<p>Yeah, and Isreal is sooooo much better, what with the brutal revenge killings and oppression of the Palestinians.</p>
<p>I've yet to meet a Muslim (and I've met quite a few) who will even call people like bin Laden or Hamas leaders "Muslim."</p>
<p>Note: I am not choosing sides, I'm just disheartened that the media has. There are two sides of this story.</p>
<p>no i'm not saying Israel is sooo much better....however i'd be a LOT more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause--in fact i'd be on their side-- if they didn't have HAMAS being the lead representative group.</p>
<p>Yes i have yet to meet a Muslim who wants to go out and blow up buildings like osama wants for them to. However, i have yet to meet a Muslim who won't fnid some way to somewhat blame America (even just a little) for what happened. Not excusing the terrorist actions, but not 100% FULLY, vocally, actively, condemning them either.</p>
<p>You still haven't responded to the totally irresponsible spending policies of the administration you support.</p>
<p>to all Muslims: it's your religion to save, becuase yes it is going through a major self identity crisis...all over the world. It's not the first religion to have this test. the dark side of Christianity has definitely been dominant in hsitory too. </p>
<p>the whole conflict between progress/adapting to modern times vs. tradition/being true to the faith as it was "meant" to be practiced---occurs in nearly every religion. </p>
<p>what about spending policies?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Though, this administration is going to ruin America because of insane deficit spending. Ask any economist, it's true. Greg Mankiw (who is a huge Republican and Bush supporter) almost lost his job for stating this. Greenspan (also a huge Republican) says that the US can sustain the current rate for only about four more years without economic catastrophe (not the Great Depression, but in the ballpark).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That spending.</p>
<p>yeah i'll be very honest with you. i don't know how to respond to that, becuase i don't know a lot about fischal policy (i just know that tax cuts are a very good thing) etc... i've heard people criticize bush's spending policies a lot, and at the same time, i hear the economy is on the right track because of him. </p>
<p>my dad is a portfolio manager/stock analyst, and he understands the economy much more than i do and i really don't LoL. </p>
<p>so yeah i'm sorry i'm not the best person to ask, and i won't question that argument because i don't know enough.</p>
<p>In summary, in recent years the U.S. economy has demonstrated considerable resilience to adversity. It has overcome significant shocks that, in the past, could have hobbled growth for a much longer period than they have in the current cycle. As I have noted previously, the U.S. economy has become far more flexible over the past two decades, and associated improvements have played a key role in lessening the effects of the recent adverse developments on our economy. Looking forward, the odds of sustained robust growth are good, although, as always, risks remain. The Congress can help foster sustainable expansion by taking steps to reduce federal budget deficits and thus contribute to national saving and by continuing to pursue opportunities to open markets and promote trade. For our part, the Federal Reserve intends to use its monetary tools to promote our goals of economic growth and maximum employment of our resources in an environment of effective price stability.~ Greenspan</p>
<p>okay so yeah deficits aren't exactly something to celebrate, but he isn't exactly sounding as if we're heading into the Great Depression.</p>
<p>
[quote]
. i don't know how to respond to that, becuase i don't know a lot about fischal policy
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, you are with most of America on that one. I think if people knew exactly how much damage they are doing to the economy with record defecit, especially spending in a recession, they would have to think long and hard before further supporting Bush.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Congress can help foster sustainable expansion by taking steps to reduce federal budget deficits and thus contribute to national saving and by continuing to pursue opportunities to open markets and promote trade.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Do you actually think that will happen? The Congress is overwhelmingly Republican, and they are all very good at toeing the party line (supporting W 100%). The few deficit-hawks that are, are ostracized and ignored (by both major parties, unfortunately), making it impossible for them to get their own agendas accomplished. So they just keep their mouths shut, pretending there isn't a problem, until we get stuck with a bill large enough to kill social security.</p>
<p>if we have deficits because of the fact that we're spending so much on defense....then i believe it is necessary for the time being. </p>
<p>yup. and i know many people disagree.</p>
<p>Well, by spending so much on defense and going so far into the hole, we are seriously crippling ourselves defense-wise in the long run.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Unfortunately, you are with most of America on that one. I think if people knew exactly how much damage they are doing to the economy with record defecit, especially spending in a recession, they would have to think long and hard before further supporting Bush.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>** Key Facts **</p>
<p>Our economy was devastated when 9/11 had struck.</p>
<p>Our economy's condition was exacerbated when the Iraqi war had begun. The cost of the war was immense and was a thorn that was becoming bigger.</p>
<p>You do not cut taxes then wage war. That is a double-whammy economically.</p>
<p>As much as I support President Bush, there are grave fiscal errors that have been conducted here. However, the administration is taking steps to admit its wrongdoings from Part One, as we saw with the end to the WMD search and an admittance that there was faulty intelligence (it wasn't a direct admission, but hey, it's something). </p>
<p>Fortunately, the President is still in office, and has the political ability to do what he needs to. He no longer has to worry about re-election, nor does Vice President Cheney have to consider running FOR election (heart condition probably won't allow him to). Who will run for the Republican candidacy in '08? I highly doubt it will be a member of the President's cabinet. That means the President can now focus on issues.</p>
<p>It was once said in an episode of the West Wing that a President only works on the issues during the first term of his presidency for 18 months, and then the rest is campaigning. The second term -- much more gets accomplished.</p>
<p>
[quote]
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Do you actually think that will happen? The Congress is overwhelmingly Republican, and they are all very good at toeing the party line (supporting W 100%). The few deficit-hawks that are, are ostracized and ignored (by both major parties, unfortunately), making it impossible for them to get their own agendas accomplished. So they just keep their mouths shut, pretending there isn't a problem, until we get stuck with a bill large enough to kill social security.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What skewed version of Congress are you looking at? It is obvious that there are several Republicans, although a minority, that are adamantly vocal against the Republican leadership. It is also obvious that there are Democrats who go over to the Republican faction, simply because that is what they believe.</p>
<p>Despite what you may think, the Democrats still have a great deal of leveraging power in both houses of Congress. Even though they are the minority, they can still kill many large initiatives. It is proof that cooperation and bipartisanship is required in order for any major initiative to succeed within the halls of our nation's legislature.</p>
<p>i want to be alive. LoL simple as that. </p>
<p>i want the US to take every action necessary to win this war..and i know it's gonna be a long and expensive war, and it's going to have many fronts. but if that's waht is necessary, then it sucks...but that's what we have to do. </p>
<p>European countries stopped spending money on defense and they couldn't even stop the Kosovo crisis in the 90s without the USA stepping in. THey can't fight their own wars anymore.</p>
<p>they spend more money on...welfare, and global warming prevention stuff?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Despite what you may think, the Democrats still have a great deal of leveraging power in both houses of Congress.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I'm the one looking at a skewed version of Congress? LOL!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, by spending so much on defense and going so far into the hole, we are seriously crippling ourselves defense-wise in the long run.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By spending so much on defense? Sir, our nation's defense has been the priority of our budget for a while now. President Clinton did many reductions of our armed forces, to be more sleek, versatile, and impactful upon assault. </p>
<p>The problem is, we are forced to fight a conventional war against unconventional tactics. We are in Iraq, whether you agreed with it in the first place or not, and we must find a way out, without collapsing the entire system of government and infrastructure that we worked very hard to establish there (or in the case of the Iraqi Provisional Government, assist in the establishment of).</p>
<p>What you are dealing with are not only terrorists on the Iraqi front, but those who are power hungry. Do you honestly think al-Zarqawi gives a flying pig about what happens to the Iraqi people? No. He wants to be seen as the Savior of Iraq, so he may establish his own legacy. In a very vicious method. Fortunately for us, not many people see him that way. </p>
<p>We cannot afford to fight a conventional war against Iraq. You complain about our nation's defenses being strained and our funds being drained, but I see no substitution that you offer. Shall we withdraw and be responsible for possibly one of the worst humanitarian crises known to man? If we withdraw, I guarantee you, Darfur may only look like a blip on the radar.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And I'm the one looking at a skewed version of Congress? LOL!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The current breakdown of the United States senate is 55:44:1 (the 1 being Sen. Jim Jeffords from Vermont). I'd hardly call that a staggering majority. Out of these 55 Republicans, 19 were just elected or re-elected.</p>
<p>Wow. The Democrats must be really moving their tail, to lose a majority they held but a few years ago and to widen this gap. </p>
<p>The breakdown percentagewise of the House of Representatives is 53:46:<1. Wow, another whopping victory.</p>
<p>Are you meaning to tell me that out of all the Representatives and all the Senators, EVERYONE votes according to party lines EVERY time?</p>
<p>If the economy is soooo bad then why did the Federal Reserve raise interest rates 4/5 times recently. There must have been signs of inflation or economic growth for them to do so. Secondly, an attack of such enormity as Sept 11, would exacerbate ANY ECONOMY. Even if Gore were in power, our economy would still be hurt, simply because the financial center was struck! This has nothing to do with Bush. If Clinton wasn't too busy diddlying around with his interns and checked at what was going on in the Middle East, then he might have been able to prevent attacks such as this. Sept 11 was not planned in one month, it took years to plan. Also with deficit spending, hmmm was Roosevelt doing something bad when he enacted his New Deal proposal...I mean we HAD JUST COME OUT OF THE DEPRESSION, and he was using BUDGET spending to revive the economy (o btw he was a DEMOCRAT)...it didn't seem to do any bad. In fact due to Roosevelt, we experienced a large boom in the economy, in the years following his presidency. </p>
<p>Also you criticize the United States for taking no action in Darfur...HMM what about THE UNITED NATIONS...where are they when thousands of people are raped, mutilated , killed and left without food or shelter. Of course this is yet another thing America caused...right cause we CAUSE every problem in the world. You know it seems that people in America often forget what a great country we live in. I am so happy to live here and so are my parents who had to grow up in the tyrannical, debauched Soviet Union where the government would murder people and send them to labor camps because they didn't support the communist party, or because they were intellectuals. RIGHT POWER TO THE PEOPLE. It was wonderful how in Russia a doctor would make as much as a person with no education...ahh the wonders of communism (what a utopia). After living in such an oppressive gov't my family is grateful for the liberties we are given in America. In fact, many people would die to live here...yet more and more Americans seem to hate our country and keep on saying "oooo I can't deal with this country, I am moving to Canada." SO GOOOO!!! No one is stopping anyone from leaving. Rather than bash our country continually and moan and groan incessently we should perhaps be fortunate for not having to grow up in North Korea, Sudan, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, by spending so much on defense and going so far into the hole, we are seriously crippling ourselves defense-wise in the long run.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Compared to the past 50 years (Clinton years notwithstanding) defense spending is actually relatively low. We kept the war machine rolling after WWII and defense spending was much higher (as a percentage of gdp) up through the Korean war (compared to now). It didn't cripple the American economy. In fact, some of the largest economic advances took place in this period. Defense spending dropped a little a few years after the war under Eisenhower, but niether he nor any of his successors would cut it much. We couldn't be soft on the Reds! Ever hear of the cold war? Ever hear of Kennedy's missile gap? Ever hear of Reagon's star wars?</p>
<p>High defense spending may be a relatively new phenomenon (EG pre-WWI isolationism and colonial fear of a US standing army), but in the post-WWII, Truman doctrine, cold war era it has been the name of the game. Basically, the US has been spending a lot of money on defense for a long time.</p>
<p>Haha, I love how quickly this turns into an attack on Clinton.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Rather than bash our country continually and moan and groan incessently we should perhaps be fortunate for not having to grow up in North Korea, Sudan, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just because it's not as bad as it could be (or even the best) doesn't mean it's perfect. "Moaning and groaning" is crucial to progress. </p>
<p>FYI, the 9/11 attacks didn't have nearly as much effect on the economy as the giant corporate scandals (Enron, Adelphia, Qwest, Tyco, Worldcom). Not too many economists would argue with that.</p>
<p>And it's not the sheer dollars that scare me. It's the dollars we don't have. It's the outrageous deficits that scare me, and the fact that no one seems concerned about it.</p>
<p>Well you can always count on liberals to be anti-American. It never ceases to amaze me.</p>
