A Sensible Way to cut the Deficit

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

What's amazing is that liberals like yourself fail to recognize that we were attacked during the Bush administration and the dot com bubble that balanced the budget under Clinton had burst before Bush took office.

Bush like Obama faced a massive decline in revenue because of 2 things, a slowing economy and the need to defend the country. Bush and Obama under similar circumstances both made the argument for increased spending and tax cuts.

What Romney was getting at was simple. Creating jobs takes people off of government assistance and puts them in a position of paying taxes which adds revenue.

We were attacked by Iraq?

In the history of our country we have never conducted a war (let alone two) and cut revenue at the same time. Never. Bye-Bye surplus, hello deficit.

Romney was correct in what he said but, just like Obama, without specifics to his "plans" it has the same chance of happening as the Easter Bunny arriving this spring.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

If the knife can and should cut both ways, are you saying you'd agree to Bernie Sander's proposal if your proposal was also enacted?

All of it? Hell no. He's a communist. Some things yes. There do need to be some changes in revenue generation. And some cuts in defense. And changes to Medicare (age increase). And deal with Chinese currency manipulation. And have an estate tax adjustment for say estates of $10Mill+. Tax SS from dollar 1 to dollar last. Eliminate fraud in government. CONFISCATE ALL ASSETS of people defrauding Medicare and those engaged in financial fraud.

Some of his proposals are the usual nonsense. Pandering to the losers in our society. We have an ever increasing supply of those.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

We were attacked by Iraq?

In the history of our country we have never conducted a war (let alone two) and cut revenue at the same time. Never. Bye-Bye surplus, hello deficit.

Romney was correct in what he said but, just like Obama, without specifics to his "plans" it has the same chance of happening as the Easter Bunny arriving this spring.

Again President Obama's policy has been exactly the same as Bush. We weren't attacked by AG either and we escalated, we weren't attacked by Libya and we escalated and he doubled down on the Bush tax cuts by extending them, cutting payroll taxes and adding to the disability and unemployment rolls while expanding our war footing.

You are making a false argument by attributing this false strategy to Republicans. This is most certainly a bipartisan policy, the differences are on the margin.

Say what you want about the bad policy of going into Iraq what is even worse was the Obama policy of abandoning Iraq and pushing it toward Iran who is now bringing weapons into Syria through Iraq because we can't do anything about it.

By the way the surplus was gone before Bush had a chance to cut taxes it was gone under the Clinton tax structure in Bush's first year because the bubble had already burst and revenue was failing.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Again President Obama's policy has been exactly the same as Bush. We weren't attacked by AG either and we escalated, we weren't attacked by Libya and we escalated and he doubled down on the Bush tax cuts by extending them, cutting payroll taxes and adding to the disability and unemployment rolls while expanding our war footing.

You are making a false argument by attributing this false strategy to Republicans. This is most certainly a bipartisan policy, the differences are on the margin.

Say what you want about the bad policy of going into Iraq what is even worse was the Obama policy of abandoning Iraq and pushing it toward Iran who is now bringing weapons into Syria through Iraq because we can't do anything about it.

By the way the surplus was gone before Bush had a chance to cut taxes it was gone under the Clinton tax structure in Bush's first year because the bubble had already burst and revenue was failing.

Compare Libya to Iraq or Afghanistan... I think it's clear which approach is more favorable.

We're out of Iraq - and we should have "abandoned it" sooner, same with Afghanistan. This whole "you broke it you buy it" approach to staying in countries we never should have invaded in the first place got us in trouble in Vietnam, at some point you just have to recognize the mistake and move on.

Afghanistan is really the biggest problem with Obama's foreign policy, and I agree it's the complete continuation of GWB in that theatre.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Compare Libya to Iraq or Afghanistan... I think it's clear which approach is more favorable.

Agree and disagree.

Libya, tacticly (air power, bombing, etc) was clearly a better millitary tactic for winning.

However, it was (IMO) the least justified millitary conflict of the three, our killing of a large number fo civillians was downplayed heavily (as it always is when (D) bombs people), and we "picked sides" in a conflict where neither side was in our best interests.

We're out of Iraq - and we should have "abandoned it" sooner, same with Afghanistan.

Agreed. But with that said, we left on the Bush timeline in Iraq, and only because Obama was unsuccessful in negotiating an extention he was clearly working for. We also now bear some responsabillity for leaving it in the state it's in going forward (the "you broke it, you bought it" theorum you menion and don't agree with).

Afghanistan is really the biggest problem with Obama's foreign policy, and I agree it's the complete continuation of GWB in that theatre.

His failing, same as Bush's IMO, is the utter lack of "why are we here, whats the goal" rationale.

In any event, I think Foreign Policy is not a clear cut win for Obama by any means. Even his greatest triumph, killing Bin Laden, is riddled with issues (no body, reports he was shot while surrendering, not asking Pakistan first, too much hype for Obam's limited role and obvious desicion being obvious, etc).

We'll see I spose.

[kennyo7]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Again President Obama's policy has been exactly the same as Bush. We weren't attacked by AG either and we escalated, we weren't attacked by Libya and we escalated and he doubled down on the Bush tax cuts by extending them, cutting payroll taxes and adding to the disability and unemployment rolls while expanding our war footing.

You are making a false argument by attributing this false strategy to Republicans. This is most certainly a bipartisan policy, the differences are on the margin.

Say what you want about the bad policy of going into Iraq what is even worse was the Obama policy of abandoning Iraq and pushing it toward Iran who is now bringing weapons into Syria through Iraq because we can't do anything about it.

By the way the surplus was gone before Bush had a chance to cut taxes it was gone under the Clinton tax structure in Bush's first year because the bubble had already burst and revenue was failing.

Im sorry but you are wrong.
The people who are in power now, were always aligned with Iran. They were sheltered by Iran, funded by Iran and trained by Iran throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. We knew that these folks would take over Iraq once Saddam was removed. They were a suppressed majority and Saddam kept them at bay. Remove Saddam and guess what would happen? You are looking at it.

Whether we stayed in Iraq for another 100 years this is what would happen. You can not avoid the inevitable. There is centuries old history between these people. America's intervention wont change that

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by kennyo7

Im sorry but you are wrong.
The people who are in power now, were always aligned with Iran. They were sheltered by Iran, funded by Iran and trained by Iran throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. We knew that these folks would take over Iraq once Saddam was removed. They were a suppressed majority and Saddam kept them at bay. Remove Saddam and guess what would happen? You are looking at it.

Whether we stayed in Iraq for another 100 years this is what would happen. You can not avoid the inevitable. There is centuries old history between these people. America's intervention wont change that

Iran's government is going to fall. It's not going to last another 100 years. If we had security on the ground today not 100 years from today, which was the goal of both the Bush and the Obama administration these weapons would not be moving into Syria today.

[kennyo7]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Iran's government is going to fall. It's not going to last another 100 years. If we had security on the ground today not 100 years from today, which was the goal of both the Bush and the Obama administration these weapons would not be moving into Syria today.

The Iraqi govt has every right to cooperate with Iran and/or Syria. We "liberated" Iraq with the hopes of producing a "western styled model democracy". They chose to align with Iran which was natural if you know anything about the history of these people. Only a fool would be surprised by what they are doing. We facilitated this by removing Saddam.

If you suggest that the USA should keep boots on the ground in Iraq so that we ensure that the Iraqi government abides by our rules (essentially creating a puppet government) then you are simply repeating all the mistakes we have made in that region.

This is why invading Iraq and removing Saddam made no sense. It did not serve our interest in the region, at many levels.

[chiefst2000]

The Obama foreign policy move that was the most harmful to stability in the ME was when they dropped the ball in Egypt and called for Mubarak's head essentially helping hand over that country to the Muslim Brotherhood. We could have stepped in and brokered some sort of a deal with an orderly transition. Instead we stood back while that country was taken over by a terrorist organization. It is identical to Carters moves during the Iranian Islamic Revolution. The results appear to be headed in the same direction. We took what was a subdued ally in the ME and helped transform them into an enemy. The sheer naivete is staggering.

[kennyo7]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

The Obama foreign policy move that was the most harmful to stability in the ME was when they dropped the ball in Egypt and called for Mubarak's head essentially helping hand over that country to the Muslim Brotherhood. We could have stepped in and brokered some sort of a deal with an orderly transition. Instead we stood back while that country was taken over by a terrorist organization. It is identical to Carters moves during the Iranian Islamic Revolution. The results appear to be headed in the same direction. We took what was a subdued ally in the ME and helped transform them into an enemy. The sheer naivete is staggering.

Nonsense. Obama played Egypt perfectly.
People have a right to self determination. We demand it for ourselves, why shouldnt the Egyptians expect the same for themselves? We can not tell other people who should rule them. The Egyptian chose to overthrow Mubarak, a horrible dictator. Standing by Mubarak in such a situation would have been the worst thing the USA could do (thank God a Republican Neocon was not in power).

I find it interesting that you mentioned Carters move during the Iranian Islamic Revolution but dont mention Eisenhower's move that lead to this. Ever hear of Operation Ajax? Thats what happens when the USA tries to impose their puppet onto a people who already decided who they want ruling them. Learn from your mistakes, dont repeat them. Thats why Obama (in the long run) played Egypt perfectly

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by kennyo7

Nonsense. Obama played Egypt perfectly.
People have a right to self determination. We demand it for ourselves, why shouldnt the Egyptians expect the same for themselves? We can not tell other people who should rule them. The Egyptian chose to overthrow Mubarak, a horrible dictator. Standing by Mubarak in such a situation would have been the worst thing the USA could do (thank God a Republican Neocon was not in power).

I find it interesting that you mentioned Carters move during the Iranian Islamic Revolution but dont mention Eisenhower's move that lead to this. Ever hear of Operation Ajax? Thats what happens when the USA tries to impose their puppet onto a people who already decided who they want ruling them. Learn from your mistakes, dont repeat them. Thats why Obama (in the long run) played Egypt perfectly

It takes time for political parties to organize themselves after a dictatorship is overthrown. The only organized political group in Egypt was the Muslim Brotherhood. It was obvious to anyone watching that they would grab control of that country. I can make this statement with absolute certainty. The Muslim Brotherhood will never freely relinquish power in Egypt. It will not happen ever. Just like in Iran they will hold dummy elections and just like in Iran they will make sure the outcomes are predetermined. Not that someone like you would care but this is absolutely not in the best interest of America or our allies. It is also not in the best interests of the Egyptians.

The end result was that we replaced a western friendly ally in Egypt with Islamic Extremists. Simultaneously we showed our other allies in the area how unreliable we are and how quickly we will turn on them.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Agree and disagree.

Libya, tacticly (air power, bombing, etc) was clearly a better millitary tactic for winning.

However, it was (IMO) the least justified millitary conflict of the three, our killing of a large number fo civillians was downplayed heavily (as it always is when (D) bombs people), and we "picked sides" in a conflict where neither side was in our best interests.

Guarantee there are more civilian casualties through invasion/occupation like Iraq/AG.

And we intervened in Libya because there was actually already a revolution against a dictator going on, they were begging for our help, NATO was down to fight and Ghaddafi was about to wipe the rebels off the map via carpet bombing.

Clearly it was a war of choice. We haven't had a necessary war since 1945. But when we are comparing the wars of choice, we must look at tactics, execution and cost.

Originally Posted by Warfish

Agreed. But with that said, we left on the Bush timeline in Iraq, and only because Obama was unsuccessful in negotiating an extention he was clearly working for. We also now bear some responsabillity for leaving it in the state it's in going forward (the "you broke it, you bought it" theorum you menion and don't agree with).

We're out of Iraq. Do we bear responsibility for how that country turns out, yes we do. Does that mean we should have prolonged the occupation? No.

Originally Posted by Warfish

His failing, same as Bush's IMO, is the utter lack of "why are we here, whats the goal" rationale.

In any event, I think Foreign Policy is not a clear cut win for Obama by any means. Even his greatest triumph, killing Bin Laden, is riddled with issues (no body, reports he was shot while surrendering, not asking Pakistan first, too much hype for Obam's limited role and obvious desicion being obvious, etc).

We'll see I spose.

Definitely don't think it's a "clear-cut" win for Obama. I think his Al Qaeda killing credentials are strong, and I think it's the Right who downplays the success of the OBL mission.

The President insisted on a second chopper, and as it turns out, the first chopper went down and we needed that second chopper.

Furthermore, that type of mission, instead of a bombing or a cruise missile, is a gutsy call - it sank Carter. It's awesome that we got the job done, and the President deserves admiration for a ballsy decision that turned out correct.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

Guarantee there are more civilian casualties through invasion/occupation like Iraq/AG.

And we intervened in Libya because there was actually already a revolution against a dictator going on, they were begging for our help, NATO was down to fight and Ghaddafi was about to wipe the rebels off the map via carpet bombing.

Clearly it was a war of choice. We haven't had a necessary war since 1945. But when we are comparing the wars of choice, we must look at tactics, execution and cost.





We're out of Iraq. Do we bear responsibility for how that country turns out, yes we do. Does that mean we should have prolonged the occupation? No.





Definitely don't think it's a "clear-cut" win for Obama. I think his Al Qaeda killing credentials are strong, and I think it's the Right who downplays the success of the OBL mission.

The President insisted on a second chopper, and as it turns out, the first chopper went down and we needed that second chopper.

Furthermore, that type of mission, instead of a bombing or a cruise missile, is a gutsy call - it sank Carter. It's awesome that we got the job done, and the President deserves admiration for a ballsy decision that turned out correct.

Countless conservatives are quick to point out that the president should not get the credit for the killing of one of the worst terrorists in history; it should all go to the military. Okay, then I am quick to point out the double standard when they celebrate Reagan for ordering the bombing of Libya.

Its all part of the bed time story told to us that (R)s are strong and protect us; (D)s are weak and make the country weaker.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by kennyo7

The Iraqi govt has every right to cooperate with Iran and/or Syria. We "liberated" Iraq with the hopes of producing a "western styled model democracy". They chose to align with Iran which was natural if you know anything about the history of these people. Only a fool would be surprised by what they are doing. We facilitated this by removing Saddam.

If you suggest that the USA should keep boots on the ground in Iraq so that we ensure that the Iraqi government abides by our rules (essentially creating a puppet government) then you are simply repeating all the mistakes we have made in that region.

This is why invading Iraq and removing Saddam made no sense. It did not serve our interest in the region, at many levels.

There are short and long term goals that both have nuance. The failure of the short term goals have helped lead to major destabilazation in the region which might cost us more money and treasure in the long run?

Clearly both Republicans and Democrats, past and present administrations wanted a US presence to remain in Iraq to keep Iran from having a greater influence on the Iraq government then they have since we are out. Without us there the possability of a puppet government of Iran is a real possability.

[kennyo7]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

There are short and long term goals that both have nuance. The failure of the short term goals have helped lead to major destabilazation in the region which might cost us more money and treasure in the long run?

Clearly both Republicans and Democrats, past and present administrations wanted a US presence to remain in Iraq to keep Iran from having a greater influence on the Iraq government then they have since we are out. Without us there the possability of a puppet government of Iran is a real possability.

I think most Iraqis (at least the shia majority) would welcome Iranian influence over US influence any day of the week.

If the goal of the USA was to prop up another puppet government in Iraq, then we should stay. I think we have learned from our prior mistakes and do not wish to go down the same road again.

The major destabilization in the region came when we removed Saddam. After that the outcome was both predictable and inevitable. All you had to do was read up on the history of these people and you would know a pro-Iran govt would come into power.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by kennyo7

I think most Iraqis (at least the shia majority) would welcome Iranian influence over US influence any day of the week.

If the goal of the USA was to prop up another puppet government in Iraq, then we should stay. I think we have learned from our prior mistakes and do not wish to go down the same road again.

The major destabilization in the region came when we removed Saddam. After that the outcome was both predictable and inevitable. All you had to do was read up on the history of these people and you would know a pro-Iran govt would come into power.

Since there isn't even a pro Iran government in Iran it would be hard to believe the Iraqi people want to be a puppet to the same government.

[kennyo7]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Since there isn't even a pro Iran government in Iran it would be hard to believe the Iraqi people want to be a puppet to the same government.

So why did the Iraqis vote in a government whose roots are based in Iran and the current Iranian government. Look at the history of the Dawa party. If you dont want to be a puppet of Iran, how do you vote in this party?

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by kennyo7

So why did the Iraqis vote in a government whose roots are based in Iran and the current Iranian government. Look at the history of the Dawa party. If you dont want to be a puppet of Iran, how do you vote in this party?

The Dawa party is not a unified movement at all and because Iraqi's who were part of tha party had to hide in Iran during Sadaam reign doesn't prove the association that you are making.

The other thing you missed is Iraq has a Parlimentry system, the Dawa party has the Presidency by a plurality.