The Real State of the Union

State of Union.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
To pay for Bush’s misguided economic agenda, the country’s debt has soared. Experts recently announced that Bush’s growing $8 trillion dollar debt translates to roughly $26,000 per person. [Treasury Department; www.house.gov/budget_democrats]

President Bush will hail his own commitment to creating opportunity for Americans, but the legacy of his first term is that 4.3 million more Americans are now in poverty. [Census Bureau, Current Population Survey]


And now we see that Bush’s wars will cost close to $300 billion. Do you remember how the right smeared Kerry for saying it was going to cost $200 billion? Wel, now that figure was low? And for what end - to elect an Islamic government in Iraq. I’m eager to see how this turns out.

As Pat Buchanon said (cited in another post), There are 22 Arab states, not one of which is democratic, and the biggest non-Democratic state is Saudi Arabia.

I’m afraid it’s going to take a disaster here or abroad, before this country gets back on the “right” track, and by then it just may be too late.

Mr Soul

Jeepers. Good thing we have a conservative who is good with money.

Yessiree - A real “Ronny Raygun” republican eh? Don’t tax, and spend anyway. Live on credit, let the kids pay it off, what do I care, I’ll be dead! (or selling arms to Iran). :laugh:

Maybe I’ve just been laboring under the misconception that maybe the taxes I pay (and do I ever pay - $11,000 out of pocket in 2004!) should maybe benefit my kids education, law enforcement (you know here in America?). Well, it turns out that our hard earned money is actually to support the Course of Empire half way around the world!

I’ve seen NOTHING in terms of tax breaks, which it what the tightie-righties keep crowing about, in fact my taxes increased by 30% - Granted our income rose also - but not by 30%. My sons school has an average of 34 children per teacher, and the local municipality is adding more and more taxes to prop up the failing education system now that the federal funding has all but dried up.

I’ve always believed that the quality of goverance can be judged by a simple ratio: How many dollars help people to how many dollars to kill/injure/incarcerate people. America is currently at about 1:3.8 by my own admittedly rough and somewhat inaccurate math. You read the budget and come to your own conclusions.

And now we can look forward to even deeper cuts to education, social programs and domestic law enforcement thus more poverty, less health protection, more crime.

But don’t worry, li’l Georgie the Connecticut Cowboy won’t have to suffer, after all, he can be a cheerleader for the Haliburton Softball Team (just like when he guts hisself ejucated at Yail :D ).

.-=/gp=-.

Would we be looking at a better picture had Kerry won? No, I doubt it. It would have taken a BIG sweep by the Dems WITH Kerry to make any REAL changes. The Repubs would balk over everything Kerry sent their way. Sound familiar?

Welcome to America.

TG

Quote (chutz @ Feb. 15 2005,18:14)
.-=/gp\=-.

Yessiree - A real "Ronny Raygun" republican eh? Don't tax, and spend anyway. Live on credit, let the kids pay it off, what do I care, I'll be dead! (or selling arms to Iran). :laugh:
Don't like the Regan comment. There's just no comparison IMHO.
Bush is a person born into the Illumati, silver spoon and all. He does what's best for his co~horts and his rich family.
Regan was nothing like that, and never has been tied to the "Illumati" even after all these years. I'm not saying he was the greatest president ever, just don't like the comparison my freind.
:angry:

Maybe I've just been laboring under the misconception that maybe the taxes I pay (and do I ever pay - $11,000 out of pocket in 2004!) should maybe benefit my kids education, law enforcement (you know here in America?). Well, it turns out that our hard earned money is actually to support the Course of Empire half way around the world!

If you don't like paying taxes just do like everyone else does that feels this way. Work under the table, and give the big middle finger to old Uncle Sam.

I've seen NOTHING in terms of tax breaks, which it what the tightie-righties keep crowing about, in fact my taxes increased by 30% - Granted our income rose also - but not by 30%. My sons school has an average of 34 children per teacher, and the local municipality is adding more and more taxes to prop up the failing education system now that the federal funding has all but dried up.
I just watched a show, where a simular complaint was brought up to my local govener "Rendell". His responce to the gentleman was that it's partialy the schools fault they are getting less and less federal funding. He further explained that the fed. gov. only gives funding to schools who's student meet minimum education requirments. So, if your children do bad, or their fellow students, the whole school suffers. Rendell went on to say he's doing all he can to raise state funding, by some crazy gambling idea he's been shoveling around, but if you ask me he's full of it.


And now we can look forward to even deeper cuts to education, social programs and domestic law enforcement thus more poverty, less health protection, more crime.
As far as the the cut's to law enforcment goes. This is after the bloating effect 911 had on it, so it might just be a good thing IMHO.
Social programs on the other hand should not be cut, rather they should make a better effort to go after the people who are cheating the system to use the programs. Mainly couples who live together with 4-8 children, but refuse to get married so they can bilk the system. They report that they have only one income and can qualify for just about anything this way. Instead of just being honest and admiting they live together, and getting a job!
You hear alot in the media about insurance fraud, but I never hear anything about social service fraud, which I think is more rampid, and detrimantal.That would free up alot of money for the people that really need it.

But don't worry, li'l Georgie the Connecticut Cowboy won't have to suffer, after all, he can be a cheerleader for the Haliburton Softball Team (just like when he guts hisself ejucated at Yail :D ).
Now that's just funny! but true.
Quote (Mr Soul @ Feb. 15 2005,16:03)
And for what end - to elect an Islamic government in Iraq.

Man. I'm tired of hearing this one......one more time..... dude! Iraqis ARE MUSLIMS! They follow the teachings of ISLAM.

They are NOT going to elect a government full of Catholics or Protestants or whatever. But hey, at least they NOW have the CHOICE eh? Do you think we should have bombed them into submission and appointed Kerry/Edwards to run Iraq?

Come on.........

TG

EDIT** This sounds a little harsh don't it? Oh well, Mike is not the only "I'm a Liberal but not that kind of Liberal" Democrat yelling that line. I'm tired of hearing it. Do they think we are all stupid?

TG - yes it’s a nobrainer that an islamic govt would be elected in Iraq.

But the question is whether the US govt will tolerate anything but a pro-US puppet govt in place there. The oil extraction assets and military bases must stay, W and his thugs won’t accept any other outcome.

I do believe that, unfettered, the Iraqis would not elect a govt long-term that would support this. It would even be beyond the skill of the US republican party to spin to Iraqi voters that an Islamic govt would be compatible with US presence on thier soil, and that’s saying a lot. So, the inevitable democratic political outcome is incompatible with W’s own strategic objectives there. This is why the real crisis in Iraq is actually yet to come. It may take longer to come to a head than even the next 4 years.

Perhaps it is this fundamental inconsistency which Toker is alluding to.

Would we be looking at a better picture had Kerry won? No, I doubt it.
Yes - I think it would be a lot better. Kerry would roll back the tax cut for people making over $200,000. That would create revenue for the government to fund this crazy war & the military. He would have done numerous things to help domestic issues here like the environment, poverty, etc.

In Iraq, I think he would have brought in other countries by having a summit to get our relations mended w/ Europe. I think he would also come clean with us on exactly what's going on in Iraq.

As for longer term stuff, who knows. He definitely would have made government bigger in the sense that he wanted some kind of universal health care.

You're missing my concern about Iraq's Islamic government. Would you want the Christian Colition to control the US? Do you think having a religious leader telling people that they must vote is a Democracy? The point I'm trying to make it that they may have ties to Iran & they may end up being favorable towards fundamentalist/extremists. The guy we were supporting was secular as was Saddam's government. One of his Prime Ministers was Catholic as I understand it.
Yes - I think it would be a lot better. Kerry would roll back the tax cut for people making over $200,000. That would create revenue for the government to fund this crazy war & the military. He would have done numerous things to help domestic issues here like the environment, poverty, etc.


He could do this all by himself? Go back and read what I said Mike. Your guys will have their chance in '08. The Democrats will go big. I promise. And it will be the same crap as now with different faces attached. I mean really, lets play pretend for a minute. Let's say Dub does a really good thing for the US. Soon as he's out... the Dems will bash it and change the whole shebang just BECAUSE THEY CAN! Same thing will happen when the Dems have been in and the situation reverses.


I'm not missing your concern at all. I'm just saying that yes, we will wind up with an Islamic government in Iraq. These people are not as "loose" with their religion as we are in the US. Fanatics? Depends on your definition I suppose. If Dub thought we could slide in a secular guy, he thought wrong. The people over there now have a choice and thats a good thing IMO, BUT they are not going to deny their loooong heritage and belief in Islam. Sure the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Bedouin et. al. are gonna have fits over who does what etc...

Saddam Hussein did not have a "government". He had a goon-squad to enforce HIS power. Now that the people have a choice............

TG
Quote (chutz @ Feb. 15 2005,18:14)
Yessiree - A real "Ronny Raygun" republican eh? Don't tax, and spend anyway. Live on credit, let the kids pay it off, what do I care, I'll be dead! (or selling arms to Iran). :laugh:

Maybe I've just been laboring under the misconception that maybe the taxes I pay (and do I ever pay - $11,000 out of pocket in 2004!) should maybe benefit my kids education, law enforcement (you know here in America?). Well, it turns out that our hard earned money is actually to support the Course of Empire half way around the world!

I've seen NOTHING in terms of tax breaks, which it what the tightie-righties keep crowing about, in fact my taxes increased by 30% - Granted our income rose also - but not by 30%. My sons school has an average of 34 children per teacher, and the local municipality is adding more and more taxes to prop up the failing education system now that the federal funding has all but dried up.

I've always believed that the quality of goverance can be judged by a simple ratio: How many dollars help people to how many dollars to kill/injure/incarcerate people. America is currently at about 1:3.8 by my own admittedly rough and somewhat inaccurate math. You read the budget and come to your own conclusions.

And now we can look forward to even deeper cuts to education, social programs and domestic law enforcement thus more poverty, less health protection, more crime.

But don't worry, li'l Georgie the Connecticut Cowboy won't have to suffer, after all, he can be a cheerleader for the Haliburton Softball Team (just like when he guts hisself ejucated at Yail :D ).

.-=/gp\=-.

I just have to quote this so it would get another post. Right on, chutz! :)

Jeremy, when the former tres. sec. pointed out to cheney that spending more than was coming in was a problem, do you know what cheney said? "Reagan proved that there is no danger in deficit spending." The tres sec was fired shortly thereafter.

Reagan was likeable, and w. bush is hard to like, in that sense there is no comparison, but take a look at who is making policy and where many of them were in the past.

Let’s see, Cheney goes back to the Nixon Administration I believe.

And Ron Reagan was a freakin b-movie actor, before going into politics, was Gov of California, just like that other b-movie guy, ARNOLD! The steroid eating body builder turned republican.

This is why I think politics are a joke.:frowning:

I would not dis Reagan too much. He managed to bring the Soviet Union to its knees and end the Cold War. Yes, it cost US a buttload of money but the fact that the Soviet military could not hope to keep up brought down the whole house of cards. The economic squeeze put on the USSR coupled with our military spending spree done 'em in. Gorbachev held a lot of respect for “Ronny Ray-gun” for the way he led the US during those years.

Reagan was smarter and had more GUTS than anybody hanging around Washington these days. I don’t care which party he was affiliated with…

TG

But that’s just false, gtr4him - the USSR had been experiencing economic decline and social unrest since shortly after the thaw in the 1950s, and the western influence had been working there for more than generation. I doubt that Reagan even hastened the process, and while it’s a matter of alternative historical scenarios and hence speculative, there is an argument to be made that he made things worse. It was inevitable that it would fall, the only question was if it would be a controlled fall or civil war. Gorbachev was the right person at the right time in that respect. :)

I know all that Tom. The big military spending of Reagan helped make sure it was a controlled fall. There were a lot of fruitcakes running around in the Soviet military with some nefarious ideas on how to get Mother Russia out of the pickle they were in. Coulda been REAL bad. Anyway, it’s neither here nor there. Ronnie was a decent man that’s all.

Speaking of inevitable falls, how many more decades do you think the USA has left? I figure I’ll be dead and gone but I wonder what my kids and grandchildren will see in the future? It’s just a matter of time before the USA as we know it is a memory. Empires fall. Always have. Always will.

Geez…am I bumming you guys out? :D I’m sure as heck bumming myself out! :D :D

I NEED a Pepsi.

TG

Sounds like you’ve been reading Toynbee. :)

There are things afoot that make it totally impossible to predict the fate of our form of civilization - new forces that history has never seen. Suppose that medicine makes it possible for us to live for a very long time, e.g., through genetic repair of some kind. Not that far off. Suppose that we figure out how mind and body are related, and can either create a mind in some non-biological way, or even transfer ours. Suppose we find a clean, cheap, plentiful energy source, such as cold fusion.

Or suppose that we continue to destroy our environment, over populate it, and engage in wars of aggression motivated by individual shortsighted greed. Suppose Iran or whoever uses a nuclear weapon.

Nope, too many variables to predict. I know every generation thinks things are bad, but things are really bad. And most people are too apathetic or ignorant or selfish or desparate or whatever to pay any attention.

ALl I know is I’m not buying any property in Florida. :)

Hey Tom,
I read your post and understand the comparison better now.

It seem we have alot of complainers around here. But I’d like to see how many people are actually involved in they’re communities.
It’s really easy to sit outside of your problems and pont the finger of blame.
it’s quite another to get in there and actually work on making things better.

Keep trackin’ guys.


jerm

Jeremy,

When I made a connection between the current administration and Reagan, I was speaking in economic terms - large deficit spending, large scale borrowing. It suppresses inflation in the short turn, generates a temporary economic rise, but you can only borrow for so long.

As for the illuminati - GWB is definitely the dim bulb in that pack if there is such a thing. Illuminati meaning “Enlightened” - Hmmmm, no, I’m not getting the impression he’s all that enlightened. As far as I can tell he’s a dim-bulb mouthpiece for a much more sinister group of idealogues - PNAC - Project for a new American Century - Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et al. - financed by the Carlyle group (Bush, Bin-Laden, Saudi Royals), their goal - “Benevalent Global Hegemony” - Says so on their website - Scary “Dr. Evil” stuff.

I think Reagan was much the same. By his second term, I don’t think he had much on the ball anyway. They’d prop him for the occasional speech, reading queue cards was always his strong suit anyway. He also was surrounded by the same cabal of political strong men whispering in his ear.

As for the fall of the Soviets, I think the Soviet Union fell apart under the weight of it’s own incredulity. The power brokers of the SU, refused to live under the same conditions that the working class did, and set the stage for their own undoing. Communism only works if everyone has a vested interest in the health of the society - when a class system gets introduced it fails - a direct symptom of the human condition - Greed.

Gorbachev was trying to hold it together with a series of reforms, but that was too little too late. The seachange had already begun, I don’t think Reagan had much to do with it, he was too busy trying to remember how to tie his shoes, and how come all those american weapons wound up in Iran.

.-=/gp=-.

PNAC! chutz hits a homer again! Yup, them’s the folks…

Ok churtz I’m not shure if we’re talking about the same thing.

I wrote, “Illumati” you say, “Illuminati"
The people I’m talking about are so wealthy they aren’t linked to any visible organization, like you very public,” PNAC".
In fact they are above all of these smaller organizations, but don’t try to find documantation on them, they are very good at remaining in the shadows.
So we may be talkin’ about the same folk, just different branches of a larger organization.
There was a movie called “The Sculls” it touched breifly on a smaller branch but didn’t expose the whole system.

keep shinin’


jerm