Too few asked to carry post-9/11 burden
Watching the twin towers burning on MSNBC’s rebroadcast of 9/11 coverage is like visiting a graveyard. The people in those windows were doomed and what horror they must have felt trapped so far above the street.
The power of those images is undiminished. Some people refuse to watch anything about 9/11 and they can hardly be blamed. Why invite the pain back? But maybe we should.
Six years have passed and what price have we paid? My daughter flew through DIA the other day and had a brief layover. In the pre-9/11 days I would have met her at the gate and walked with her to her connecting flight. It would have been a nice interlude for both of us, but it never happened. Thanks to 9/11 I was prohibited from going to the gate and she would have had to leave the secured area to see me (and go through security again to catch her flight).
How else are we touched? There’s the real possibility that your phone conversations and e-mail messages are being “read” by a computer at the National Security Agency. On the other hand, we haven’t been asked to spend an extra penny in taxes for the war or to treat the wounded. There have been no scrap metal drives or even buy bond drives. Ninety-nine percent of our population has only been slightly inconvenienced since 9/11 while the remaining 1 percent is carrying the whole burden.
That’s the legacy and it seems so un-American somehow.
Harry Puncec, Lakewood
Why would you even mention your "inconvienence" at the air port and the sacrifice of our troops in the same paragraph?
Thank god we have such people.
Posted by rockymountain on September 13, 2007 12:48 AMdont subscribe to at&t , they are the carrier apart of the warrentless wire tapp survellince
Posted by Fresh on September 13, 2007 02:20 AM
Fresh,
If you are right and that is the case everyone can stop worrying. The AT&T I know, and briefly worked for, never could do anything new right until someone else developed a better, cheaper and easier to use system. Even then it would take two years of meetings to make a change. AT&T software had, and most likely still has, more bugs than a dropped ice cream cone on a midway.
Thanks for the good news.
Posted by momma y on September 13, 2007 02:55 AMI think the author made his comparison beautifully - the average American has minimal - if any - sacrifices for this war. He wasn't attempting to compare the nonsense at the airport to the military sacrifices, simply pointing out that it was an inconvenience!
This is the only war in which a President/Congress has issued a tax break - and put the cost on the future. Are these fools still betting that the US (ir at least US big oil) can somehow benefit from Iraqi oil & cover the money the taxpayer is being overcharged by Halliburton? A jihadist with half a brain would torch the oil fields before that happened.
This is the only full-fledged war since VietNam which has not had a draft - hence members of the military being sent back to combat for 3rd, 4th & even 5th tours of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan - and being REFUSED the right to separate from the military when their enlistment is up.
I wonder how many of the 20-30% who still believe in the war in Iraq would continue to back this if it hit them personally - monetarily and/or in the possible cost of their lives or the lives or their loved ones.
I also wonder if Osama bin Laden would still be thumbing his nose at the US and (like any good religious fundamentalist) demanding we convert to his faith. Lest you forget, he is the mastermind of 9/11. Saddam Hussein wasn't involved - except PERHAPS as a cheerleader - there's not even any proof he contributed money . If the US really wanted to go after a hotbed of Islam terror, we would be fighting our so-called allies the Saudis, since Saudia Arabia is the home of 15 of the 19 terrorists, of Osama bin Laden (where his family still lives - do you honestly believe they aren't funding him in any way) - and the home of one of the most radical fundamentalist Islamic groups (Wahhabism) - which is funding terrorism. But of course, the Saudis didn't issue an unsuccessful hit against Bush the first, and they do sell oil to the US & its allies, so they must be OK.
Posted by Mary on September 13, 2007 03:40 AMmary are you dating 40 acres cause you sure sound like the same broken record. I doubt your fear about having your 'calls' listened to would ever happen unless you are a big supporter of the islamic groups you spoke of.
oh and the other day they did find the wmd's that sadam had, they were in a UN building in NY and the UN didnt know how they got there or why they were still there. gotta love the UN
5:48 isnt it ironic that we are fighting to give teh Iraqis the freedoms we have in a democracy, and with some warped logic we do that by taking freedoms away from US citizens? Do you really want to give up all your freedoms? Do you really believe everything this administration spews out? The German people were just as naive and believed everything Hitler spewed as well...until it was too late
Posted by Naivity on September 13, 2007 06:44 AMgee naivity giving up freedoms? what ones have you lost because of this admin?
if you look in Colorado the dems here have removed freedoms from businesses with their great smoking ban. business owners dont have a choice of how they run their business now. other than that I can not think of a freedom I have lost.
do you really believe everything the dems put out?
Tax rates were cut yet revenue went up. Therefore, we are paying more in taxes.
Posted by John II on September 13, 2007 07:57 AMWill someone please let John II in on the news about the deficits?
Posted by Truth on September 13, 2007 08:07 AMMr. Puncec said:
"On the other hand, we haven’t been asked to spend an extra penny in taxes for the war or to treat the wounded."
Nonsense. There are many charities that help our military and their families. Have you ever taken the time to look for them? Have you "sacrificed" your money to them?
This forum only allows two links per post but here's two really good military charities:
Injured Marine Semper Fi Fund
http://www.semperfifund.org/
Fisher House
http://www.fisherhouse.org/
But are you paying taxes for the war expense John? The deficit will be a mess. The really sad fact is that the person responsible has not been punished. Bush has done everything bin Laden could have wished for. Worst President ever.
Posted by It's True on September 13, 2007 08:22 AMIt's true,
"But are you paying taxes for the war expense John?"
What kind of ridiculous question is that? Of course I pay taxes for the war expense! I pay a lot of taxes. Unfortunately, my tax contribution is not limited to military expenses. It goes towards all the bloated federal programs too.
"The deficit will be a mess. "
The budget deficit is shrinking because we are paying more in taxes. But, if you're so concerned about it, how about "sacrificing" government welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to help pay for the war? No, that's not the financial sacrifice you're looking for, is it? You guys are talking about other people's financial sacrifice, not your own.
People like Truth call for financial sacrifice while they collect government handouts in the form of Social Security checks. Send the checks back with a note that says, "I really love these checks but please use it to help our soldiers."
Posted by John II on September 13, 2007 08:40 AMWill somebody tell that idiot "truth' that our deficit is going down at a record pace because of the tax cuts.9/11 cause the deficit,9/11 happened because of the incompetence of clinton.So blame all the idiots who voted for clinton.I said in 93' we will be paying because of clinton for years after he got out of office.But don't feel bad for billy bob,he walk with millions and nobody died from his family.
Posted by Keith on September 13, 2007 09:02 AM9/11 was an inside job
Posted by on September 13, 2007 09:18 AManonymous coward declared:
"9/11 was an inside job"
Yeah, the planes wound up inside the buildings...
Posted by John II on September 13, 2007 09:35 AMYeah inside your warped cranium. Inside job, please... Stop hanging out with Charlie Sheen. So GW and his gang of leftover whitewater plumbers snuck into the World Trade Center buildings, in the dark of night, strategically placed charges that could bring the buildings down all with out being noticed by anyone. Or perhaps they used the Men in Black "mind eraser"...
Geez poor thing can't take her daughter to the gate at DIA. How terrible. Call Oprah and go cry on her couch.
To the money issue. Feel free to send the IRS a check in the amount you feel warrants sufficient sacrifice on your part. But as is the case with everyone that makes this argument, you won't do so until "everyone" is forced to make the sacrifice. Again if you feel you don't pay enough in taxes, WRITE THE CHECK and quit your bitching. Then you'll have a leg to stand on about the issue.
As for your phone being tapped and communications being "read", stop placing calls and communicating with terrorist organizations and you'll be safe.
Rest assured the feds have no use for your drival conversations about your boyfriend, spouse, last nights drinking binge, who killed who on General Hospital, Aunt Betty's cookie recipe (unless it's the famous Neiman Marcus secret recipe) the list is endless. That your coworkers suffer through as does the person in front of you in the checkout line, on the elevator, or bus, all because of your right to yap on a cellphone, send email on a daily basis...
Spare me the references to what ever Jefferson, Franklin, Addams, Longfellow, >insert dead person reference>... The worlds a scarier place now. Tough times call for tougher measures.
Heck many of the colonial settlers were against fighting for their Independence 200 plus years ago... Thankfully the leaders didn't listen than or we'd still be eating tea and crumpets at high noon.
But hey thanks for your "SACRIFICE"
Posted by on September 13, 2007 09:50 AMTruth What?
Yes on tax breaks
Yes on tax revenue increase
YES on spending which raised the deficit.
What part of that problem do you not understand?
What do you care more about; tax rate increase or Tax revenue?
I think we can both agree that we want spending to go down.
Harry
Since when did a non-ticketed passenger get to go directly to the gates before 9/11?
Nice story but totally untrue. This priviledge was taken away shortly after DIA was open for business.
mary,You seast to amaze me with you lack of knowledge and common sense.A few questions for you.Why are the Saudi's put togher forces to protect there oil fields against Al Qaeda?Why was 25% of Al Qaeda allowed to hide in Iraq before we went in?Why was there photo's of Al Qaeda meeting with officials of the Iraqi gov. before we went in.Why did Bin Ladens family exiled him and quit supporting him in the early 90"s.Bigger question ,why didn't clinton take Bin Laden after he had Americans killed?He only had 13 Chances.Tell me why.
Posted by Keith on September 13, 2007 10:22 AMmary,You seast to amaze me with you lack of knowledge and common sense.A few questions for you.Why are the Saudi's put togher forces to protect there oil fields against Al Qaeda?Why was 25% of Al Qaeda allowed to hide in Iraq before we went in?Why was there photo's of Al Qaeda meeting with officials of the Iraqi gov. before we went in.Why did Bin Ladens family exiled him and quit supporting him in the early 90"s.Bigger question ,why didn't clinton take Bin Laden after he had Americans killed?He only had 13 Chances.Tell me why.
*******************************************
OK, Mr 'Check the Facts'
Have any evidence to support those claims?
I'd be curious to the the photo of Mr. Albert G. Qaeda himself meeting 'Iraqi officials'.
Sure that picture exists...just point the way to it.
It's also interesting that you know that 25% of Al Qeada was in Iraq prior to the invasion...where was the other 75% of him...seriously, though...how does anyone know 25% that would presume you know how many al qaeda there were to begin with...
i guess it boils down to this, Keith, you're FOS...prove us wrong...
The perpetrators of 9-11 certainly succeeded in the attack, succeeded in dividing this country, and succeeded in escaping justice. Instead of democrats blaming republicans and republicans blaming democrats, why don't you ask yourselves "who benefitted from this?"
Posted by mike h on September 13, 2007 11:30 AMIF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME:
1] You are (dumb, or a synonym for dumb).
2] You are a liberal.
3] You are (description stating or implying homosexuality).
4] You are a (traitor, or synoym for same, either expressed or implied).
5] You must check the facts.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
SIEG HEIL, BUSH!
11:16 am was posted by Grim Reefer
Posted by Grim Reefer on September 13, 2007 11:36 AMKeith continues to be jealous of the intelligence and common sense which is always present in Mary's posts. It's like the ball boy being jealous of Roger Federer.
Posted by Truth on September 13, 2007 11:41 AMPoor John II, I feel sorry for him. He wishes he were not born in the United States but rather in a country in which taxes went only for defense. Unfortunately for him, and fortunately for everyone else, there are no such first or second world countries, although there are rogue states which come close. Poor John.
Posted by Truth on September 13, 2007 11:47 AMWhy is that Mary always seems to get in the first comments of most letters to the editor and then we never hear from until the next letter. There's something odd about that. She never defends her faulty assertions.
Posted by John II on September 13, 2007 12:07 PMI want to get a pool started to guess what grade Keith is in. Any one interested? My 11 yr old grandson talks better. So that I guess thats is a good place to start.
Posted by larrymc on September 13, 2007 12:20 PMI want to get a pool started to guess what grade Keith is in. Any one interested? My 11 yr old grandson talks better. So that I guess thats is a good place to start.
Posted by larrymc on September 13, 2007 12:20 PMI want to get a pool started to guess what grade Keith is in. Any one interested? My 11 yr old grandson talks better. So I guess thats is a good place to start.
Posted by larrymc on September 13, 2007 12:20 PMJohn II, good one about the planes.
Keith only 23.5% of Al Queda was in Iraq, not 25%. Please don`t play fast and loose with statistics. (sarcasm).
Mary made a number of statements, I would like to see them refuted if you can.
First war with a tax break. Fact, not an opinion?
War without a draft. Fact or?
The 15 of 19 terrorists were Saudis. Yes/no.
Anon at 9:50 kind of sounds like it was written to a woman, in its reply to "9-11 was an inside job".
Well anon, was that your intention?
Did all you war supporters go shopping on 9-11 or go out and spend money like the President suggested?
I did, I guess that makes me a patriotic American.
If Clinton had taken out Osama, any time in the four years before 9-11, the plan might have still gone on. Someone else would then be our "wanted dead or alive" target.
The plans for 9-11 were years in the making and probably subject to change without Osama micro-managing it.
Our biggest sacrifice for the war is what the President has done to us since 9-11.
Sharon what does the tax break have to do with anything on the war?
Yes there was a tax break that corresponded with the war.
Again the question.... WHAT is more important? Tax Rates or Tax Revenue?
I completely agree that we are spending way too much money but to try and compare the the tax break without understanding the revenue generated is horse sh&^
by raising tax rates is not the end all.....
Pigs get fat......hogs get slaughtered.
The tax rate (%) should be at the ultimate level that it brings in the greatest Revenue.
The higher the Tax rate does not directly correlate with the highest Tax Revenue after a specific Tax rate is reached.
Cut our spending. Cut it now and keep it low.
Posted by bwr on September 13, 2007 12:55 PMGood points, bwr.
While Mary was not lying, her assertions (and the assumption she wants us to draw from those assertions) are faulty.
Why do people keep saying "first tax cut in a time of war" ad nauseum? It's meaningless. We are paying more in taxes, not less.
As for the draft, does Mary really want a draft? Hillary Clinton stated if we bring back the draft, she wants women to be eligible. There's no doubt that the soldiers are bearing a heavy load. But, we have an enormous volunteer military and they are doing a great job so we don't need a draft.
The point about "going shopping" was too prove that we were not going to let terrorists (or the fear of them) disrupt our economy. Would you prefer that we shut ourselves in and hide our money in the basement? If you feel the need to sacrifice your money, try donating it to many of the military charities out there.
Posted by John II on September 13, 2007 01:09 PMhttp://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RKNTVO3&show_article=1
Revenue is rising while the deficit is shrinking.
" The government's books have been helped this year by record flows of tax receipts, which have continued even though economic growth has been reduced by a serious slump in housing."Posted by John II on September 13, 2007 01:16 PM
Simple fact is Bush came into office with a surplus and will leave it with the biggest deficit ever. Only a partisan stooge would believe that to be a job well done. l
Posted by Mack on September 13, 2007 01:20 PMPlease explain, Mack, how Mr. Bush will leave with the "biggest deficit ever". The budget deficit as a percentage of GDP is at historic lows and will be even lower before Mr. Bush leaves office.
Posted by John II on September 13, 2007 01:34 PMJohn II - The moveon memo said "record deficit" so thats what we're hearing from the followers (sorry Mack, couldn't pass that up ;~).
Every post I read from Mary contains another inconsistant statement, calling for reinstatement of the draft.
Those who keep bringing this up claim the strain on our troops is too great, and they are being more compassionate by supporting the draft than those who oppose it (as if there was a need to begin with).
The problem with her reasoning is that by forcing citizens to fight, sustain injury or possibly die against their will, you are showing a complete utter lack of campassion for all involved.
The real motivation for these people is to reinstate the draft, which in turn creates greater public outcry, and thus helps them to obtain their personal objectives which include making sure there won't be any success in Iraq.
Posted by KW on September 13, 2007 01:52 PMMary,
Admittedly, I didn't read the rest of the posts, but wanted to comment on your statement that:
"This is the only war in which a President/Congress has issued a tax break - and put the cost on the future."
On a factual basis, this is 100% false. As Congress has the only constitutional and statutory authority to declare war, and that they have not done so, but authorized the President to use Military Force instead, right off the bat, your comment is a falsehood.
When we compare this military action to other actions of past Congresses/Administrations we see the following:
Grenada - Oct. 25, 1983 7000 US troops deploy to Grenada. Pres. Reagan and the 97th Congress cut taxes
Dessert Shield / Storm - Aug. 1990 - Taxes raised by Pres GHW Bush and the 100th Congress raise the top income tax rate to 31% - This is the only declared war since World War II
Somalia - October 7, 1993 President Clinton orders 5500 troops to Somalia. President Clinton and the 102nd Congress raise taxes across the board.
As to the rest of your post, your personal feelings aside (as I will not comment on someone's personal feelings any more), your post is full of misinformation, and lacks any empirical evidence to support your claims (or even feelings).
Your comment about this "war" being the only one since Vietnam without a draft, I think was addressed in my first line that this is not a "war." And the benefit of having professional soldiers whose job is to be a soldier, vs. drafting those that have no knowledge, will, or desire to fight, is a BENEFIT, not a negative. What you are doing, and is observable in a majority of those that are "against the war" is projecting your feelings and opinions onto the professionally trained soldier, without ever having experienced military service.
I just wanted to correct the misinformation Mary was putting out here.
Posted by Dan2 on September 13, 2007 01:53 PMJohn II: "The point about "going shopping" was too prove that we were not going to let terrorists (or the fear of them) disrupt our economy."
Somebody mention to John II how much this war is costing us.
Posted by Truth on September 13, 2007 01:54 PMA good way to look at our economy is the value of the dollar, it is at it's lowest point. Is the economy good then?
Posted by Karl Cheney on September 13, 2007 01:57 PMGood post Dan2. I'll have to bookmark this one.
Truth,
I don't get your point on your last post. If someone told me how much the war was costing us, what point is that supposed to make?
Karl Cheney,
How do you determine the value of the dollar? Are you comparing it the Euro? Or are you looking at inflation? I think you might want to review and think about your last comment a bit more.
Posted by John II on September 13, 2007 02:07 PMDid Mary say "I want to see the draft reinstated"?
Good idea though, most would not qualify for combat, but all could do something for the country, and then they would have life long health care.
Dan2 would you like it better if we stopped calling this "war" and used some other term?
John II, if you cut taxes and revenue goes up, can you show that the cuts were sufficient to raise the revenues at that time?
This is not a trick question. I seem to recall one tax cut for the very top taxpayers just gave them more money to spend in Europe.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 13, 2007 02:10 PMSharon B.,
I don't understand your question to me. Tax cuts give people more money to spend on whatever they choose (trips to Europe, new homes, cars, investments, new business ventures, donations to charity, savings, etc).
Posted by John II on September 13, 2007 02:17 PMSharon B - From the 'Cut and Runners' thread a few days ago Mary posted this:
1) reinstate the draft - and this time include females since almost all career fields are now open to them. There should also be limited reasons for exemptions (if Cheney had really had health reasons during VietNam, he would have been classified 4F - physically unable to perform, instead of receiving 5 exemptions before the draft was stopped). There is no reasonable explanation for sending members of the military to 3rd, 4th and 5th tours of duty.
This is something she repeats almost verbatum each time she posts a comment.
You're right, KW.
Mary drops hints at things but never quite admits that she wants what she's hinting at.
She often mentions that Mr. Bush is the first president to lower taxes in a time of war. Therefore what? I guess what she's implying is that she wants higher taxes.
The same goes for the draft. If you don't want the draft, why keep mentioning it when we don't even have a draft?
Or, mentioning that most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis; is she suggesting the proper way to fight terrorism is to invade Saudi Arabia? Would she honestly support such an invasion? She seems to imply that she would. Otherwise, why keep mentioning it?
We'll never really know because she never sticks around for the discussion. She soars in (usually within the first few comments on the thread), drops her bombs, then, flying under the radar to avoid detection, she disappears. She's the Stealth Bomber of this forum.
Posted by John II on September 13, 2007 02:35 PMthank you KW.
John II, if you don`t understand my question, re-read it.
Does a tax cut followed by a rise in revenue cause the rise? Is it sufficient or just necessary.?
Did other factors at the time of the revenue rise contribute to this?
What else happened in the economy that might lead to a rise in revenue?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 13, 2007 02:56 PMOh, I see what you're trying to do, Sharon B. You have trouble crediting the tax cuts with a rise in revenue so you're trying to cast doubt as to the cause.
The proof is in the pudding, Sharon B. Tax rates were cut and revenue soared. The GDP grew. Unemployment continually dropped. Business investment increased.
Now, you would like to believe that the economy just rebounded because it's on a cycle and it was due to rebound anyway. So, I'll ask you this question: Do you believe that taxes add to or subtract from a business's profit? Do you believe that taxes increase or decrease the cost of investing?
Posted by John II on September 13, 2007 03:17 PMJohn II, I still don`t know why the increases happened, but if the tax cuts were mostly responsible, then great. Now you say the revenue soared, getting a bit less technical.
Believe whatever you want, and you don`t see what I am trying to do.l am asking what else was going on to improve, not only the tax revenues, but now you mention GDP, unemployment and business investment.
All that from Bush`s one tax cut?
Your question on business profits and the cost of investing are (1) subtract and the cost of investing stays the same, but the amount available will go down if taxes go up.
All this is fine, but the tax refund went to businesses or individuals? Which.?
Business always gets around taxes, even if they go offshore.
If lower taxes to individuals result in a rise in revenue, every time, or most of the time, say so.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 13, 2007 04:48 PM"Your question on business profits and the cost of investing are (1) subtract and the cost of investing stays the same, but the amount available will go down if taxes go up."
The cost of investing increases because of the capital gains tax.
"All this is fine, but the tax refund went to businesses or individuals? Which.?"
Individuals. The capital gains tax was also lowered to 15%. This encourages new investment into business. New investment capital helps business to grow and hire more workers. More workers means a larger tax base.
"Business always gets around taxes, even if they go offshore."
Even if the first part were true, the loss of jobs to offshore outsourcing means a reduced tax base of domestic workers. If we lowered the corporate tax rate, many of those outsourced jobs would come back.
"If lower taxes to individuals result in a rise in revenue, every time, or most of the time, say so."
No. There is a curve. At some point, lowering a tax will reduce revenue. We are not at that point.
Posted by John II on September 13, 2007 05:21 PMJohn II , I meant they, businesses , go offshore with their money. Not the jobs. Look at Halliburton going to the Middle East.
Lower taxes to individuals in the middle class would be the best bet.
Really overhauling the tax code would help.
Getting half of Leona's dogs money would be nice, right.
sometimes, John II, my questions are just questions. I don`t seem to be able to find all the great links everyone else finds, so I cheat and ask question..
I was probably the last person in the country to buy a blender, I only started this Internet stuff about 6 months ago. I am slow to try new things.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 13, 2007 06:16 PM"John II , I meant they, businesses , go offshore with their money. Not the jobs. Look at Halliburton going to the Middle East."
More the reason to keep corporate taxes low here.
"Lower taxes to individuals in the middle class would be the best bet."
I agree. Didn't the Bush cuts do that?
"Really overhauling the tax code would help."
I couldn't agree more. A consumption tax in replace of the income tax would be nice.
"sometimes, John II, my questions are just questions. I don`t seem to be able to find all the great links everyone else finds, so I cheat and ask question.."
No problem.
Mary posts: ""This is the only war in which a President/Congress has issued a tax break - and put the cost on the future."
And Dan 2 responds:
"On a factual basis, this is 100% false. As Congress has the only constitutional and statutory authority to declare war, and that they have not done so, but authorized the President to use Military Force instead, right off the bat, your comment is a falsehood."
Poor Dan 2 has gotten the Constitution confused with the dictionary. He thinks the Constitution is where you go to find out what war is. He thinks that just because Congress has not voted to declare war that we are not at war.
The Constitution does not try to define what a war is. All the Constitution does is to say how the United States should legally enter into a war. It doesn't say that if the United States enters into a war illegally, then somehow it isn't a war.
If Congress declares war, we are in a declared war. If it does not, we are in an undeclared war. For God's sake, Dan 2, the Constitution did not change the definition of war. Whether or not there is a war depends on what is going on on the ground. No one but a few propagandists, and some mentally blind people, would deny that what is going on in Iraq is war.
What a low-life way to try to make someone out as a liar. Dan 2's post served only to make himself out as a damn fool.
Posted by Truth on September 13, 2007 09:26 PMTruth,
You actually made some good points. But, even your points only serve to prove Dan2 was correct in his assessment about lowering tax rates during a war.
Dan2 said:
"Grenada - Oct. 25, 1983 7000 US troops deploy to Grenada. Pres. Reagan and the 97th Congress cut taxes"
And you responded:
"Whether or not there is a war depends on what is going on on the ground. "
It seems that Mary's assertion is wrong when she says that Mr. Bush is the first president to lower the tax rate in a time of war. Mr. Reagan did it in 1983.
Posted by John II on September 13, 2007 09:54 PMWhere the hell is 'Fact Boy' Keith?
Demand the facts and he evaporates faster than a fart in high wind.
Posted by Grim Reefer on September 14, 2007 05:48 AMWhen I watch CSPAN's journal in the morning, I am impressed by how civilly the guests treat inane comments from callers. I wish I were like that. So, I apologize to Dan 2 for calling him a damn fool. There are some opinions that a person should keep to himself.
Posted by Truth on September 14, 2007 08:39 AMJohn II: "Dan2 said: Grenada - Oct. 25, 1983 7000 US troops deploy to Grenada. Pres. Reagan and the 97th Congress cut taxes" And you responded: "Whether or not there is a war depends on what is going on on the ground. "
Of course, my response was not to that comment by Dan 2 as John II ridiculously asserts, it was a response to Dan 2's equally ridiculous assertion that undeclared wars are not wars.
Dan 2 and John II assert that taxes were cut during the invasion of Grenada. Gee, did Reagan and Congress really cut taxes during the month and a half invasion of Grenada, in which we used up to 7,000 troops and lost some nineteen killed? I don't think so. Of course, Reagan's major tax cuts were in 1981.
A person ought to be embarrassed, nay, ashamed, to compare the Iraq war with the invasion of Grenada. But it is good for a laugh. What John II's and Dan 2's comments amount to is an admission that before Iraq taxes haven't been cut during a war. It's a bit like pulling teeth to get these guys to admit anything.
Posted by Truth on September 14, 2007 09:04 AMTruth what the HELL has the tax rate cuts corresponding to increased Tax Revenues have to do with anything?
ARE you trying to say that the tax rates are more important than the tax revenues?
The base question here is what sacrifice the public has made to support our troops in Iraq.
The question pretty well answers itself, except, of course, in the minds of a few propagandists and others who feel to Bush in thick and thin, in right or wrong and in sickness and in health.
I presume that people like John II an Dan 2 believe the public either has made sufficient sacrifice or shouldn't be asked to make any sacrifice. Of course, they don't say what that "sufficient" consists of. Nor will they, because they can't because we haven't. But people like John II and Dan 2 don't admit those things. They think it's more patriotic to ignore them,
One big reason is that that Bush's "go shopping or on vacation" philosophy has continued for the past four years. He has not asked the American people to make any sacrifices. People would be less likely to oppose the war if they weren't asked to participate in it in any meaningful way.
What he did do is to try to hide the fact that American soldiers were coming home in body bags and to repeat over and over again that things are going swimmingly well. Not a good idea from his vantage point for the public to be made more aware of such inconvenient facts.
Posted by Truth on September 14, 2007 12:41 PMYes Truth use words from this post to attack people but refuse to answer the questions asking clarification from those words..ie tax cuts
Answer the damn question TRUTH. Do you care more about the tax rate or the tax revenue? You are arguing over a fact that has raised the revenue. But you dont care about the fricking revenue, but rather the rate that people get taxed. You are a pea brained piece of crap that cant think your way out of a wet paper bag. People get so frustrated with you and blow up, they then try to apologize and create a dialogue. What do you do? You take that as a weakness and attack further. But when confronted you cry foul. Enough of your bullsh*& Truth
You are a rude arrogant old fart that doesnt deserve some of the kindness you have been given on here
Posted by bwr on September 14, 2007 12:51 PMI was looking through some magazines from the WWII time. All the ads said something like "do your part at home to help the war effort"
Then they tried to sell something, say glass dishes to save food, or yarn to knit a sweater for a soldier, to save the country the cost of war clothing.
someone was making money off the war, by selling consumerism as patriotic.
This is nothing new. People had food rationing and collected metal scraps for the war effort, this is not necessary now and there is no comparing our sacrifices, what ever they are, and previous wars.
Remember how commerce suffered after 9-11 when there were no planes flying? That hurt the country. Bush was right to tell us to go on with our lives.
Remember how people were asked to come to New York and help keep the economy going?
I don`t like Bush, but in that one area, he was right.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 14, 2007 02:39 PMGoodness, bwr, could it be that you have gotten yourself a little upset? I'd suggest you try counting to ten, but I expect for you you should start with one hundred. Good luck. Now go back to sucking your thumb.
Posted by Truth on September 14, 2007 03:58 PMSharon wants to compare buying glass dishes to save food and knitting a sweater for the troops with today's hedonism, and with the exorbitant spending on ourselves rather than others than is so rampant today. Then, she wants to compare the situation right after 9/11 when the planes were grounded with the effect of people not going to Disneyland. Then, she says she doesn't think there is a need to recycle so that, I presume, the efforts being made to increase recycling are in her mind wrong. Then, she says we shouldn't compare the many sacrifices of people in World War II with the lack of any sacrifice being made by people today, though she neglects to say why. Then, she says that Bush is right to not ask for any sacrifice by the American people, though she doesn't say why.
Boy, what lengths people go to justify the indifference of Bush and of the American people to the killing and maiming going on in Iraq and to the billions of dollars being spent there rather than here. I bet the troops in Iraq really take to that kind of attitude.
Posted by Truth on September 14, 2007 04:15 PMExcellent points, Sharon B. I know it must have pained you greatly to say what you said.
Truth has an antiquated view of civilian sacrifice. He once mentioned something about saving metal cans (or something, I can't quite remember) for bullets.
We were not prepared for WWII. We had a relatively tiny military. We didn't have the large standing army we now maintain.
We already have fighter jets, bombers, submarines, battleships, tanks, guns, grenades, night-vision, troops, etc. We don't need women to work in factories to build new planes or other civilians to collect metal for bullets. Unlike most of our previous wars, we already made the financial sacrifice long before the war even started. We already had a massive military to respond to any events.
Having said that, I'm curious what Truth wants us to sacrifice. Does he want us to pay higher taxes? Does he want us to give up government welfare programs such as Social Security? Has he done that? Has he returned his Social Security checks? If we raise taxes and the economy suffers, will he be happy that civilians are suffering along with the soldiers? Does he realize that our booming economy helps to fund the war better than a recessed economy would?
I believe it is a good thing that this country has grown so large and self-sustaining that we can fight two concurrent wars with minimal financial impact on most civilians. Again, there are a lot of great military charities that collect a lot of money for the troops. How many of those charities have you contributed to Truth. Do you exchange letters with soldiers? Do you send care-packages? Do you donate money to help wounded veterans? Do you donate money to help military families? If you are truly looking to make a financial sacrifice, I'll start including links to military charities in my posts.
Posted by John II on September 14, 2007 04:30 PMHere you go, Truth: http://www.soldiersangels.com/
Sponsor a soldier. Send him or her a letter once a week. Send him or her a care package (soap, baby wipes, beef jerky, etc) once a month.
Sharon B.,
Do you have sons in Iraq? I thought I saw you mention that you did.
Posted by John II on September 14, 2007 05:11 PMHey John II, thanks for asking. my step son is all over the Middle East, but now he is out of there and going to Japan. Just in time for an earthquake (joke).
Truth, please go back and read what I wrote. I was just offering an observation on how commercialism always effects wars in some way. How patriotism is used as a marketing tool .
I don`t think I mentioned Disneyland, but who knows, maybe I did.
I said there is no need to recycle?
Hon, I think you read way too fast and type an answer before you think.
We are a commercial nation and if you think not then think of this. what would happen if terrorists hit shopping centers around Christmas.? What would that do to our economy, our society and our way of life.?
Bush was right to say, go on with your lives, because someone else's job depends upon money moving around in the country.
Those days with no airplanes flying, and less commerce were eerie. And I don`t want that to happen again..
We spend, others have jobs, they have money to spend where you work. It all goes around.
Now if you have some ideas of how we should sacrifice to make the war better for the troops, let us know.
John II, sooo painful, guess I`ll get over it.
That was my post, why do our names fall off.?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 14, 2007 07:29 PMFirst, Bush tells us not to sacrifice for that is the import of telling us to shop more and take more vacations. Then, he tells us not to worry, it'll all be over in a few months and they welcome our boys with open arms. Then, telling us in April of 2003 that "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed". Then he hides the fact that there are actually dead bodies coming home. Then, he tells us, and he tells us, and he tells us, that things are going as planned and it is just about over.
So, what to do if there is the possibility of an oil shortage? Well, isn't it obvious? Take more vacations and shopping trips.
How do you think you'd feel if you were facing death every day and at home the reality of the war was being withheld from the people at home? How wold you feel if the people at home were acting just the same as they would if you were on a picnic? It's important for the morale of people in combat that the people at home act like they are concerned.
The spectacle of a president in effect telling the people after the 9/11 that our very existence is in peril, so concentrate on having a good time is not my idea of a president who knows how to lead.
Posted by Truth on September 14, 2007 09:09 PMWhat a great opportunity it would have been for President Bush to stress that what had happened on 9/11 was an assault on our community, and that one way to respond, rather than go on vacation or shopping, would be to get involved in a community activity. What a great opportunity to sponsor and encourage citizens to get involved in community activities. What a great opportunity to publicize programs such as the Peace Corps and the many other volunteer opportunities, along with local volunteer opportunities.
Go shopping or volunteer to help our community. Which do you think is the more patriotic choice?
Posted by Truth on September 15, 2007 03:51 PMI realize that I am talking to myself, but since we are both brilliant conversationalists that is OK.
One thing that is often said about 9/11 is that it brought the nation together. While statements like that admittedly have some hyperbole in them, it also has a lot of truth. Another such statement is that people wanted to know what they could do.
Well, Bush's answer was to go shopping or on vacation. Somehow, that just doesn't seem to be what people had in mind. What if he had urged them to volunteer? What if he had helped create opportunities for volunteering? People don't come together when they go shopping or on vacation. They do come together when they volunteer in community programs.
Posted by Truth on September 15, 2007 05:34 PMTruth, I see your point, but volunteering won`t keep our economy going for very long.
He could have balanced his remarks, but his real aim was to keep the country running as before.
A lot of people were sitting at home in shock. And the city of New York lost millions of dollars. Many people said "please come to New York and help us survive. That was part of what he meant. Go on trips, go out to eat etc.
People have to pay their bills and eat, and they make money from their neighbors.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 15, 2007 06:54 PMThe savings rate in the United States has been on the decline for decades. But it has really gotten low under Bush. Except for a few months, it has been less than 1% since February of 2005, and for three of those months it has been in negative territory. I don't have the economic know-how to judge this, although I know that some economist consider it a problem and some don't. However, just viewing it as a matter of intuition and common sense an economy dependent on increased consumption of our resources does not seem to be a good idea.
Some economists claim that the high savings rate during World War II helped save us from economic disaster:
"Personal income was at an all-time high, and more dollars were chasing fewer goods to purchase. This was a recipe for economic disaster that was largely avoided because Americans—cajoled daily by their government to do so—were also saving money at an all-time high rate, mostly in War Bonds but also in private savings accounts and insurance policies."
Of course, going on vacation and shopping is the opposite of saving money. I recall that when Japan was doing so well it's high savings rate was given a good deal of credit.
The fact that Americans in World War II were daily cajoled by the government to save stands in stark contrast to Americans being asked to increase consumption and spending by President Bush.
It may be old fashioned to think it is better to save than to spend, but I'm afraid it's too late for me to change. It think we had it right in World War II. It wasn't as much fun as President Bush wants us to have, but I think it was probably more satisfying and better for our economy in the long run. But, then, President Bush's long run is only about fifteen months.
Posted by Truth on September 16, 2007 03:03 PMOh boy, Truth, you are an intellectual mess.
"First, Bush tells us not to sacrifice for that is the import of telling us to shop more and take more vacations."
Nonsense. All he was doing was just try to reassure an anxious country. He did not tell people to empty out their savings accounts and go on a care-free spending binge.
"Then, telling us in April of 2003 that "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed"."
Yes, he said that. At the time, it seemed to be true. It turned out not to be true and he acknowledged it was a mistake. What does that have to do with consumer spending?
"So, what to do if there is the possibility of an oil shortage? Well, isn't it obvious? Take more vacations and shopping trips."
But, there is not an oil shortage. You're conflating a hypothetical with reality.
"How do you think you'd feel if you were facing death every day and at home the reality of the war was being withheld from the people at home?"
How would you feel if you were facing death everyday and your country kept telling you that you're going to die for nothing? By the way, what information is being withheld?
"Go shopping or volunteer to help our community. "
Why do you present it as an either/or choice? Can't we shop and volunteer to help our community?
"The savings rate in the United States has been on the decline for decades. But it has really gotten low under Bush. Except for a few months, it has been less than 1% since February of 2005, and for three of those months it has been in negative territory."
The savings rate calculations are highly flawed and misleading. For example, even though almost 70% of our economy is in the service industry, the savings rate data do not include tips, bonuses and commission.
"Some economists claim that the high savings rate during World War II helped save us from economic disaster:"
Do you ever think about the things you write and quote? This nation had double digit unemployment leading up to WW II. Perhaps, the citizens were saving a little too much.
Posted by John II on September 16, 2007 07:15 PMJohn II: "This nation had double digit unemployment leading up to WW II. Perhaps, the citizens were saving a little too much."
Oh sure, Johnny, unemployed people ordinarily tend to save too much. Thanks for the laugh.
Posted by on September 16, 2007 07:30 PMWhat if President Bush has asked Americans to consider having a friend in the Muslim world to correspond with instead of asking them to go shopping, and had created a mechanism for doing this and encouraging this. Imagine the good that might have come out of several million Americans making friends with several million Muslims.
Sharon and Johny Boy ask what Bush could have asked us to do other than go shopping and on vacation.
I've given a few possibilities. But I'm sure that some really smart people could think of a lot more. What was needed is a different mindset than the mindset Bush adopted. The Commission said that our failure to prevent 9/11 was the result of a lack of imagination. Bush displayed that same sick lack of imagination after 9/11. What was needed was a mindset to use the energy created by the 9/11 tragedy improve life here at home and our standing in the world. I think people would have responded magnificently. It was a great opportunity that was ignored in favor of encouraging what there was already too much of, selfish consumerism.
I'm not talking about the kind of smart-ass response Johnny Boy gave: "Sponsor a soldier. Send him or her a letter once a week. Send him or her a care package (soap, baby wipes, beef jerky, etc) once a month." I'm not talking about one person telling another person what he might do. I'm talking about a president rallying the nation behind a cause of which we could be proud, a president who knew how to mobilize the urgent desire of the American people to do something worthwhile to show their support of America.
What did Johnny Boy's hero tell us to do: go shopping and go on vacation. How proud does doing that make a person? Instead of asking us to do something for our country, Bush Boy asked us to do something for ourselves. Instead of asking us to do something selfless, he asked us to do something selfish. It's the way he and Johnny Boy "think".
Posted by Truth on September 16, 2007 08:53 PM7:30 said:
"Oh sure, Johnny, unemployed people ordinarily tend to save too much. Thanks for the laugh."
When the savings rate is too high, unemployment increases.
Posted by John II on September 16, 2007 10:19 PMTruth (pure liberalism) said:
"What if President Bush has asked Americans to consider having a friend in the Muslim world to correspond with instead of asking them to go shopping, and had created a mechanism for doing this and encouraging this."
This comment doesn't even warrant a rebuttal. Let's just play it a few times more until folks realize how weak and pathetic liberalism has become.
"What if President Bush has asked Americans to consider having a friend in the Muslim world to correspond with instead of asking them to go shopping, and had created a mechanism for doing this and encouraging this."
"What if President Bush has asked Americans to consider having a friend in the Muslim world to correspond with instead of asking them to go shopping, and had created a mechanism for doing this and encouraging this."
"What if President Bush has asked Americans to consider having a friend in the Muslim world to correspond with instead of asking them to go shopping, and had created a mechanism for doing this and encouraging this."
"What if President Bush has asked Americans to consider having a friend in the Muslim world to correspond with instead of asking them to go shopping, and had created a mechanism for doing this and encouraging this."Posted by John II on September 16, 2007 11:02 PM
Truth, when people save money the banks invest in businesses. What good does it do then if we don`t spend money in those businesses?
We are a service nation, not as much manufacturing as before, so we sell services to each other.
This reminds me of the "Puritan Work Ethic" where they were advised to work hard, spend little, and save to invest in more businesses. Fine, as long as there are people to buy the products they made.
New York city was hurting, and we were not in a war, as of yet, it wasn`t going to help if everone stayed home like they were in a coma.
Money has to keep moving from you to the barber to his dry cleaner to the waitress in the corner cafe.
The sacrifices of WWII are not necessary now. Planting Victory Gardens and having scrap metal drives helped then, it doesn`t help this war.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 17, 2007 12:31 AMSharon: a low savings rate is good for the economy.
Greenspan: "Last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned that the low savings rate is impairing the nation's long-term economic prospects. An improved savings rate would provide investment money for businesses, which would create jobs, he said."
Who do you believe?
Posted by Truth on September 17, 2007 06:38 AMTruth,
You are confusing the issue. No one is arguing that saving some money is bad. Of course, there needs to be a healthy balance of savings to spending.
You are ignoring the context of those quotes. When Mr. Bush asked us to go shopping, the economy was stalled; unemployment was around 6%. The recovery from the recession was slow. Liberals kept shouting how it was the "slowest recovery ever". We needed to spend more; we needed lower taxes. The economy has taken off since then: unemployment dropped to 4.5% while GDP continues to grow; tax revenues increased.
We have a credit crunch now. The housing boom (due in large part to Mr. Greenspan's aggressively low interest rates) caused many people to take out large risky loans. Now that interest rates have risen, foreclosures are on the rise. So, in this context, Mr. Greenspan wants us to save more.
Posted by John II on September 17, 2007 07:38 AMThe issue here is whether President Bush did the right thing in asking Americans to spend more on themselves without asking them to make any sort of sacrifice. I think he should have asked more of Americans. Sharon and John II think otherwise. I think it was a failure of imagination, a failure to take advantage of the spirit created in Americans by 9/11 when their patriotism was very high and when they would have been most willing to make sacrifices. There are a myriad of things he could have asked of Americans besides asking them to have more fun. While I have listed some of my thoughts about what he could have done, I am hardly the one who can be expected to come up with all the possibilities. Sharon thinks we have no need to save materials. Yet, recycling and reusing are becoming more and more important. That could have been the focus of one thing Bush could have asked us to do. The Untied States has the lowest savings rate in the industrialized world, and yet there are many economies with much higher savings rate that are doing very well. Our savings rate is the lowest it has been since 1933 according to some. That is hardly a good way to deal with our retirement problems. If people don't save, then they look to the government for help when they retire. While China recently overtook the United States in total consumption of resources, the United States is by far the world's largest consumer of resources on a per capita basis. While John II and Sharon may consider that a compliment, I don't. "Bankruptcy filings in the United States increased by 66 percent during the first quarter of 2007." That is a direct result of too low a savings rate.
"The issue here is whether President Bush did the right thing in asking Americans to spend more on themselves without asking them to make any sort of sacrifice."
He did ask us to sacrifice. He asked our military and their families to sacrifice. Again, aside from asking Americans to become pen-pals with Muslims, what sacrifice would you like non-military civilians to make?
"Sharon thinks we have no need to save materials. Yet, recycling and reusing are becoming more and more important. "
No, Sharon B. was simply saying that we don't need to recycle for the war effort. And she's right about that.
"The Untied States has the lowest savings rate in the industrialized world, and yet there are many economies with much higher savings rate that are doing very well."
Again, Truth, the savings rate data is flawed and is not calculated the same in each country. We have a service industry that includes tips, bonuses and commission as income. Yet, the savings data do not include those sources of income in the calculations.
""Bankruptcy filings in the United States increased by 66 percent during the first quarter of 2007." That is a direct result of too low a savings rate."
Not exactly. There are a lot of factors including risky ARM mortgages.
Stick to the idea of sacrificing for the war. There is nothing we can do as individuals that can help.
The government does not need us to gather up old pots and pans for the metal, and the troops all have uniforms so we don`t need to knit sweaters for them.
What Bush said about going on with our lives was said before we went into Afghanistan even. And Truth you have missed my point that we are a service country now, we don`t manufacture items and sell them to the World as we did before WWII.
Savings accounts help businesses, not the war. We don`t even have war bonds this time, because they wouldn`t help the war effort.
Save all you want, that is not directly related to the war.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 17, 2007 11:05 AM