Tweet
Re: Iraq to open oil up to foreign contractors
I have compared George W. Bush to Woodrow Wilson in the past when thinking of a comparable president, so 25 brownie points to you for confirming my private analysis. But I think you're giving him and Wilson far too much credit though. Wilson did little to be honest, was far too idealistic for his own good, and provided the catalyst that officially started World War II when he separated Danzig from Germany to give the new state of Poland access to the sea. And he then spent the end of his presidency on his couch as a cripple and his wife ran the country for about a year.
For comparison, Bush has irreparably hurt our country's financial wellbeing partially through the deficit and our country's inability to curtail spending and raise taxes to pay for it. Then there's the war, whether you think it is a good war or not is irrelevant, the U.S. still have to pay for it, and we instead cut taxes. How does cutting taxes pay for our troops and our equipment's deployment? Him and his policies, both foreign and domestic, have even more ensured that my generation, Generation Y or Generation Next, whatever you want to call us, that our future is f***ed so that he doesn't have to make the Baby Boomer assholes and the Generation X assholes pay for his administration's excursions. And when my kids ask me why were times so much better in Grandma and Grandpa's era from their stories, one of the stories I will relate to them will be George W. Bush's presidency, the Congress, and the dumb idiots that made up our electorate.
The above article is why I will vote for the first politician that says he will kill Social Security. I don't care how long anyone paid into it, I know I'm not getting it. You want to screw up my future Generation X and Baby Boomers? Misery loves company.
He is then also responsible for giving Hamas political power and strengthening Iran's hand in the Persian Gulf region by overthrowing Saddam and the aftermath. The latter I can somewhat forgive him for, the former I won't because it was just sheer idiocy.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen, Oman, the American/British-installed Shah of Iran when he was still there...
There is something larger, but I'm not sure what it is. It sure as heck is not just Iraqi democracy, which will most likely continue as a pseudo-democracy for sometime, kind of like an African country or Russia where the election and the will of the people only counts as long as the ruling leader and his party wins. (cough*Zimbabwe*cough)
And if the oil runs out, we would have no geopolitical concerns for our country in the region, so why would we care about it?
Originally posted by BiscayneSunrise
View Post
Medved, Now that AK 47 remark really was funny! 
Excellent point about the Carter Doctrine. I would say that George Bush is a modern day Woodrow Wilson. He wants the US to be the catalyst for nascent democracies, willing to commit troops, money and political capital, even to the point of the ruination of his reputation.
Excellent point about the Carter Doctrine. I would say that George Bush is a modern day Woodrow Wilson. He wants the US to be the catalyst for nascent democracies, willing to commit troops, money and political capital, even to the point of the ruination of his reputation.
For comparison, Bush has irreparably hurt our country's financial wellbeing partially through the deficit and our country's inability to curtail spending and raise taxes to pay for it. Then there's the war, whether you think it is a good war or not is irrelevant, the U.S. still have to pay for it, and we instead cut taxes. How does cutting taxes pay for our troops and our equipment's deployment? Him and his policies, both foreign and domestic, have even more ensured that my generation, Generation Y or Generation Next, whatever you want to call us, that our future is f***ed so that he doesn't have to make the Baby Boomer assholes and the Generation X assholes pay for his administration's excursions. And when my kids ask me why were times so much better in Grandma and Grandpa's era from their stories, one of the stories I will relate to them will be George W. Bush's presidency, the Congress, and the dumb idiots that made up our electorate.
U.S. Congress to the Next Generation --Drop Dead:
Announcing the economic stimulus package agreed to last week by both parties in the House of Representatives, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi declared that typical Americans can expect to receive a "stipend" of $300 to $1,200. Stipend -- will we get a federally funded sherry hour, too? Calling a government check a "stipend," to make it seem lofty and grand, reflects the modern affection CEOs have for calling the cash they receive "compensation" rather than pay, and consultants and speakers insist on saying they are receiving "honoraria" rather than pay. There is nothing wrong with receiving pay! And no reason to employ euphemisms.
The stimulus bill will cost about $150 billion and consists entirely of deficit spending. The secondary euphemism being employed in Washington is to call the checks "tax rebates." But they are not rebates, meaning partial returns of monies paid -- they are pure borrowing. Which is to say, Congress will award most current American adults $300 to $1,200 each, then send the bill to future American adults. Suppose that instead, each American adult today set aside $300 at 5 percent interest. In 20 years, that money would grow to $800, and likely much more if invested in stocks. Such savings would be good for the U.S. economy, which, since 2001, has seen a negative national savings rate. China's national savings rate is currently almost 50 percent. Savings is one reason the Chinese economy is growing far faster than the U.S. economy; the U.S. savings rate is close to negative-4 percent, and our economic growth is sputtering.
The framers said, "We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."
Today's Congress: "We mutually pledge to pretend to believe what we just promised until the first second it is politically convenient to do the opposite."
But rather than help the U.S. economy grow in a generous way that forgoes a little today to gain a lot tomorrow, the American people -- through their representatives in Congress -- just reached into the pockets of future citizens in order to spend more on themselves right now. Explain to me why this is considered a populist action by Congress?
Bear in mind, the stimulus package announced last week is only an agreement between the two parties in the House. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in the Senate currently are scrambling to add their own pet projects to the legislation -- whenever a big spending bill moves, there's always a bidding war in which Republicans and Democrats vie to see who can stage the biggest giveaway. The damage to the national debt might get worse because what's happening now is the environment Congress likes best -- an environment of zero fiscal discipline. Lobbyists for retirees, who already are subsidized by the young, are complaining that their special interest isn't being showered with free money by the stimulus bill; lobbyists for pork-barrel projects that could never withstand logical scrutiny are maneuvering to wrap them in the flag and add them to the stimulus bill. By the time the stimulus bill leaves Capitol Hill, the young might be saddled with yet more debt so that members of Congress can congratulate themselves as they hand checks to politically connected fat-cat donors or to retirees already drawing out of Social Security far more than they put in, plus interest.
Next, recall that on Jan. 4, 2007, both houses of Congress agreed with considerable fanfare on the Paygo measure, which stated that under no circumstances -- under no circumstances, never, regardless of conditions! -- would Congress enact any bill that increases the federal debt. According to the Paygo legislation, the House and Senate are forbidden even to debate legislation that would increase the debt. ("It shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment or conference report if the provisions of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have the net effect of increasing the deficit …") Paygo rules specify that all bills causing appropriations increases or tax favors must be offset be spending reductions or tax increases. When Paygo was enacted, many members of Congress from both parties, prominently Speaker Pelosi, patted themselves on the back in public.
How long did this incredible resolve last? Six weeks ago, Congress passed a reduction of the Alternative Minimum Tax; the bill cut taxes by $51 billion but provides no offsetting revenues. Originally, the measure would have reduced the AMT for the middle class while raising taxes by an equal amount on the upper crust of venture capitalists and hedge-fund managers. All the revenue increases ended up deleted -- hedge-fund managers showered members of Congress with campaign donations -- but the tax cuts were approved. Congress ladled out the $51 billion entirely from deficit spending, then handed the bill to the young. Now, the stimulus package goes even further, at least $150 billion in gravy without spending cuts or offsetting revenue increases. Barely 12 months after pledging never, ever again to add to the federal debt, Congress will add at least $201 billion to the federal debt. The federal deficit for the most recent fiscal year, which ended before either of the new actions, was $163 billion. Congress has, in the past six weeks alone, added more to the federal debt than the entire federal deficit for the most recent fiscal year.
It's impossible to be sure, but a rough guess might be that every dollar added to the deficit today represents two dollars subtracted from future economic growth -- which in turn means two dollars taken from the pockets of tomorrow's American adults. This is a cynical exercise, robbing future Americans in order to please voters today, and to inspire interest groups to make political donations to incumbents. When are citizens under 30 going to wake up to the disagreeable fact that the country's current leadership, of both parties, is giving them the shaft in order to heap special favors on current voters who refuse to live within their means? Then handing the young the bill.
Announcing the economic stimulus package agreed to last week by both parties in the House of Representatives, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi declared that typical Americans can expect to receive a "stipend" of $300 to $1,200. Stipend -- will we get a federally funded sherry hour, too? Calling a government check a "stipend," to make it seem lofty and grand, reflects the modern affection CEOs have for calling the cash they receive "compensation" rather than pay, and consultants and speakers insist on saying they are receiving "honoraria" rather than pay. There is nothing wrong with receiving pay! And no reason to employ euphemisms.
The stimulus bill will cost about $150 billion and consists entirely of deficit spending. The secondary euphemism being employed in Washington is to call the checks "tax rebates." But they are not rebates, meaning partial returns of monies paid -- they are pure borrowing. Which is to say, Congress will award most current American adults $300 to $1,200 each, then send the bill to future American adults. Suppose that instead, each American adult today set aside $300 at 5 percent interest. In 20 years, that money would grow to $800, and likely much more if invested in stocks. Such savings would be good for the U.S. economy, which, since 2001, has seen a negative national savings rate. China's national savings rate is currently almost 50 percent. Savings is one reason the Chinese economy is growing far faster than the U.S. economy; the U.S. savings rate is close to negative-4 percent, and our economic growth is sputtering.
The framers said, "We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor."
Today's Congress: "We mutually pledge to pretend to believe what we just promised until the first second it is politically convenient to do the opposite."
But rather than help the U.S. economy grow in a generous way that forgoes a little today to gain a lot tomorrow, the American people -- through their representatives in Congress -- just reached into the pockets of future citizens in order to spend more on themselves right now. Explain to me why this is considered a populist action by Congress?
Bear in mind, the stimulus package announced last week is only an agreement between the two parties in the House. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in the Senate currently are scrambling to add their own pet projects to the legislation -- whenever a big spending bill moves, there's always a bidding war in which Republicans and Democrats vie to see who can stage the biggest giveaway. The damage to the national debt might get worse because what's happening now is the environment Congress likes best -- an environment of zero fiscal discipline. Lobbyists for retirees, who already are subsidized by the young, are complaining that their special interest isn't being showered with free money by the stimulus bill; lobbyists for pork-barrel projects that could never withstand logical scrutiny are maneuvering to wrap them in the flag and add them to the stimulus bill. By the time the stimulus bill leaves Capitol Hill, the young might be saddled with yet more debt so that members of Congress can congratulate themselves as they hand checks to politically connected fat-cat donors or to retirees already drawing out of Social Security far more than they put in, plus interest.
Next, recall that on Jan. 4, 2007, both houses of Congress agreed with considerable fanfare on the Paygo measure, which stated that under no circumstances -- under no circumstances, never, regardless of conditions! -- would Congress enact any bill that increases the federal debt. According to the Paygo legislation, the House and Senate are forbidden even to debate legislation that would increase the debt. ("It shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment or conference report if the provisions of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have the net effect of increasing the deficit …") Paygo rules specify that all bills causing appropriations increases or tax favors must be offset be spending reductions or tax increases. When Paygo was enacted, many members of Congress from both parties, prominently Speaker Pelosi, patted themselves on the back in public.
How long did this incredible resolve last? Six weeks ago, Congress passed a reduction of the Alternative Minimum Tax; the bill cut taxes by $51 billion but provides no offsetting revenues. Originally, the measure would have reduced the AMT for the middle class while raising taxes by an equal amount on the upper crust of venture capitalists and hedge-fund managers. All the revenue increases ended up deleted -- hedge-fund managers showered members of Congress with campaign donations -- but the tax cuts were approved. Congress ladled out the $51 billion entirely from deficit spending, then handed the bill to the young. Now, the stimulus package goes even further, at least $150 billion in gravy without spending cuts or offsetting revenue increases. Barely 12 months after pledging never, ever again to add to the federal debt, Congress will add at least $201 billion to the federal debt. The federal deficit for the most recent fiscal year, which ended before either of the new actions, was $163 billion. Congress has, in the past six weeks alone, added more to the federal debt than the entire federal deficit for the most recent fiscal year.
It's impossible to be sure, but a rough guess might be that every dollar added to the deficit today represents two dollars subtracted from future economic growth -- which in turn means two dollars taken from the pockets of tomorrow's American adults. This is a cynical exercise, robbing future Americans in order to please voters today, and to inspire interest groups to make political donations to incumbents. When are citizens under 30 going to wake up to the disagreeable fact that the country's current leadership, of both parties, is giving them the shaft in order to heap special favors on current voters who refuse to live within their means? Then handing the young the bill.
He is then also responsible for giving Hamas political power and strengthening Iran's hand in the Persian Gulf region by overthrowing Saddam and the aftermath. The latter I can somewhat forgive him for, the former I won't because it was just sheer idiocy.
To Fred's point, the US is mostly interested in the Gulf region because of oil. But if it was ONLY about oil, then the US would be supporting whatever dictator happened to be in charge of the spigots and leave it at that.
No, there is something larger going on here and despite whatever Obama and Hillary may say otherwise, the US will remain a political and diplomatic presence in the Gulf , even well after the oil runs out.
And if the oil runs out, we would have no geopolitical concerns for our country in the region, so why would we care about it?
Comment