answer to Brown in Fall..

[lauras50]

<p>Although they removed the long post on Doctorow because of copyright problems, i will not let you say that woman did not have rights under Saddam. as a matter of fact the new constitution is worrying human rights workers. As they said in the Guardian newspapers in the UK “Most worrying for women’s groups has been the section on civil rights, which some believe would significantly roll back women’s rights under a 1959 civil law enacted by a secular regime” Yes, they really had more woman’s rights in the secular governement than almost ever other middle east country. Surprise.
You slammed me in your note, which was removed with the thread, but perhaps a little more research on your part would be beneficial instead of just believing the Bush rhetoric which suited his case for war, but which was filled with inaccuracies. WMD anyone???</p>

<pre><code>As for the Bush tax cuts making everything “great” you must be one of the very rich !%. In the East we’re still paying the AMT. Know anything about that??? What about the deficits? AND tax cuts in war time??? No one has done that before because it is totally irresponsible for future generations. No, trickle down always looks good at first, but we haven’t paid the price yet. It’s time for you to start reading some other papers besides just the conservative ones and watching FOX. You might have found out that Iraqi Woman did have more rights in Iraq before, which was totally unlike in Afganistan, where they didn’t.
</code></pre>

[browninfall]

<p>Where to begin…You have used many of the same soundbites before and I have responded to them. For some reason you ignore the responses and continue in some other thread with the same soundbites. </p>

<p>First of all, there is no new constitution yet in Iraq - only leaked drafts. The idea that women in Iraq had more rights under Saddam than they will have going forward is one that most people not on the far left would find incomprehensible. In fact our ambassador to Iraq is insisting that women’s rights should be sacred - a difficult proposition considering the various religious sects in the country. I think your issue here is really with Islam and a woman’s role under different versions of the Sharia - that which seeks to interpret Koranic law.</p>

<p>As it relates to WMD your issue is with our folks in the Intelligence community, not President Bush. Just because your contemporaries on the far left repeat the false claim that President Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction, you conveniently forget one crucial FACT, that is, that many, many prominent Democrats with access to intelligence data also openly argued that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. On October 8th, 2002 Hillary Clinton said “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.” In 1998 Madeline Albright stated that “Saddam’s goal…is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed”. Also in 1998 Bill Clinton said “the community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” You folks on the far left never want to mention the FACT that so many prominent Democrats also believed that there were WMD. Why is that? I’ve got a lot more quotes, if you’d like to see them. </p>

<p>As for taxes, deficits, etc. you really should read papers other than the NYT. First of all, Bush didn’t cut taxes. In fact he raised them. I’ve pointed this out to you before on another thread. Federal tax revenues surged in the first 8 months of this fiscal year by $187 billion - a 15.4% rise in federal tax receipts over 2004. Tax receipts are way, way up. How did President Bush do this? He did it by cutting tax RATES. Cutting the rates has caused tax revenue to dramatically increase. I know…Paul Krugman said that it’s just a blip. However, since I do read lots of left leaning newspapers (i.e. the NYT), I will point out to you again that the NYT own man Daniel Okrent has written “Op-ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fahion that please his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults.” Pretty powerful words, I’d say, and from your paper too.</p>

<p>On to deficits…OMB recently reported the projected deficit for fiscal years is almost $100 billion less than what President Bush submited in February. That’s down to approximately 2.7% of gross domestic product…about where’s it been on average for the last 30 years! You wouldn’t know all of this if you only watched network news or read the NYT as they seem to have a difficult time reporting news that show the President in a positive light. Federal debt is currently about 40% of gross domestic product - about where it was in 1990. As a point of reference it was 46% in 1960 and during WWII it was 98%. Future generations won’t have to worry about paying it off just as we didn’t have to worry about paying off the debt from the generations that preceded us. That’s because our national debt is constantly getting rolled over. New debt is being issued while old debt is being paid off. These are FACTS, not soundbites. Maybe it’s time for you to change the channel or pick up some other newspaper.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>Nicely stated. </p>

<p>The most telling revelation of the liberal mind came from my brother (another far lefty who believes such things as Farenheit 9/11 was 100% accurate). After a long “discussion” with him throwing out all the far left talking points only to be responded to with actual facts, he finally gave up in disgust and said. “you may know all the facts, but I know I’m right”.</p>

[Mr.B]

<p>Laura50, couldn’t they have just removed the original post and replaced it with a site marker? It was a wonderful post and I would like to get a copy of that essay.</p>

<p>You are right about the tax cuts… calling these cuts is what Republicans do best…rename things so they sound acceptable… These aren’t cuts because the cost is still there and the payments have only been postponed and shifted to the children of working people in the form of a huge and rapidly growing deficit.</p>

<p>As the number of people in this country who support Bush shrinks and as more information comes out indicating his predeliction to war even as diplomatic efforts were working…the remaining few will go through their beads reciting their liturgy of excuses…Don’t call bush a liar, Bill had sex…The war is for freedom, not oil profits… the energy program is for affordable energy not oil company profits…we had to go to war because they were thinking about it someday…we can’t attack North Korea…because they were thinking about it and did something too…</p>

<p>Brown…I don’t know what is most distressing that human rights are violated or that our government is dictating what should go into another countries constitution. Telling me that the federal debt is proportionately the same as it was in 1990…Isn’t that why we ended the first Bush Presidency.</p>

<p>Fundingfather, your brother is smarter and is right.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>Mr. B, the text of Doctorow was sent to the East Hampton Star as a letter or an OpEd. It has been circulating on too many blogs to count. Just google 'Unfeeling president" and you’ll see the deluge. Depending the “flwvor” of the blog, it is either applauded by the Bsuh-haters or derided by people familiar with Doctorow 's political positions of the past. For instance, his “Book of Daniel” is quite revealing, especially since stories about pies and blown identities are still daily news.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.easthamptonstar.com/20040909/col5.htm[/url]”>http://www.easthamptonstar.com/20040909/col5.htm&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>While googling, You may also look up the Hofstra commencement story.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>Mr. B, isn’t it fair to let some time pass before deciding that the economic policies of Bush are a disaster? In the meantime, we can read the articles by Paul Krugman and file them in a thick binder for further analysis. And what would he say, if, yes what if the plan of cutting taxes did indeed jumpstart the economy out of the deep recession that started in 2000? What if the policy of having our government expand and spend as a drunken sailor was simply the right signal for our economy? After all, didn’t we spend our way of past recession , including the Big One. </p>

<p>In a departure from analyzing the economy in our typical provincial way, we may take a look at a country that has never seen a tax it did not like: France. </p>

<p>Since the article “Wealth of the Nation” from Jul 14th 2005 appeared in The Economist, the link will only work for premium subscribers.
<a href=“Wealth of the nation”>Wealth of the nation;

<p>

In an interview with Le Figaro, Mr Breton, the finance minister of France, declared that the tax had become “no longer a wealth tax, but simply yet another tax on the savings and housing of our fellow citizens, who are by no means all wealthy”. Moreover, it was a “costly” tax, which “can be economically dangerous”. It kicks in when combined assets—property, securities, cash, furniture—reach €720,000 ($850,000), and it applies yearly on assets held both outside and inside France. The tax rate rises from 0.55% to 1.8% for assets over €15m.

</p>

<p>So far, so good. It does not sound that bad to go after those idle millionaires, especially if renaming the wealth tax as a Solidarity Contribution.</p>

<p>

Were the ISF confined to genuinely large fortunes, there might be little case for change. But thanks to the property boom, over 335,000 households now pay it, a rise of 87% in eight years (see chart). Most new payers fall into the least-rich brackets, and they include property-owners in newly fashionable places where house prices have soared.

</p>

<p>Now, the trouble starts when the definition of wealthy starts to erode.</p>

<p>

The economic case for change is strong. A Senate report showed that the tax prompts a steady flow of exiles to lower-tax Belgium and Switzerland. It deplored a “loss of dynamism for the French economy” and said that, in the long run, “the situation is not sustainable…if we want to preserve the attractiveness of the country and hence French jobs.”

</p>

<p>In the end, the tax that was squarely meant to make the “wealthy” pay up may cause more harm than good. Since it is a political suicide to push for a repeal of the law -and upset the almighty socialists- the tax will remain and hurt a different set of citizens. The economic losses will be felt everywhere, but even more by the same people who were supposed to benefit from it. The truly rich can afford to pay the taxes without blinking, the huge middle class will suffer but survive, but what about the people who needed the jobs that might disappear? If you doubt that this happens, you may want to read about the exodus of entrepreneurial talent to other countries. One of the greatest beneficiaries: people who like a good meal in London, courtesy of french culinary artisans.</p>

[dstark]

<p>Why is there so much doublespeak? Why can’t people admit Bush cut taxes? President Bush would have a stroke if he read that people thought he raised taxes.</p>

<p>In 1998, the government brought in around 1.8 billion in revenues. In 2004, we brought in around 1.8 billion in taxes.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200507120940.asp[/url]”>http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200507120940.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Since that time the GDP of this country went up 3 trillion dollars. </p>

<p>So let’s see. Economy grows 3 trillion. Tax receipts go up 00000.</p>

<p>Yes, it looks like Bush raised taxes to me.</p>

[Trinity]

<p>Links to Forums, Blogs, and Personal Sites. Please do not post links to other discussion forums, blogs, personal sites, or other non-authoritative sources. In order to fulfill our mission of being the best college discussion forum, we want important topics to be discussed here at College Confidential. Linking to discussions elsewhere defeats this purpose. Links to non-authoritative sites like blogs, personal sites, etc., can’t be researched for validity on an individual basis and hence are not allowed. All such links will be removed.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>Dstark, isn’t the idea exactly to raise the same revenues -or higher revenues- based on a growing GDP. </p>

<p>As far as debating if taxes revenues grew or not, the statistics are clear. It is alos obvious that tax rates were lowered. We can only speculate about what would have happened to tax revenues in 2002-2004 without the lower rates. Depending on one’s political colors, it would as easy to say that receipts would have stayed the samewith ahigher burden on the weathiest taxpayers or point out that revenues might have shrunk even more, including the important social security receipts.</p>

<p>I think it is more important to notice that the negative trend that started in the summer of 2000 has been eradicated and that the revenues and tax revenues are again growing. Should we not be happy that we are again at the same level as in 1998, which was more or less the economic apogee of the go-go years. While a good percentage of the profits and capital gains realized in 1998-2000 has been shown to be ephemeral and illusory, the current quality of earnings is much better and, hopefully, longer lasting. Tax revenues are not immune to cycles. A lot of taxes paid during the dot.com craze had to be refunded later. </p>

<p>The current situation is far from perfect but it could have been worse had we buried our head in the sand. Checking how the other countries have navigated the same recessory period is a better yardstick than solely looking at the past.</p>

<p>PS There are plenty of tables and charts to fuel more debates at
<a href=“Statistics | Tax Policy Center”>Statistics | Tax Policy Center;
:)</p>

[dstark]

<p>We need to raise more revenues, not the same revenues as long as expenses are going up. So no, we shouldn’t be happy that revenues are now at 1998 levels. That is, unless you like burdening future generations with the debt while bragging about how fiscally conservative you are.</p>

[Mr.B]

<p>First, I would like to apologize to Fundingfather for my inappropriate comment on which brother is smarter, I know neither of these people and a poor attempt at humor came out as mean, which I regret. I think arguments are more interesting when attacks are on ideas and not participants, please accept my apology.</p>

<p>Second, I believe increasing the national debt, while reducing the amount the wealthiest pay is a tax on working people, who will sholder this bill eventually. The economy has grown but in part because we have spent so much on the military and the multiplier effect of this expenditure as it rotates through the private sector is substantial.</p>

<p>Furthermore, I would argue that for many middle class parents in these posts, who trying to get their children through school, the increased costs of education have exceeded any real tax break we might have gotten. So the bottom line is that we are paying more in total to the government than before the tax break.</p>

<p>It is a shame that for many of our citizens it is cheaper to go to Canada for prescriptions; that health care is a dream; the gas and heating oil prices and housing prices have soared while wage and salary has stagnated; and finally the evaporation of our rights under this administration is particularly repugnant.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>Mr. B, don’t worry about it. I took absolutely no offense in your comment. It is normal for someone to view those who agree with them as the “smart” ones.</p>

[Mr.B]

<p>FF when I was younger it used to bother me that smarter people would disagree with me…I couldn’t understand how that could be. Eventually I realized that different motives, perspectives, morays can lead people to different conclusions and viewpoints. I have even changed my mind on occassion when my logic or facts were revealed as faulty. I don’t think this is the case with regard to the President.</p>

<p>There is no question that many if not most elected officials employ a certain amount of freedom from the truth, but I find the legerdermain of this administration to be odious.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>I pay closer attention to the posts from peoplle who are on the “opposite” side, especially when they post links. I read the links and try to understand the basis of their “divergent” convictions.</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>Excuse me, what is Quality of Earnings…Xiggi have you ever had a job, a real job, where you worked a midnight shift to make ends meet…where you had to work two jobs to cover your rent…where you had to go to a clinic and wait six hours because all your jobs are parttime so you get no insurance…where you can’t put anything away into an IRA…where you can’t buy gas…</p>

<p>Until then, reading all those lovely reports is fine and dandy, but get into the world…work at the VA hospital, go talk to the mentally ill on the streets, talk to the tens of thousands that were laid off, talk to the people that worked for 30 years at a manufacturing job that just got laid off and or 50 years old and now have to find a job, are they to retrain themselves in medicine? </p>

<p>And Fundingfather and FountainSiren, have you ever been laid off, ever been without health insurance, ever gone off to Iraq and had to go into bankruptcy, have you ever had an autistic child that gets little help because the programs they used are getting cancelled due to budgets…</p>

<p>The arrogance of people sometimes just infuriates me.</p>

<p>Have any of you worked at a food bank, worked with the elderly, the homeless, the Veterans, the disabled…</p>

<p>If so, wonderful. All this talk of how wonderful everything is because of these tax cuts at a time of WAR.</p>

<p>And as for illusonary- at least people were getting help- I have a very good friend with an autistic child who has to fight for every thing she can just to get basic help for her son. I have another friend who was just laid off and is scared to death about getting a job before she is out on the street. I have a friend who is working parttime, has no insurance because it is so expense and is terrified of getting hurt.</p>

<p>Read this site about all the kids who got into great schools but can’t go because of money- loans aren’t available, parents make too much to get grants, but not enough to pay for school, who will have to work almost fulltime and go to school</p>

<p>I give up. Good for all you lookng people that think everything is going so swell for everybody.</p>

<p>It is not going well for millions and millions through no fault of their own and you are in denial of that.</p>

<p>I am so angry that people do not see the issues this country has and its citizens. </p>

<p>1 in every 5 Americans is classified as working poor</p>

<p>3 in every 5 of the working poor worked fulltime</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2004-06-08-low-wage-working-poor_x.htm[/url]”>http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2004-06-08-low-wage-working-poor_x.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“Detroit Local News - Michigan News - Breaking News - detroitnews.com”>Detroit Local News - Michigan News - Breaking News - detroitnews.com;

<p>WHat did you all do with your tax cut? How much was it?</p>

[xiggi]

<p>“The arrogance of people sometimes just infuriates me.”</p>

<p>“I give up. Good for all you lookng people that think everything is going so swell for everybody. It is not going well for millions and millions through no fault of their own and you are in denial of that. I am so angry that people do not see the issues this country has and its citizens.”</p>

<p>Since I assume that the first comment is directed at people of “my ilk”, I’ll respond to that. </p>

<p>No, I am NOT oblivious to the fact that all is not swell in our country. However, I find it too easy to blame the current administration for ALL the current problems while hoping that there is magic wand to eliminate every problem including a slew that started generations ago. Take your long list of problems and start counting which ones started after 2000? </p>

<p>It is easier to spew little partisan soundbites than to try to understand the nature of the problems. I am afraid that it requires a modicum of intelligence to understand issues and none to talk about them.</p>

[dstark]

<p>xiggi, the problems did start before 2000. It’s the solution to the problems that have occured before and after the year 2000 that concern some of us.</p>

[Mr.B]

<p>Choosing to attack Iraq over the use of diplomatic actions was a decision made after 2000. Our government failed us on this, yes that includes the Democrats who were too worried about re-election to take a stand. Congratulations Congressman Maurice Hinchy and others who opposed the war.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>Dstark and Mr. B</p>

<p>I am equally concerned about finding solutions to our problems. I respect the viewpoints of others who might have a different set of priorities and would prefer a change in government policies or a change of government altogether. </p>

<p>On the issue of Iraq, we are there and we cannot rewrite the history. I understand that some may view our invasion of Iraq as an action that had been premedited for years by the Bush family and was built on fraudulent evidence. On the other hand, some may like to point that the Congress approved the decision, that there is such a thing called UN 1411, that politicians of both sides were staunchily behind the invasion until it became unpopular, that it was THE policy of the United States to seek to remove Hussein (via The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998), and the list goes on. In the end, the invasion of Iraq and the establishment of a democracy that splits Iran and Syria MIGHT be seen as a stroke of genius. I do not dispute that it may NOT have been the job of the US in the first place, but it is hardly the first time that our country has ventured abroad without being invited. As far as having not exhausted all negotiations with Iraq, I am not sure how many more years of unsuccesful negotiations would have been needed. However, that is a question that will never be answered. </p>

<p>In the meantime, I also regret that the 9/11 attacks and subsequent wars brought many domestic issues to the back burner. Among many other items, I deeply regret that our country does not a better energy policy and better environment policies. It is really an issue of democrats versus republicans as the past five -if not more- administrations have done absolutely nothing positive in this regard, despite having “ozone man” or “oil man” VeePees. </p>

<p>I hope that things will improve in the future!</p>

[dstark]

<p>Xiggi, I don’t want to rehash the Iraq war arguments.</p>

<p>I think Bush has been worse for the environment than anybody in recent memory, but I will let you find your own links. :)</p>

<p>You’re right. The democrats dropped the ball on energy also. If the democrats were in power you might hear a different tune from me. I can’t stand them either.</p>