Newsweek.Follow

I have video cassettes of George W Bush shagging 3 goats, a ghey cheerleader and you.

Guess what's appearing on youtube next week

no, let's try again


>911 happens.

>people demand blood

>we attack Taliban

>war drum continues to beat

>we attack Iraq under the pretext of national security

>people are allowed to believe that there is a 911 connection

>no WMDs are found

>the pretext of national security is still pushed forward on the public tactfully mixed with the notion of speading democracy

All I am saying is that the government should have made it clear that it was not.


but that's assuming that they didn't do it for reasons that have nothing to do with national security or spreading democracy, but hey, at this point any lie that the public will swallow is good enough , right?

It would really help your "factual" list if you didn't put presumptive words like "pretext" in there. A pretext is specifically a false reason for doing something to conceal the real reason. The very use of this word assumes that the stated reasons for invading Iraq were mere cover.

We attacked Iraq for these reasons and these reasons along.

You'll note that nowhere in there does it say that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. For that matter, nowhere in there does it state that Iraq possesses (present tense) weapons of mass destruction. It does talk about Iraq presenting a "continuing threat" to the US though.

The "pretext" you talk about is the strawman created by those opposed to the war. Don't you get it yet? When you stop listening to what people say the government said, and start actually reading what was actually said, you'll realize that it's not your government that's lied to you, but your media.



What should the government have done about that? Supress free speach?

Again. The very fact that you're upset that the government "allowed you to believe" something is super scary. It implies that you believe that it is the government's responsibility to control what the people believe. Am I the only person who sees a gaping problem with this? Something about "freedom" and "rights" and such...



See my earlier point. WMDs being physically present in Iraq was not a requirement for war. It was talked about alot, but was not an actual reason for the war. Had you read the actual constitutionally empowered document upon which we went to war, you'd know this. But instead, you watched your local news channel and listened to people tell you why we went to war.



Um? It's a "pretext"? Again. You're trying to make an argument by listing a set of "facts", but your facts include assumptions that you haven't yet proven.

Why was "national security" a pretext for invasion of Iraq? Read the document I linked. Is any statement of fact in that document false?



Again. What part of "no" when asked about the possibility of Iraq being involved in the 9/11 attacks is unclear? Should the government have hired people to come to your house and give you a personal presentation, complete with slides and charts and diagrams, showing how Iraq was not involved in the planning or execution of the 9/11 attacks?

I'm serious here. How much money and time do you believe that the government must spend to convince you that it only said what it said? I'm sorry, but I think the government's responsibility towards informing you as to its official position on things ends at publishing a press release in which it states its official position on that thing. It's ludicrous to assume that the government must get involved in a PR campaign simply to tell people that they should only take things actually said by the government as actual statements by the government...




If by "do it", you mean invade Iraq, I invite you to read the resolution I linked. It says why we went to war. Again. Which of those statements is false?

If you want to know what your government is doing, you should actually look at the actual legistlation and executive orders and judicial cases it issues. If you want to know what someone else wants you to believe about those things, turn on your TV and learn about them that way...

But if you do the latter, then don't complain if that interpretation turns out not to be true. You have only yourself to blame for not going to the source.

Sure. But he's specifically talking about the economy and its performance. That's kinda always going to be a relative subject. If you're going to argue that Bush's economic policies are failing because some new calculation of future expenses in relation to current spending shows a larger deficit then that being reported, you have to *also* contrast that to how those calculations affected previous budget reporting as well.

Otherwise, it's a totally meaningless statement. I could argue that if I assume that ever citizen will live to be 1000 years our social security program is doomed to failure, but that isn't relevant to Bush specifically. That assumption would result in the same conclusion regardless of who was president at the time (at least since SS was created).


See the point I'm making? Our budget reports are done the same way they were done 10 years ago. Thus, the problems that may or may not be being ignored by that reporting methodology exist to the same degree regardless of which presidency you look at. They were just as much not taken into account during Clinton's administration as Bush's. To "blame Bush" in this case is ridiculous...

Um. Not seeing your point.

There were members of Al-qaeda in Iraq at the time the resolution was passed. That's a matter of fact that tends to get strawmaned as well with the "But Zarqawi and friends weren't working with Iraq!". But that's not what the statement says. It just says that there were members in the country. And there were.

Iraq was still aiding and harboring international terrorist organizations at the time the document was written. This is also still an undisputed fact, despite massive attempts to distract the issue into whether or not Iraq worked with said terrorists on their plots. It is a fact that they were present in the country and were *not* being actively searched for by the Iraqi government, nor were they making any effort to remove them. How is that not "harboring"?


The third point is just silly. Don't you get it yet? The whole point about Iraq was that Bush said our policy after 9/11 is not to just wait until an attack occurs to take action. Thus, restricting actions as a result of 9/11 to only those who actually conducted the attack is wrong. In this statement, they are looking forward. They're making a statement that given the 9/11 attack and its change on national policy, the threat presented by a future Iraq handing WMDs to terrorists to attack the US cannot be ignored.


I just find it funny that this whole thing really hinges on whether you "get" the policy change after 9/11. It's really funny in the context of the current elections. Republicans charge that Dems are "weak on defense" because they want to wait until a terrorist attack occurs before taking action. Dems counter that this isn't true, yet they argue against the validity of the decision to invade Iraq on the exact point that Iraq was not involved in 9/11. Um... That's the point. If your criteria for response is limited only to those who've already attacked you, are you not then "waiting for a terrorist group to attack before doing anything"?

Yeah. I think you are. Our action in Iraq was forward looking. Something that the 9/11 commission said was needed. But apparently, that's not enough...

Sure, man.

I'm not suprised. I already said exactly what I meant. I suggest you re-read it.

Jawbox gets it.Werd.

Which, when you think about it, is one hell of an assumption.

Um. How about the fact that even though Bush has lowered the tax "rate" on Corporations (you know, the thing all the Libs are up in arms about), the actual percentage of the tax burden collected from all other areas has stayed constant, except those corporate taxes. Which have increased.

In other words, by lowering the actual tax rates, we've spured a growth, which in turn increased the overall size of the tax base, which in turn increased the total taxes collected. We collect *more* in taxes from corporations (as a percent of GDP) today then we have since 1980.

This is *exactly* what the Bush economists predicted would happen. This is *exactly* what the Libs said wouldn't happen. The "tax break on the rich" has done exactly what it was predicted to do. It increased the tax base and increased the total taxes collected over time. All while *decreasing* the tax rates themselves and *increasing* overall economic growth.

I guess I don't get where you're coming from. You're all tossing your assumptions and beliefs out there like that's all you need. I'm the only one looking up actual budget figures. Don't believe me? Look up cbo.gov yourself. Download the historical budget data pdf. Look for yourself (it's in table 4).


Would it be "better" if at the same time we could reduce spending? Yup. Absolutely. But the operation of those tax cuts is working regardless. We are generating more revenue off the tax cuts. It's not enough to make up for the fact that we didn't cut spending at the same time. However, the trend is downward (again. Don't trust me, look up the data for yourself. It's right there!). Spending is up slightly as a percentage of GDP, but it not unusually high (20% is a pretty average value for the last 25 years or so). Taxes are *low* though. But at the same time, the deficit is getting smaller each year. Again. Give it a few more years and it'll hit the zero mark (or very close to it).



Because you apparently prefer a very simple "I'm right and you're a dork" kind of argument. That's great. But to call that "rationalizing", while the guy who actually looks at facts and numbers when arguing is a "verbal catastrophe" only shows just to what degree you prefer to base your political ideology on ignorance rather then enlightened knowledge.

Whatever. Bask in your silliness for all I care. But excuse me if I find it amusing that apparently the Bush economic plan is going so well that proponents have to invent a new subjective, predictive accounting methodology in order to find fault with it...

That's kinda sad. Don't you think? Apparently, the normal indicators like unemployment, economic growth, poverty rates, CPI, home ownership, and such weren't giving them any ammunition to attack Bush with, so they had to make some new stuff up. Sorry. I'll take that as a glowing endorsement of the Bush economy. How else whould I take it?

And yet, you felt that it was the "source" of your argument that Bush was a HORRIBLE president because he's run such a high deficit according to this very article...

You criticized Bush. You did so specifically because of the statements in this article. Is this going to be yet another one of those threads where I point out that your own reactions to the article refute your claims that the article wasn't aimed at Bush?

You didn't say that "Clinton was a HORRIBLE president", did you? You didn't name any other president. Yet they all use(d) the "cash accounting" methodology, didn't they? Why single out Bush?



Governments are not private businesses though. The problem is that a private business will counter costs accrued with "payments accrued" at the same time. What is not mentioned in the article (which is *amazingly* one sided), is that a business also records a profit when it signs a contract deal. So, if I make a deal in which you promise to buy X number of units of my product over the next Y years, I get to put the projected profits into my accounting sheet right now. It works both ways.

But governments do not generate "profits". They are not businesses. Thus, there is no counterbalance to an accural accounting method. You're only counting future costs on an accrued basis, never future revenue (since revenue is strictly generated on a per-year tax/levy/tarrif basis). Governments gain revenue when the tax base increases (over time). But they can't put that on an accounting balance sheet because the tax law can (and usually does!) change between now and then.

Can Bush put the projected increase in tax revenue over time from his tax cuts into the accounting sheet? No. He can't. Yet any sane economist can agree that increased tax base means increased federal revenues over time. The relationship is well understood, but you can't accurately predict exactly how much of an increase you're going to get, nor can you predict exactly how much additional revenue you're going to generate as a result.


Worse. If you were to attempt to create this sort of system, you'd be in the unusual (and illogical) position of arguing that raising taxes without end is "good", since that's going to show up on an accrual accounting balance sheet (better yet is passing laws mandating tax rate increases over time). The government equivalent to that "big contract" that businesses put on their accounting sheets would be exactly a law setting tax rates for X years. Thus, you'd generate a revenue bonus *now* for future taxes.

I suppose if your agenda is to make it appear on an accounting sheet that raising taxes is always the best solution to every problem, then you'd be all for this. Since the presure to "reduce the deficit" would be very very real, but the only way for a government to do that is to legistlatively raise taxes. It would end up being a tool to do exactly that.


If you are a proponent of Liberal economic theories, and believe that the only way to increase revenue over time is to increase taxes, then this all makes perfect sense. But if you are a Conservative, you believe that *lowering* taxes will increase the growth rate of the tax base and over the long run result in a greater "real" revenue while decreasing the "footprint" of government. And if you do believe that, then this is a horrible idea since it magnifies the costs, while hiding the economic effects that will make those costs managable down the line.



Well. If you hadn't started out by calling Bush "HORRIBLE", maybe I wouldn't have responded to your post as a "Bush bash". If you honestly want to discuss this accounting methodology, how about actually talking about *it* instead of simply using it as a means to bash Bush...?

Dunno. Just seems kinda obvious to me.

No, he was saying that, by fiscal numbers, compared to someone running a company, Bush would be a horrible president. Which he would be.Because, again, Clinton isn't president. We were talking about Bush. Kelvy mentioned Bush, Jawbox responded by talking about Bush, you got your panties tightly knotted because no one was bashing Clinton. In fact, you were the first person to mention Clinton in the thread. We're all happily talking about the sitting president when you come along, waving your arms and crying that no one is comparing things to Clinton. Weird that.Yeah, that was kind of Jawbox's point.For as often as you say that, the sheer number of things apparently not obvious to you and that you believe requires a ten paragraph responses never fails to amaze me.

Not seeing your point either Flea.

Care to point to where in that quoted section it says that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks? Or where Iraq possesed (present tense) usable WMDs? Or where it said that Iraq was an "imminent threat"?

In case you're not getting it yet, if you're going to quote something in response to something I say, please take a tiny bit of time to describe how exactly the quote actually refutes what I said or maybe in what way it's relevant to the discussion at hand.

I get really really really tired of people who just parrot stuff that includes words that kinda seem like they mean something, but they never seem to bother to actually figure out what exactly they mean or how they are used. They just assume that since the words "Al Qaida" and "Iraq" are in the same paragraph, that it must mean that they were working together!

Or something like that. Well, whatever the guys on that box with the moving pictures told me it meant, or implied it meant, Oh heck. I'll just pickup my sign and get in line....


Try actually making a point instead of just quoting something as though that say's everything you need to say. Cause guess what? That quote doesn't say what you and many others seem to think it does. I've elaborated on it's meaning many times. It would be nice if someone could actually make an argument beyond "Well it's right there! Really!...".