe worst consequence is that the moderate forces in the Islamic world are being weakened and if you really want to combat OBL & Co. you need moderate Muslim governments to be strong and supportive. Bush talks a lot about Kerry changing positions. What he forgets is that you need to develop your position as you go along and when reality is different from what was initially assumed. Bush’s inability to adapt to changed circumstances (which he clearly demonstrated in the debate) is very bad foreign policy. I think you are confusing changing positions with changing tactics. The criticism of Kerry has more to do with his indecisiveness on whether he support the war and our troops. Bush makes his decisions based on information he gets from is Field Commanders on the ground in Iraq and his cabinet advisors. I really don't think those who are criticizing Bushs' tactics are in much of a position to offer an alternative. All Kerry does is stand there and pontificate that he would "do things different" without any specifics. QuoteI found it interesting how Iraqis blamed the US for the bomb attacks by terrorists that killed all those children a few days ago. This clearly demonstrates how failed the current strategy is faring. I disagree. Just because the uninformed, naive, ignorant or terrorists with a political agenda use a terrorist act to incite hate against the US, does not indicate a failed policy. If anything it indicates desparation. Quote The Iraqi issue has to be “internationalised” and Arab countries have to be a big part of that or you have a messy situation on you hand for years to come. I disagree. Do you really think letting Iran, Syria etc. is going to be of some benefit considering they are creating much of the problems? QuoteBush’s inability to change position is very similar to the mistakes US administrations made during the Vietnam War. What position would you have Bush adopt? He's turned the Iraqi govt. over to the Iraqi and supported elections. What else would you have him do? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #41 October 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteEither you are spending the money or the government is spending the money. You are absolutely right... And I can best determine how best to spend my money. Quotethan doesn't the government have less tax revenue? Not necessarily... more people spending money for themselves means more goods and services are consumed, and therefore more are produced... which means more people are employed (and on the tax roles)... so the government takes less from each person, but from more people... more tax revenue. J Good theory, but according to OMB tax revenues are down each year since the tax cuts went into effect. And then there's increased government spending (1.1Million more people on government payroll) to make things worse.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,027 #42 October 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt appears as if there are more terrorists in the world and we, the US, gave them a very good and legitimate reason to be really pissed at us. Oh no! The terrorists are pissed at us! Terrorists have been pissed at their intended targets since the beginning of time. Maybe they're a little more pissed right now because we're hunting them down. We should have a "Befriend a Terrorist Day." After all they are a misunderstood lot. Perhaps then, they won't be so pissed anymore. "Befriend a terrorist day" was the day we invaded Iraq and lost focus on the actual terrorists. All we've done is assist in Al Qaeda's recruiting program.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mikkey 0 #43 October 4, 2004 You are making exactly the same mistake Bush does – you are so damn sure you understand the “Arab street” when you don’t. You seem to know what Iraqis and other Muslims are thinking, but what is actually is happening is clearly showing that the Bush administration does not understand how these people are thinking and how they react to the US actions and policies. Do you ever try to listen to non-American sources? Have you tried to listen to Journalists and observers from the Middle East and South Asia? If you did, you would find that they are making exactly some of the points I was making. But you and Bush want only to listen to what you want to hear. That is exactly the reason why the US got it wrong on pre-war intelligence (WMD’s) and post war strategy. They only did listen to Chalabi & Co. who were saying what they thought the Americans wanted to hear and what was helping their particular agenda. The cultural, political and religious issues are far more complex then you portrait. And yes the Palestinian problem is extremely difficult, but it is still the key, and involving Muslim countries – including those in South Asia – is likewise difficult. But this is exactly the reason why the invasion was a major mistake in the way it was done and triggered the mess we are finding now.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #44 October 4, 2004 QuoteYou are making exactly the same mistake Bush does – you are so damn sure you understand the “Arab street” when you don’t. Gee Mikkey.. you are the one making all the claims about "understanding the "Arab Streeet". QuoteYou seem to know what Iraqis and other Muslims are thinking, but what is actually is happening is clearly showing that the Bush administration does not understand how these people are thinking and how they react to the US actions and policies. What policies? You mean the one that bring them a democratically elected govt? I think it's you who only listens to the negative aspects of the war. QuoteDo you ever try to listen to non-American sources? Have you tried to listen to Journalists and observers from the Middle East and South Asia? If you did, you would find that they are making exactly some of the points I was making. I'm sure if I listened only to your sources and tuned out any source which said things were progressing well, I'd have the same view you do. QuoteBut you and Bush want only to listen to what you want to hear. Nice that you know Bush and I have the same sources. Why just the other day I was saying to Colin Powell..... QuoteThat is exactly the reason why the US got it wrong on pre-war intelligence (WMD’s) and post war strategy. They only did listen to Chalabi & Co. who were saying what they thought the Americans wanted to hear and what was helping their particular agenda. Then explain how Russia, Britian and almost every other Intel Agency also got it wrong. Oh, I know... it" all part of that big conspiracy you are always telling us about. QuoteThe cultural, political and religious issues are far more complex then you portrait. And yes the Palestinian problem is extremely difficult, but it is still the key, and involving Muslim countries – including those in South Asia – is likewise difficult. I disagree. I think it's just the latest excuse to hate. QuoteBut this is exactly the reason why the invasion was a major mistake in the way it was done and triggered the mess we are finding now. Why do you think it was a mistake? Because people died? People always die during a war. Tell us how President Mikkey would have done things different. Please be specific because right now you sound like John Kerry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tonto 1 #45 October 4, 2004 I'm WAY better off financially. Since GWB the $ has decreased 60% against the ZAR. I've bought a Stiletto, a Safire, a Mirage G4, an S3, a cypress and I'm on my way to the DZ.com boogie for half price jumps from 2500ft more altitude! Of course, the 37 000 dead Iraqi civilians are less impressed. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Vallerina 2 #46 October 4, 2004 Yes, I'm better off, but that's because I don't make enough money for my company to include me in their lay-offs. Nobody can do my work for cheaper.There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wmw999 2,452 #47 October 4, 2004 QuoteBut I'm scared. I don't quite like the "America" I live in. And to anyone who would ask "then why don't you leave", I'll respond by saying that's alot of what I don't like about it. The every man for himself/I'm making money/We're the greatest so fuck you/ mentality scares me more than terrorists. What she said. I think the internet and the silly season bring out the worst in some folks -- they get more dogmatic. At least I hope that's the case. I'm a little scared of the "protect my rights first, and only give in if you fight" attitude that I see sometimes. I make more than I did 4 years ago. I'm in a great relationship now; I wasn't then. But my last overseas trip was a lot more expensive than the ones 3 1/2 years ago due to devaluation of the dollar. I also came back to skydiving after the Bush presidency. But I don't think there's much of a relationship Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #48 October 4, 2004 QuoteNot necessarily... more people spending money for themselves means more goods and services are consumed, and therefore more are produced... which means more people are employed ... ...in foreign countries, thanks to ignoring China's artificial manipulation of their currency, ridiculous free trade agreements with nations that exploit their work force, and tax breaks for US companies that outsource to other nations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #49 October 4, 2004 I am not better off. I was unemployed a few times from downsizing. On top of that I now make A TON less than what I used to...for the same exact job. The economy is recovering? HA! I just spent the last 5 months looking for a new job and the majority of the positions wanted to offer me less than what I was making because they are hurting due to the economy. I had one job tell me I would have to bring in all my own office supplies (paper, pens, etc)._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #50 October 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe interest rates are manipulated by the Fed and have been lowered deliberately in an attempt to energize the economy. Short term rates, yes. Long term rates are not tied directly to acting by the FED... How exactly are the 900K jobs that you point to tied to a Bush action or policy? J See my post above. The Bush administration has introduced numerous policies that make it easier for US companies to use cheap foreign labor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
quade 4 #37 October 3, 2004 Quote Oh no! The terrorists are pissed at us! Terrorists have been pissed at their intended targets since the beginning of time. Damn boy, when you miss the point you really can't hit the broad side of a barn -- can ya? What I'm saying is . . . by doing what we've done, invading Iraq, we created a whole new group of people that are pissed at us. These are people that GWB and Cheney said would welcome us with open arms. As it turns out a lot of them turned into terrorists because we bombed the crap out of their families and now they're lookin' for a little revenge. These are people that had basically wanted to be free of Saddam, but not to the point of actually overthrowing him. They were, in a word, oppressed, but it can also be safely said that they were suppressed from acting on their terrorist tendancies simply because they had no targets. Every soldier in Iraq is now one of their targets and rightfully so. You'd do the exact same thing if somebody invaded the US.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #38 October 3, 2004 QuoteQuote Oh no! The terrorists are pissed at us! Terrorists have been pissed at their intended targets since the beginning of time. Damn boy, when you miss the point you really can't hit the broad side of a barn -- can ya? What I'm saying is . . . by doing what we've done, invading Iraq, we created a whole new group of people that are pissed at us. These are people that GWB and Cheney said would welcome us with open arms. As it turns out a lot of them turned into terrorists because we bombed the crap out of their families and now they're lookin' for a little revenge. These are people that had basically wanted to be free of Saddam, but not to the point of actually overthrowing him. They were, in a word, oppressed, but it can also be safely said that they were suppressed from acting on their terrorist tendancies simply because they had no targets. Every soldier in Iraq is now one of their targets and rightfully so. You'd do the exact same thing if somebody invaded the US. How do you know this is true? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #39 October 3, 2004 The great mistake posters on this site and the Bush administration are making is not to try to understand the way the Muslim world is thinking. Kerry made a very good point during the debate about “reaching out’ to the Muslim world as a way to combat terrorism. With its actions the US is actually supporting the radicals instead of the moderates. People have to understand that the Palestinian problem is a festering wound in the Muslim “mind”. The issue and the US support for Israel has been the best recruiter for Al Qaeda for many years. If you really want to address the issue of terrorism, you need to solve the Palestinian issue – however difficult it is. If a settlement can be found, it would strengthen the moderates and take most of the wind out of the terrorists’ sails in way of general support. Iraq has become the new issue these radicals are using. Muslims – no matter how much they despised Saddam – see the Iraq issue as an occupation and an attack by the west against Muslims. So invading Iraq without a broad coalition that included Arab countries (like Gulf War 1) was a major mistake and is not combating terrorism but increasing it. The worst consequence is that the moderate forces in the Islamic world are being weakened and if you really want to combat OBL & Co. you need moderate Muslim governments to be strong and supportive. Bush talks a lot about Kerry changing positions. What he forgets is that you need to develop your position as you go along and when reality is different from what was initially assumed. Bush’s inability to adapt to changed circumstances (which he clearly demonstrated in the debate) is very bad foreign policy. I found it interesting how Iraqis blamed the US for the bomb attacks by terrorists that killed all those children a few days ago. This clearly demonstrates how failed the current strategy is faring. The Iraqi issue has to be “internationalised” and Arab countries have to be a big part of that or you have a messy situation on you hand for years to come. Bush’s inability to change position is very similar to the mistakes US administrations made during the Vietnam War. Just my 2 C looking in from the outside.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #40 October 4, 2004 QuoteThe great mistake posters on this site and the Bush administration are making is not to try to understand the way the Muslim world is thinking. Kerry made a very good point during the debate about “reaching out’ to the Muslim world as a way to combat terrorism. With its actions the US is actually supporting the radicals instead of the moderates. I disgree the "Muslim World" is thinking as you suggest. I believe there are many who do, but to suggest thats the way all are thinking is to insinuate all Muslims are terrorists. It is BS for Kerry to say he will "reach-out", all Politicians use this type of verbage when running for office. Explain exactly how Kerry will "reach-out". Remember he has also lied and told us he would be able to get "our Allies (France and Germany) to support the war. Leaders of both countries have come out recently and said it wouldn't matter who wins, they will not support the war. QuotePeople have to understand that the Palestinian problem is a festering wound in the Muslim “mind”. The issue and the US support for Israel has been the best recruiter for Al Qaeda for many years. If you really want to address the issue of terrorism, you need to solve the Palestinian issue – however difficult it is. If a settlement can be found, it would strengthen the moderates and take most of the wind out of the terrorists’ sails in way of general support. Every President since Carter has tried to solve the Palestinian problem and failed. Why?? Because Arafat doesn't want a solution. His attitude has been to walk away from all negotiations whenever a solution is near. What do you think Arafats response would be to "What would it take to satisfy you so Israel and Palestine could co-exist"? My guess is, there is no response short of all Israeli's leaving the M.E. QuoteIraq has become the new issue these radicals are using. Muslims – no matter how much they despised Saddam – see the Iraq issue as an occupation and an attack by the west against Muslims. The radicals do, most Iraqis don't have this opinion. Most want a democracy, especially women. QuoteSo invading Iraq without a broad coalition that included Arab countries (like Gulf War 1) was a major mistake and is not combating terrorism but increasing it. The reasons for GW1 were quite different. Most Arab countries didn't support invading Iraq because they felt their own power would be threatened by a democracy. QuoteThe worst consequence is that the moderate forces in the Islamic world are being weakened and if you really want to combat OBL & Co. you need moderate Muslim governments to be strong and supportive. Bush talks a lot about Kerry changing positions. What he forgets is that you need to develop your position as you go along and when reality is different from what was initially assumed. Bush’s inability to adapt to changed circumstances (which he clearly demonstrated in the debate) is very bad foreign policy. I think you are confusing changing positions with changing tactics. The criticism of Kerry has more to do with his indecisiveness on whether he support the war and our troops. Bush makes his decisions based on information he gets from is Field Commanders on the ground in Iraq and his cabinet advisors. I really don't think those who are criticizing Bushs' tactics are in much of a position to offer an alternative. All Kerry does is stand there and pontificate that he would "do things different" without any specifics. QuoteI found it interesting how Iraqis blamed the US for the bomb attacks by terrorists that killed all those children a few days ago. This clearly demonstrates how failed the current strategy is faring. I disagree. Just because the uninformed, naive, ignorant or terrorists with a political agenda use a terrorist act to incite hate against the US, does not indicate a failed policy. If anything it indicates desparation. Quote The Iraqi issue has to be “internationalised” and Arab countries have to be a big part of that or you have a messy situation on you hand for years to come. I disagree. Do you really think letting Iran, Syria etc. is going to be of some benefit considering they are creating much of the problems? QuoteBush’s inability to change position is very similar to the mistakes US administrations made during the Vietnam War. What position would you have Bush adopt? He's turned the Iraqi govt. over to the Iraqi and supported elections. What else would you have him do? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #41 October 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteEither you are spending the money or the government is spending the money. You are absolutely right... And I can best determine how best to spend my money. Quotethan doesn't the government have less tax revenue? Not necessarily... more people spending money for themselves means more goods and services are consumed, and therefore more are produced... which means more people are employed (and on the tax roles)... so the government takes less from each person, but from more people... more tax revenue. J Good theory, but according to OMB tax revenues are down each year since the tax cuts went into effect. And then there's increased government spending (1.1Million more people on government payroll) to make things worse.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #42 October 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteIt appears as if there are more terrorists in the world and we, the US, gave them a very good and legitimate reason to be really pissed at us. Oh no! The terrorists are pissed at us! Terrorists have been pissed at their intended targets since the beginning of time. Maybe they're a little more pissed right now because we're hunting them down. We should have a "Befriend a Terrorist Day." After all they are a misunderstood lot. Perhaps then, they won't be so pissed anymore. "Befriend a terrorist day" was the day we invaded Iraq and lost focus on the actual terrorists. All we've done is assist in Al Qaeda's recruiting program.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #43 October 4, 2004 You are making exactly the same mistake Bush does – you are so damn sure you understand the “Arab street” when you don’t. You seem to know what Iraqis and other Muslims are thinking, but what is actually is happening is clearly showing that the Bush administration does not understand how these people are thinking and how they react to the US actions and policies. Do you ever try to listen to non-American sources? Have you tried to listen to Journalists and observers from the Middle East and South Asia? If you did, you would find that they are making exactly some of the points I was making. But you and Bush want only to listen to what you want to hear. That is exactly the reason why the US got it wrong on pre-war intelligence (WMD’s) and post war strategy. They only did listen to Chalabi & Co. who were saying what they thought the Americans wanted to hear and what was helping their particular agenda. The cultural, political and religious issues are far more complex then you portrait. And yes the Palestinian problem is extremely difficult, but it is still the key, and involving Muslim countries – including those in South Asia – is likewise difficult. But this is exactly the reason why the invasion was a major mistake in the way it was done and triggered the mess we are finding now.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #44 October 4, 2004 QuoteYou are making exactly the same mistake Bush does – you are so damn sure you understand the “Arab street” when you don’t. Gee Mikkey.. you are the one making all the claims about "understanding the "Arab Streeet". QuoteYou seem to know what Iraqis and other Muslims are thinking, but what is actually is happening is clearly showing that the Bush administration does not understand how these people are thinking and how they react to the US actions and policies. What policies? You mean the one that bring them a democratically elected govt? I think it's you who only listens to the negative aspects of the war. QuoteDo you ever try to listen to non-American sources? Have you tried to listen to Journalists and observers from the Middle East and South Asia? If you did, you would find that they are making exactly some of the points I was making. I'm sure if I listened only to your sources and tuned out any source which said things were progressing well, I'd have the same view you do. QuoteBut you and Bush want only to listen to what you want to hear. Nice that you know Bush and I have the same sources. Why just the other day I was saying to Colin Powell..... QuoteThat is exactly the reason why the US got it wrong on pre-war intelligence (WMD’s) and post war strategy. They only did listen to Chalabi & Co. who were saying what they thought the Americans wanted to hear and what was helping their particular agenda. Then explain how Russia, Britian and almost every other Intel Agency also got it wrong. Oh, I know... it" all part of that big conspiracy you are always telling us about. QuoteThe cultural, political and religious issues are far more complex then you portrait. And yes the Palestinian problem is extremely difficult, but it is still the key, and involving Muslim countries – including those in South Asia – is likewise difficult. I disagree. I think it's just the latest excuse to hate. QuoteBut this is exactly the reason why the invasion was a major mistake in the way it was done and triggered the mess we are finding now. Why do you think it was a mistake? Because people died? People always die during a war. Tell us how President Mikkey would have done things different. Please be specific because right now you sound like John Kerry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #45 October 4, 2004 I'm WAY better off financially. Since GWB the $ has decreased 60% against the ZAR. I've bought a Stiletto, a Safire, a Mirage G4, an S3, a cypress and I'm on my way to the DZ.com boogie for half price jumps from 2500ft more altitude! Of course, the 37 000 dead Iraqi civilians are less impressed. tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vallerina 2 #46 October 4, 2004 Yes, I'm better off, but that's because I don't make enough money for my company to include me in their lay-offs. Nobody can do my work for cheaper.There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,452 #47 October 4, 2004 QuoteBut I'm scared. I don't quite like the "America" I live in. And to anyone who would ask "then why don't you leave", I'll respond by saying that's alot of what I don't like about it. The every man for himself/I'm making money/We're the greatest so fuck you/ mentality scares me more than terrorists. What she said. I think the internet and the silly season bring out the worst in some folks -- they get more dogmatic. At least I hope that's the case. I'm a little scared of the "protect my rights first, and only give in if you fight" attitude that I see sometimes. I make more than I did 4 years ago. I'm in a great relationship now; I wasn't then. But my last overseas trip was a lot more expensive than the ones 3 1/2 years ago due to devaluation of the dollar. I also came back to skydiving after the Bush presidency. But I don't think there's much of a relationship Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #48 October 4, 2004 QuoteNot necessarily... more people spending money for themselves means more goods and services are consumed, and therefore more are produced... which means more people are employed ... ...in foreign countries, thanks to ignoring China's artificial manipulation of their currency, ridiculous free trade agreements with nations that exploit their work force, and tax breaks for US companies that outsource to other nations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #49 October 4, 2004 I am not better off. I was unemployed a few times from downsizing. On top of that I now make A TON less than what I used to...for the same exact job. The economy is recovering? HA! I just spent the last 5 months looking for a new job and the majority of the positions wanted to offer me less than what I was making because they are hurting due to the economy. I had one job tell me I would have to bring in all my own office supplies (paper, pens, etc)._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #50 October 4, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe interest rates are manipulated by the Fed and have been lowered deliberately in an attempt to energize the economy. Short term rates, yes. Long term rates are not tied directly to acting by the FED... How exactly are the 900K jobs that you point to tied to a Bush action or policy? J See my post above. The Bush administration has introduced numerous policies that make it easier for US companies to use cheap foreign labor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
