Economist blasts Clinton, Obama

Stephen Moore says Democrats' policies would cause more harm

Advertisement

— It's hard to say whether economist Stephen Moore is actually afraid - or just thinks you should be.

After all, Moore said, Americans will make the right choice in the November presidential election. In his view, that choice is his friend John McCain, the Republican senator from Arizona.

The Democratic candidates, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, are the frightening ones.

Moore, who is on the Wall Street Journal's editorial board, spoke Monday morning at an event sponsored by the conservative Leadership Program of the Rockies at the Steamboat Yacht Club. The talk focused on the election and economic policies, and Moore had plenty to say about both.

"This is the most amazing election season that probably any of us have ever experienced," he told about 40 people who attended.

Moore said this might appear to be a year for the Democrats because of President Bush's low approval ratings and dissatisfaction about the Iraq war. But he said McCain has a solid chance.

"Whichever candidate is seen as the agent of change, in my opinion, that candidate is going to win," he said.

Moore criticized Clinton's and Obama's economic plans, saying they want to limit international trade, which would push up prices of goods. Increasing taxes also would harm the economy, he said.

"Ending the Bush tax cuts would be catastrophic," Moore said.

The two worst things for a troubled economy are inflation and high taxes, he said.

Moore rebutted claims that the wealthiest people don't shoulder enough of the tax burden. He showed a chart indicating that the top 1 percent of earners in the U.S. make 21 percent of the income and pay 39 percent of the income taxes. The bottom 50 percent of earners make 13 percent of the income and pay 3 percent of the income taxes.

Part of the problem with public perception of the economy is that the U.S. has grown accustomed to prosperity and takes it for granted, Moore said. After a couple of brutal decades for the stock market - the 1960s and '70s - the economy has soared, he said, citing President Reagan's economic policies as the starting point.

"We're in the greatest period of prosperity in the history of civilization," he said.

But the policies Democrats are pushing pose a danger to that prosperity, Moore said.

He said the Republican Party must be the party of limited government spending. Spending has increased under Bush, which Moore cited as "one of the reasons Republicans got their clocks cleaned" in the 2006 elections. McCain's task, Moore said, will be convincing voters that he'll change that.

"One thing we have going for us is it's still a conservative country," Moore said. "People want taxes low; they don't want runaway entitlement programs."

Jennifer Schubert-Akin, who helped organize the event, said she hopes participants think about what Moore said and whom they plan to vote for.

"There's a whole lot at stake in this election," she said.

Moore expressed similar sentiments.

"If we get these policies wrong : I do think we're in for a rough time," he said. "I think it's important in the next six months that we work our butts off to make sure (Clinton) doesn't get elected and Obama doesn't get elected."

Comments

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 6 months ago

Cigar in the box or a 10yr war...how do those really compare to each other? Bring on the 3rd Party Candidates! Any of them! Please!!!

0

Doug Marsh 6 years, 6 months ago

What a crock. George W. Bush and his father will go down in history as the worst presidents in the United States but you die hard Republicans would never admit it. Keep trying to push the Iraq war going on for another 10 years and you will lose for sure.

0

Pilatus 6 years, 6 months ago

Great then...lets elect one of the Jimmy Carter clones and triple the size of the gov't while we're at it. I for one can't wait to have health care like the Candians and Brits...we'll be taking medical vacations to Mexico I guess.

0

AmebaTost 6 years, 6 months ago

Chicago go home. At least he keeps his cigar in the box.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 6 months ago

That has to be the most hilarious post I've read in the last week. Guess what? We still weren't nuked under Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, et. al., no matter what "roofie conspiracy" you can bring up.

As for "...if one nuclear..." well, if we each had a wheel, we'd all be wheelbarrows.

0

id04sp 6 years, 6 months ago

Bill Clinton's administration is responsible for the 9/11 attacks and the massive investment which has been required to re-equip our military forces. Clinton balanced the budet by cutting money in the naive assumption that peace had broken out, and that terrorism was a "foreign" problem that would not hit the United States.

Say whatever you want. We now have a permanent ally and base of operations for continued Mideast peacekeeping in Iraq. It was the only country we could justify invading with a goal of changing the government in that region without angering the Saudis, Kuwaitis, etc., who saw Saddam Hussein as a threat to their own governments (and wealth). We'd have spent far more in the long run to "contain" Saddam than it will cost to finish the job at hand, and at least the guys who would have been trying to get into the United States to fight us HERE went to Iraq instead. If you think the war has been expensive, you need to consider what ONE nuclear device delivered from Iraq onto American forces in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qutar, or against ships at sea would have cost us.

Oh, but that would be okay, because it would only be those useless soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen who didn't have rich parents to set them up in Steamboat who would have been affected by it, right?

The people who complain about the Bush family are like a guy who would, while walking down the street with his girlfriend, duck and let a snowball hit HER in the face instead of trying to protect her. That's basically what Bill Clinton did to this country during his administration, and the snowball hit us on 9/11/2001. So, now, instead of having dinner at the Chart House and enjoying a glass of wine, the girlfriend is in the Emergency Room with a broken nose, and the boyfriend is blaming the whole thing on the guy who threw the snowball while conveniently avoiding the fact that he could have stopped it if he was not such a g######ed pu$$y.

0

justathought 6 years, 6 months ago

Social security, an outstanding, efficiently run government program. Medicare and Medicaid, outstanding, efficiently run government programs. Welfare an outstanding, efficiently run government program. Immigration, another outstanding, efficiently run government program, etc, etc, etc. I can hardly wait for the government to take control of my health care.

With his spiritual guide spewing racism and anti Americanism and his own failure to show respect for the flag he seeks to represent along with his views that government should be bigger and better, Obama scares the hell out of me. BEFORE you Obama supporters try to separate him from his pastor, NO ONE is as close as Obama claims to be to his pastor without knowing what he stands for and NO ONE spends twenty years listening to someone preach "the gospel" if he doesn't agree with those views. Obama keeps bringing the movie "The Omen" to mind.

0

id04sp 6 years, 6 months ago

Kielbasa,

So, you believe those SCUDS bought from North Korea would not have been able to carry a nuclear bomb of the sort the North Koreans set off in a test last year?

I usually respect your posts because you show reason and logic. However, I wonder . . . if I visited your house, would I find good batteries in the smoke detectors? Would I find smoke detectors? If so, why hasn't your house burned down yet? Why do you need smoke detectors if you don't expect the house to burn down?

We have proof that North Korea developed a working nuclear weapon. We have proof that Iraq bought weapons from North Korea. Anyone who thinks that Iraq could not have had its own nukes by now if we had not invaded is simply naive.

If you looked at the shipping records, you would find that scores of vessels sailed from Iraq to North Korea during the extra month it took to get invasion forces in place after Turkey refused to let us use their territory to go into northern Iraq. You and I could easily pick up a nuclear warhead and put it in the trunk of your car. How hard would it have been to ship the warheads back to N. Korea while the inspections were going on during the pre-invasion weeks? Not very hard.

Proof? Nope. Ain't got it. Somebody has, however, and they're not talking. Besides, they only speak Korean.

I'm glad you live in a little town hundreds of miles from anything important. Maybe you should try living on an aicraft carrier 30 miles from Iraq and Iran for a few weeks. How about an air base in Saudi Arabia? How about Tel-Aviv?

Check this link from AUSTRALIAN television:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2003/s895370.htm

Laugh all you want to. The point is, it didn't happen. The only way I could win the argument is by having thousands of deaths to prove it. I'm glad we're in a situation where you can believe I'm a fool instead of having to deal with the aftermath of a nuclear attack on our forces in the Mideast. My friends who were over there "containing" Saddam Hussein are glad too.

0

424now 6 years, 6 months ago

The potential for a devastating terrorist attack using nuclear technology on American interests somewhere on earth has a very high probability.

Given that the Iranian, Chineese and Korean governments have to date, not only the capacity to produce weapons grade plutonium but the propensity to use it. We are no doubt going to see another nuclear detonation in an act of agression. This time though it won't be to end a war, it will be to start a jihad.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 6 months ago

Your point IS my point: it didn't happen...on anyone's watch. And I change the batteries when they beep...not for every Time Change. I've changed them once in 7 years and saved countless pennies thanks to it. That's why smoke detectors beep when the battery is bad...to alert you.

As for living in Steamboat, miles away from combat- don't bother with that diatribe. I come from a military family and served in the Army myself. I was just one of many soldiers who didn't get called to war. In my case, I was a drunk and admittedly so, but I was prepared to serve my country if called to go over there. Send that dog to bark up another tree.

0

justathought 6 years, 6 months ago

I'm sorry kielbasa but I believe that many people smarter than you, with much more information than you heard the batteries beeping. You can be against the war all you want, that is your right, but without access to military information you're only speculating like the rest of us and I put more faith in the people with the information than those without.

0

id04sp 6 years, 6 months ago

Kielbasa,

Granted. And thank you for what you did. I only ask that you understand that I had friends who were being shot at flying over Iraq on a regular basis during the "containment." Saddam Hussein had tyranny and arrogance on his side, and he knew that the American people would never support an invasion, and that Clinton would never launch one WITHOUT a nuclear attack on us or our allies in the region.

The concept of MAD (mutually assured destruction) kept the United States and Soviet Union from using nukes on each other for 40 years. In actuality, the responsible leaders of both countries had NO DESIRE AT ALL to go to war. They were far more interested in preventing war, and the Soviets tried to do that by having a client state between them and our allies at every one of their borders. That's why the USSR invaded Afghanistan in the first place; to ensure the security of the Soviet Union.

Saddam was different. The threat of nukes and other WMDs was his blue chip in the big poker game. If we had not invaded, he would certainly have them by now, courtesy of North Korea.

We no longer fly airborne alert aircraft with live nukes on board. Submarines that used to carry ballistic missiles now carry cruise missile and Navy SEALs. The cost savings from NOT having to face a credible nuclear threat will be far greater than the costs spent on the war in Iraq in the long run.

A single nuke on a Saudi oil terminal would shut this country down. Gas would be $7 or $8 a gallon instead of $4, if you could get it.

And by the way . . . when those smoke detector batteries start beeping, try testing one of them with a flame. Sometimes they just give a little "brp" and quit because of the extra power required to sustain the alarm. Glad you saved $1.29, however. After all, nothing happened, did it? That obviously means that nothing bad is ever going to happen, so why worry. The whole smoke detector thing is just a marketing ploy for the people who make nine-volt batteries.

0

justice4all 6 years, 6 months ago

I am not going to enter this controversial issue but I am asking our readers to shed some light on one subject. What is obama's middle name? Is he a Muslim? I have searched and found no straight answers to these questions and would appreciate any help our readers can offer. Obama has diverted anyone that questioned these issues and skirted the questions. Not trying to start rumors, just attempting to get some answers. Thanks

0

id04sp 6 years, 6 months ago

He's not a muslim. He professes to be a Christian. A practicing muslim would be committing as big a sin for claiming to be a Christian as a Christian would for denouncing Christ and becoming a muslim.

I think Obama is an opportunist who will ride whatever wave is available to success. People of color think he will be their champion. That's mostly what he has going for him; the African American vote. The other people who think Obama can offer any real "change" other than ordering the military out of Iraq are fooling themselves. It's like "the power of Rock'n'Roll!" Nice idea, but nothing really comes from it except noise.

0

dogd 6 years, 6 months ago

Id: You still back the idiot w. There is only one thing he most surely is: the answer to every radical Iranian's prayers. Your spin is ridiculous- he has pumped up the terrorists numbers, and screwed up what should have been a focused and OVERWITH major military operation in Afghanistan.

His Saddam adventure was not a thought-out operation worthy of the cost- his neo-con childish short -term glee with "shock and awe" was his whole program,( yeah, we all mostly enjoyed it too) and he's been drawing the rest up in the sand ever since.

Your nuke spin is getting a little more absurd every time you re-cast it. Saddam misinformed that he had wmds and nukes because he felt that it was a deterrent to the Iranians.

Fools who think that the damage to this country done by Clinton's cigar is anywhere near the catastophic damage to our faith, credit and reputation done by the little w.... early onset alzheimers is the only possible explanation for you. What Clinton did with a couple bimbos--the idiot w has done to our whole nation.

0

weallnutz 6 years, 6 months ago

The answer to the terrorists prayers, including the Iranians is to be ignored and left alone until they choose, at which time they celebrate in the streets while Americans die in the streets. It wasn't what Clinton did to the bimbos, its what he failed to do in response to the 9 terrorists attacks on America that occured while he was doing it to the bimbos, and that the fact that those attacks were ignored led to 9/11. Try to ignore the people who want to destroy us, it worked well the first time.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 6 months ago

Well, then: by all accounts, it's then goes all the way back to Reagan and H.W. Bush. Reagan helped arm Saddam, H.W. didn't go far enough in Iraq the first time, Clinton failed to respond to the 9 terrorist attacks, and in the meantime, Saddam was masterminding the whole thing to help Bin Laden. There we go! That was easy. Just like playing "7 Degrees of Kevin Bacon."

We didn't ignore the people who want to destroy us...we actually helped plan it over the last 28 years. Why blame one Pres when there's a whole slew of them on both sides of the animal kingdom?

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 6 months ago

GR- would that have been because had we gone in back then, we'd still be there 4 Pres terms later and still having Al Qaeda on the run? (Been hearing that at least once a year. You'd think they'd have died from exhaustion for running so much by now.)

Yes, all there were what- 4 military Generals who also disputed how things were handled in Iraq this time around? You know- military men who've been there as opposed to men who don't have military experience sending them over there? They worked under and asked for Rumsfeld's resignation. They finally got it. Were these the people who advised Bush to go into Iraq while still not finished in Afghanistan or was it someone like Rumsfeld?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/266638_solarosub16.html

For justathought- yes: people smarter than me have also said Iraq has been mishandled, and these are military generals mentioned above. Thanks for pointing that out.

I've also never said I thought the war was wrong...just mishandled and not timed properly. Afghanistan should have been the main war and only once we'd taken Bin Laden (dead'r alive, as W said) then we could have concentrated on Iraq.

After WWII, it has always been the military's goal to be able to fight on 2 fronts, but that was back when there was a draft, originally. Now, the incentive to enlist isn't that great.

0

grannyrett 6 years, 6 months ago

kiel-Bush 41 wanted to go into Iraq during the first go around. Collin Powell held him back. Desert Storm was a NATO action. The mandate was to get Sadam's troops out of Kuwaitt and that was all. When Bush wanted to go after them into Iraq, Powell told him they could not do it.

0

brownskull 6 years, 6 months ago

How is Hillary "Monster" Clinton still in the running? She only cares about herself and how much power she can gain by mud slinging, and scare tactics. Yeah she will answer the call @ 3am then cry about it for a couple of hours. I am all for a woman as president but lets find a real women for the job, not a man dressed as a woman. If she can't keep her husband or the state of NY happy how is she going to satisfy our country. The Democrats have the best chance of winning presidency this time around, but put her up against McCain and it is all over. Maybe the Democrats will make a good choice, but probably not. I can't even listen to that beast talk, she makes me sick. The only thing she has experience with is being corrupt and cold. Go Obama.

0

dogd 6 years, 6 months ago

Wealnutz: 911 happened on little w's watch. Warnings were ignored-in 2001 there was a low priority w-focus on anything but assisting the best earners in the country to earn even more money. w is the worst US president since Harding. Lies and spin got him in, and apparently the liars and spinners are still at it. The terrorists NEED events like the invasion of Iraq to recruit and grow, Iran NEEDED the Iraq war to tie us down..or they wouldn't be in the position of relative strength that they have now. Spin that pal. Truth matters.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 6 months ago

My 2nd link above your post is THE Senate Report. Ta-daaaa!

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 6 months ago

Finish your sentences before you get dessert:

A) Widely reported as a partisan assessment... by Republicans in a partisan statement.

B) Strongly contested by Republicans (see pg. 145-148)... gee- since it disputes the intel the CIA "stretched" as closely as it could to please W.

But fine- Unpatriotic idiots such as yourself would much rather stroke their own egos (among other things) and invade than admit they screwed up paying attention to bad intel and taking it at face value, then standing behind said bad intel when it comes to light, well, it wouldn't be the last time.

Again- most be lonely out in left field for you, since you keep pulling stuff from there...that, and pulling it from your southward regions.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 6 months ago

Bwahahahahahaha! Fool enough to believe info that even Bush said the Pre War Intel was bad! Good one! And we used to call Omar One Man Against Reality! You've now crazier than Gary Busey on the Red Carpet.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 6 months ago

From the CNN 2003 link:

"The United States, using another international intelligence service as an intermediary, twice gave the Iraqi government information it could have used to apprehend Zarqawi and break the Baghdad cell, but "Zarqawi still remains at large to come and go," Powell said. "From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond."

Mohamed Aldouri, Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations before the war, denied Powell's charges, saying Iraqi officials never met with Zarqawi.

Administration officials say they do not know yet whether the newly captured individual -- as yet not named by U.S. officials -- had any connections with the government of Iraq."

Right at the bottom of the page. Would that intermediary foreign intelligence be the same one that was giving us bad intel on WMD, showing we haven't found anything that was expected except old crap that WAS expected? Puts that in perspective, eh?

0

id04sp 6 years, 6 months ago

Dog and Hunter,

You guys are right. You win. Congrats. Whew, glad that's over.

The only thing we did wrong in Iraq was to show mercy on the civilian population. They have aided and concealed the insurgents, and it's because they are a bunch of cowards with no initiative or desire to be free people.

Take a look back at the mass surrender of the rank-and-file Iraqi forces, and that's who's got our back now against the insurgents.

The plan was that the Iraqi men would not be a bunch of duty-shirking pu$$ies. Our bad. We should have known.

0

armchairqb 6 years, 6 months ago

Here's my new plan. Let's get sbovr ido4sp 424now keilbasa and hunterdog and put them at the head of the Steamboat City Council and when they are done sorting out all the misleading info regarding affordable housing the gas tax issue the school board crap big box baloney etc. etc. they can move to Washington and wade through hundreds of thousands of pages , internet links, and other intel and try and make a decision that won't be argued to death years into the future... I say nuke'em all and let allah sort them out.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 6 months ago

3 of us (at the very least) are not in City limits. But, come see The Ski Town Productions show Apr 3-5 and I'll be playing a council member.

0

424now 6 years, 6 months ago

Thank you sbvor.

Careful what you wish for QB, you never know, we may get bored or simply frustrated and do something just like that.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 6 months ago

Bore is still citing "journalists" when everyone else is reading the actual Senate Report...which of course was written by "journalists" and not the Senate Intelligence Committee, in Bore's mind, or what's leftist of it.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

Now, having not convinced people that this document is "journalistic bias" we now watch the right hand with the birdie while the left hand pulls out the "recession" discussion. Nice magic trick. Did the bunny die in the top hat along the way?

Whatta maroooooon.

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 6 months ago

This Stephen Moore is a complete dolt. He isn't an economist hes a spin doctor for the conservative Wall Street Journal rag whose sole purpose in its attempt at journalism is to prop up Corporatocracy. He no more thinks John Mc Cain has a chance to win than Bush will find his weapons of mass destruction. Nothing is more dangerous than when you start to believe your own propaganda. Any one who has taken economics 101 knows you cant "grow" an economy on deficit spending. One thing Regan, Bush and Jr. all did was whip out the credit card and throw a huge party for all of their rich oil and defense contractors and then propose tax cuts...especially for their rich corporations and friends. Guess what:the credit card bill will come due and the party will be over soon. On top of that they purpose to cut the only source (taxes) available to actually pay back some of this debt. They think if they get everyone involved in the party then everyone is to blame when D-day comes. The real kicker is the statistics this clown speaks of in terms of who pays the most in income taxes. Speaking in dollar for dollar terms he is correct. But what he fails to tell is that in reality what the top 1% of income earners pay in taxes is chump change to them. It means the difference between being able to buy the 10,000 sf third home in Aspen as opposed to the 20,000 sf third home in Aspen. Whereas the difference in the bottom end of the tax contributors is whether they can afford to buy more groceries or not. Quit buying into this voodoo economics crap people. Ask yourself this "Are we as a country more secure and better off both financially than we were before Bush?" and "Am I personally more secure and better off financially?" If you work for Exxon, Bechtel, Haliburton, Carlisle Group, Blackwater, Lockheed Martin your vote doesn't count. Remember this?:"We have nothing to fear but fear itself"

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 6 months ago

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its' dissidents... not the freedom it gives its' assimilated conformists."- Abby Hoffman

"The President is not a fact checker" -Scott McClelland press secretary for president Bush

"I am the decider..."-President Bush. (This would have been more effective if he had finishd the sentence with "coo- coo- ka- choo")

Check out the book "Hubris" by Corn and Isikoff if you want the truth about the Iraq debacle

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 6 months ago

Justathought said: "Social security, an outstanding, efficiently run government program. Medicare and Medicaid, outstanding, efficiently run government programs. Welfare an outstanding, efficiently run government program. Immigration, another outstanding, efficiently run government program, etc, etc, etc. I can hardly wait for the government to take control of my health care."

Perhaps we should put all of these programs under the auspices of the Petagon...that should make neo-cons like yourself happy since that is such an efficiently run government program. Besides theres more budgeted for that beast than all other "welfare" programs combine....and that doesnt even include the "War-Budget" which isnt even included in the budget...its an "emergency expediture"....5 years later. Dont kid yourself my friend the Defense budget is nothing more than corprate welfare at the expense of you saps who get teary eyed everytime Bush wraps himself in the flag and coughs up another lie and tells you we need to kick A@@ because the boogy man is coming.

Ido4sp- I cant even comment on your issues....you are the poster child of whats wrong with this country today

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 6 months ago

SBVOR-

You are dumber than I thought. YOu might what to re-draw the graph and include the 500 BILLION dollars it has taken to fight this "War" or does that not belong in the budget....

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 6 months ago

SBVOR- None of that "information" has any meaning. They are simply graphs without any quantification. Youve been taking lessons from the Bush administration on how to bull**** your way through an argument. The Laffer curve is dubious at best because no one really knows what optimum actually is because its a moving target. The Laffer curve does not work when you have deficit spending. Read some Galbraith and Veblen and then maybe we can talk. Keynsian economics only works when you dont have crooks running corporations and the country. Which we have plenty of right now.

0

armchairqb 6 years, 6 months ago

I don't think Keynsian economics works at all. From what I recall from College Economics was supply and demand Large supply and low demand equals low prices. Today if you have large supply and large demand the price is based on consumers willingness to pay. Just look at the lines during the holidays. People are willing to camp out for days to get the next XBox or what ever. They aren't concerned with price. They will pay anything to satisfy little Johnny. E Bay sold one for 10 grand. That has nothing to do with supply. Look right here in your backyard. Marabou was originally offered at 700K and they were selling so fast they toook it off the market and brought it back for 1.2 million. Still selling pay what the market will bear despite supply.Don't undercut yourself, just keep raising prices until you stop selling.

0

stmbtprof 6 years, 6 months ago

EXCUSE ME...BUT WE ARE IN WORST SHAPE AS A NATION ECONOMINCALLY FOR ALMOST ALL BUT THE VERY RICH, EVERY CHILD IS LEFT BEHIND UNDER BUSH...MANY POOR AREAS ARE TEACHING WITHOUT BOOKS PAER OR PENS,WE ARE IN A WAR THAT IS COSTING TRILLION OF DOLLARS AND IF JUST 10% WERE USED FOR EDUCATION EVERY CHILD COULD HAVE A LAPTOP...AND HOW MANY INNOCENT LIVES HAVE BEEN LOST DUE TO US TRYING TO PLAY DICTATOR OF THE WORLD...(WE should be in Afghanistan to help people from Taliban butno...they are oil buddies with the Bush Dynasty...) I am appalled that anyone could equate a cigar with the lives lost and ruined by people of various countries... Read 3 cups of TEA for a true insight to middle east by greg Mortenson...and have some compassion..

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 6 months ago

You are seriously mistaken my friend. Show me where in the Laffer curve deficit spending (ie borrowing) fits into the curve. You are naÃive enough to believe that if you take out your credit card today and spend (debt) without any max cap and all the while you do it you cant even make the minimum monthly payments (deficit spending) you can balance your budget? Sure you can get away with it for awhile but sooner or later you are going to have to become fiscally responsible (ie quit spending it on outlays that do not provide any benefits). What economic benefit do we reap from funding a war or an enormous wasteful defense program? You claim that entitlement programs are what is killing the economy. That is entirely false. In reality when considering all related costs to maintaining a military machine it comprises about 54% of the budget. As an expample, if you look at the actual budgetary numbers of the CBO they categorize items such as veteran benefits in entitlement programs. This is part of being in the business war mongering. While you refer to Social Security as an entitlement program you are seriously mistaken. SS is not funded through income tax that goes to the general fund:it's a trust fund it doesn't belong in the budget. What you put in is what you get out. I can draw any number of graphs and charts to make my argument look good by simply categorizing line items in the budget how I see fit. The fact is the CBO does not break out defense costs of other budgetary items because it is not in their best interest to reveal how much of the Fed budget is spend on "defense related items". The other point of your argument really eludes me...you are not willing to support government welfare programs that have a direct economic benefit to US citizens but will support a "War" that has no direct or indirect benefit to US citizens? Please tell me what these benefits are.

0

id04sp 6 years, 6 months ago

sbvor,

Yes. Recruiting for the Anbar Awakening was virtually zero through 2006. It took four years for the Iraqis to mount any internal resistance that was not dependent on U. S. support, and when they did, it was driven by "sectarian" violence.

Courage, conviction and duty don't apply over there in that part of the world. The only thing that gets a rise out of them is a personal insult (like laughing in their face, or making them the butt of a joke). Blowing up one's mosque would be taken as a "personal insult."

Another motivator is when they must act to avoid bringing shame or hardship upon their families, thereby exposing their fathers to ridicule, as if they were the butt of a joke.

I had Iranian friends in college and trained alongside Iranian and Kuwaiti cadets in flight training in Pensacola. I know whereof I speak. These men were the "elite" of their society. To be kind, they were mostly "clowns." Only rarely did a student from one of their groups excell in any phase of training.

It was most definitely a mistake to go into Iraq thinking that the Iraqis would rise to the occasion when they were offered freedom. They don't think like us and our cultures are vastly different.

Our tippy-toe act in the Mideast has been to try to protect the oil supply by stabilizing threats to OUR interests while not overly angering the oil producing countries we buy from. Call them "allies" if you like, but they only like us because we make them rich. The al-Saud family has pacified the Muslim population with a nationwide "baksheesh" that keeps them comfy and well fed. A few fundamentalists sometimes rise up (remember that the majority of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis), but are quickly suppressed.

We went into Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a threat to the Saudi oil interests (which he proved by invading Kuwait before the first Gulf War). That's why the Saudis kept selling us oil after we invaded.

All this because we can't drill for oil off the coast of California and spoil Barbara Streisand's view . . .

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 6 months ago

sbvor - What part of pumping borrowed money into the economy and calling an increase in the GDP don't you get? Its not revenue generated by healthy economic growth its propped up by heavily leveraged borrowing practices and consumer debt spending. ITS MONEY WE DON'T OWN get it? Yeah sure lots of products were produced but it was produced and purchased through debt: everybody owes somebody else in order to make that happen. The melt down in the sub-prime lending market is a microcosm of this same effect. If China decides to stop funding our debt then what happens?

0

Pilatus 6 years, 6 months ago

Quit...how right you are! If China stops funding our debt, their citizens will be able to enjoy a much better lifestyle and have access to the goods we're borrowing to buy. We on the other hand will have to start living within our means, go through some serious pain and currency devaluation. To the point where we'll be forced to start saving, producing some real goods and have other economies offer us the jobs they no longer want to do, or we can do better and cheaper.

0

shortbus 6 years, 6 months ago

sbore; still want to argue that we are NOT in a recession http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/20/news/economy/recession_forecast/index.htm?cnn=yes. Wait, yes you do. You want to defend your views until March 31st when the quarter is officially over.

It is exactly the "we are not in a recession yet" attitude of you and others like you that drove us into it.

When the cost of my commute has nearly tripled since the war began it is going to trickle to the rest of the economy. Anyone who did not see this coming is simply wearing blinders.

A month or so you accused me of a "sky is falling" attitude. Take your blinders off man and admit that the emperor has no clothes.

0

id04sp 6 years, 6 months ago

We're in a recession because of environmental activism against drilling and refining oil. If we could drill and refine here, more dollars would stay at home. Is that so hard to understand?

THANKS GUYS. I'll hug a tree for you since I can't afford to drive anywhere.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 6 months ago

id- That's crap & you know it. If it were true, we'd have been in a recession for the last 2 decades.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 6 months ago

And someone walks right into the clear, glass door:

Id said: "We're in a recession because of environmental activism against drilling and refining oil. If we could drill and refine here, more dollars would stay at home. Is that so hard to understand?"

I said: "id- That's crap & you know it. If it were true, we'd have been in a recession for the last 2 decades."

So, in trying to get my goat (probably to do something illicit to it) the Bore now admits, in a roundabout way, that we ARE in a recession. Thank you for playing! theme to "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader" starts up

Maybe my goat will teach you how to play my favorite game, Twister, properly. Obviously, anything that involves more thinking just boggles what's left of your mind.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 6 months ago

LMAO! You really are that stupid, aren't you? ID say we were in a recession...present tense...due to BS. You took his side...by providing idiotic links to prove the case. Ergo...you admitted a recession is where we are.

Don't bother with the "adult manner" crap. You're riding the unicycle again- pedalling backwards. You really should give it up; you'll give yourself a cardio-vasectomy!

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 6 months ago

sbvor, You are a good little soldier I will give you that. You, Ollie North and Scooter Libby should have a great discussion some day. OPEC like any business venture sets crude oil price based on demand, how much they can reasonably produce with out putting themselves out of business and more importantly, what the market will bear.. The demand for fossil fuels has sky rocketed over the last decade mostly due to our own stupidity and huge demands from China and other developing countries and this has pushed prices higher much to the elation of the oil industry. However, to think that OPEC is controlled by 'those damn Arabs who are always trying to screw' us is naive at best. It's controlled by none other than the consortium of major oil companies. That's why we have anti-trust laws in the US (but that's a whole other topic). So your proposal to unleash the oil industry into every possible corner of the Earth to somehow draw down prices is asinine. Now I understand why you like Friedman so much. Friedman's principals in economics (like Marx) only work if businesses act in an ethical manner:not greed. I've got a news flash for you Exxon, Shell and Conoco don't give a rats butt whether you live or die as long as they post quarterly profits to the tune of 10-15 Billion dollars and they use a gas guzzling hearse to haul your carcass off with. Perhaps you can explain how the major "American" oil companies post record profits if the price of crude and ultimately the price at the pump is controlled by an OPEC that is not controlled by the major oil companies

0

justathought 6 years, 6 months ago

keilbasa, give it a rest, please. I actually agree with some of what sbvor says but like many others, I skip over most of the long winded, link filled posts. You used to have some very sound opinions (whether I agree with them or not), but lately all you want to do is "play" with sbvor and a lot of this is getting awfully childish. I'm really not trying to tell you what to do but the two of you are beginning to sound like the kiel/sbvor children's hour, have a little mercy on the rest of us.

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 6 months ago

sbvor said- "The FACT is that if Exxon-Mobil and the other "big oil" producers whom you hate so much were allowed to tap the tremendous potentials in ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf, they would (through increased crude market share) profit MORE, OPEC would profit LESS and energy costs would DECLINE! -

"The fact is?" so now you sit on the Exxon board? I assume they call you at home and ask what to do? If the Oil companies had access to all of the oil in the world they would produce at a rate that would maximize profits... producing beyond that and bringing prices down is not a profitable result....remember your illustrious Laffer curve..its the same principal and is actually more applicable in micro-economics!

Quoting Exxon-Mobil's "About" page: "We explore for, produce and sell crude oil, natural gas and petroleum products." -Geeze thanks for sharing that with me I feel so much better that they have restored my confidence that they aren't part of OPEC and screwing me every time I fill up at the pump. Why didn't I think of checking their web page for some "facts"

"The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is a permanent intergovernmental organization, created at the Baghdad Conference on September 1014, 1960, by Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. The five Founding Members were later joined by nine other Members: Qatar (1961); Indonesia (1962); Socialist Peoples Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (1962); United Arab Emirates (1967); Algeria (1969); Nigeria (1971); Ecuador (1973) -- suspended its membership from December 1992-October 2007; Angola (2007); and Gabon (19751994)."

  • Yeah and not a single one of these countries has ever had any kind of either overt or covert US government operations (ie military actions) ever occur on its soil because the major Oil companies are welcomed there with open arms. In FACT everyone of the charter member countries was controlled by the US through a puppet regime at the time. Chavez has finally stood up to the schmucks and will probably end up dead like all of those before him.
0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 6 months ago

Suggested reading: "The Economic Hit Man"- Perkins

Turn off Faux news and the psycho babble of Coulter and Rush (yes I read his book and it reaffirms my position he is nothing more than an over paid actor who has no meaningful value to any political dialogue... he is like the National Enquirer editor on steroids ...or is it amphetamines) and find out the real FACTS from people whose true life experiences in American Imperialism have led us to this perilous time.

0

playa46 6 years, 6 months ago

Sbvor,

You make a strong argument. However, now we are not in the worst shape ever. Here in America (although very stupid) we are a rich country. And even though we are losing all of that to the Iraq war, this doesn't mean we are in the worst shape ever. Just look at Africa, I have seen you do some research and post links on your comments. But tell me, research the healthcare and infant mortality rate and other things like that and compare them to ours. Quit hiding behind your links, they only show how weak you are. Once you find more evidence that America is slowly declining, which I know it is, then come talk to me. Please, enlighten me.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 6 months ago

Hunterdog- just to understand, I am a Republican...just not a very proud one these last few years. I'll be switching to Indie and voting for a (read: any) 3rd party moderate candidate this year.

The Far Right and the Far Left are pretty disgusting to me. Extremism on either side is bad for the country. The "My way or the highway" line of thinking just leads to stagnation of the mind. You have to know when to say the other side has some good points and find a way to incorporate them with the the same thing the other side may see in your side. This is why I will always be around to dog the Bore- just to show there is another way of thinking.

0

playa46 6 years, 6 months ago

kiel,

You are right on target. People in this country are focusing too much on which party is better. If America is suppossed to be unified like Abe Lincoln worked hard to do, why do we seperate and try to beat the other team? It seemes that when America comes down to it, people only want to fight so that either the reps or dems will be better, you even see it in the presidential elections.

0

JLM 6 years, 6 months ago

Ya'll just shush up. President McCain will take care of all of this. Stop fussing and play nice! You have to admit sbvor is usually right.

0

Matthew Stoddard 6 years, 6 months ago

Nope! Sbvor isn't usually right...just that repetition keeps everyone thinking so, because it drowns out others. Plenty of links have disputed his crap, but 18 cut & paste jobs on the same thread x 200 thread for 3 subjects...well, Jazz is the math whiz.

0

QuitYerWhining 6 years, 5 months ago

Here is one for specially for you SBVOR...if Chomsky is too sobering...here's a version I think you can even understand http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy4Tg_uR_Bg&feature=related

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.