Financial Shakeup this weekend

[AMoore]

dmano wrote:

emayer wrote:

but the reality is that he has little direct control- true power lies within Congress.

As I said before the President really has hardly any authority over anything. He controls about as much as the Queen. Nothing but a figure head and a small one at that. Congress rules all that happens in Washington.

Actually, the President has great power. He prepares the budget and directs military action. While the approval of congress is required in most instances, as the leader of his party, approval is not usually an obstacle when most of congress is affiliated with his party. his veto power is also significant.

[catchacab]

I voted for GWB, and I would do it over again.  The reason I voted for him, is because I vote with my wallet.  I will vote for the candidate that offers me the lowest possible tax bill.  I do not agree with every thing GWB has done, but can you find anyone that you agree with 100% of the time.

Our action in Iraq was needed, but not thought out as well as it needed to be.  It wasn't just a military operation, but an overthrow of an existing government.  The plans to rebuild Iraq's government, infrastructure and society needed to be planned before we invaded.  Iraq in contrast to Afghanistan, had a highly centralized and organized government.  Each one of those nations has and had different needs to rebuild them.

Saddam was a bad man.  There are many other bad men that shouldn't be in power.  Next time we do this we need to plan better.

Although I am a registered Republican, and generally vote for the party, I do not consider myself a Republican.  I do not believe that one's right to vote or run this country is a right, but rather a privilege that should be earned.  Unfortunately, there are too many Americans that do not posses the common sense or intelligence to lead their own lives, let alone make decisions that will affect the rest of our country.

[ccm911]

catchacab wrote:

I voted for GWB, and I would do it over again.

I am utterly speechless........

[Phokaioglaukos]

catchacab wrote:

The reason I voted for [GWB], is because I vote with my wallet. I will vote for the candidate that offers me the lowest possible tax bill. . . .

Our action in Iraq was needed, . . .

Saddam was a bad man. There are many other bad men that shouldn't be in power.

If you really mean to vote with your wallet you should absolutely have voted against GWB's war in Iraq. It's unbelievalby expensive and will have tax costs for many years to come.

How do you feel about your tax dollars supporting the search for WMDs where they are not (Iraq) and not where they are (North Korea)? These are "necessary" expenditures where health care, education, bridges, roads, and other infrasturcture are unnecessary?

I vote for those who I expect to spend tax dollars to improve my community, state, country and world, and I think we pay too little taxes and get too little for them.

[AMoore]

catchacab wrote:

The reason I voted for him, is because I vote with my wallet. I will vote for the candidate that offers me the lowest possible tax bill.

If your tax bill was lower because of GWB, you can certainly expect it to increase when the loan notes come due.

Reduce taxes, spend more money, borrow money, increase debt, leave a mess for the next adminstration. What an absurd plan.

[dmano]

I'm giving up on this thread.

 I listed a car show that I think would be a great event for the club to do. It supports Breast Cancer Research. Please lets try to show up. It is in April. If we can't go as a club just go yourself.

[catchacab]

The reason we needed to invade Iraq was that Saddam was refusing to comply with UN resolutions.  His actions if allowed to continue could have down-graded the authority of the UN to the League of Nations.  The indecision of the UN to resolve to take action against Iraq for multiple violations of UN resolutions was and is unacceptable.  Today Iraq, who tomorrow?  (Yes, Iran, and North Korea are bigger threats than Iraq).  GWB, did take action into his own hands, with out UN support.  WMD are a non issue, there were more than enough other violations to warrant military action.

Our country has been in the process of becoming a second rate world power.  Bigger concerns should be the rise of China's economic and military power, the rebirth of Russian economic and political power, religious extremists, and rogue nations.

To regain our world power, we need to re-invest in our country.  We need to educate our children and work force, bring manufacturing home, and encourage US based companies not to export jobs.

According to Mahalamatics,  I paid my families share of the national debt this year.

More to come, but it is time for Yoga now!

[nplenzick]

catchacab wrote:

The reason we needed to invade Iraq was that Saddam was refusing to comply with UN resolutions. His actions if allowed to continue could have down-graded the authority of the UN to the League of Nations. The indecision of the UN to resolve to take action against Iraq for multiple violations of UN resolutions was and is unacceptable. Today Iraq, who tomorrow? (Yes, Iran, and North Korea are bigger threats than Iraq). GWB, did take action into his own hands, with out UN support. WMD are a non issue, there were more than enough other violations to warrant military action.

Our country has been in the process of becoming a second rate world power. Bigger concerns should be the rise of China's economic and military power, the rebirth of Russian economic and political power, religious extremists, and rogue nations.

To regain our world power, we need to re-invest in our country. We need to educate our children and work force, bring manufacturing home, and encourage US based companies not to export jobs.

According to Mahalamatics, I paid my families share of the national debt this year.

More to come, but it is time for Yoga now!

Boy I'm really confused. We invade Iraq to help the UN ? But wasn't the invasion highly criticized by the UN? Which is it help or hurt? No WMD's in Iraq? So what were the violations that Iraq committed that effected the US directly. Violations that were so severe that the US had to invade another country without UN support.

We had the world on our side after 911, with the invasion of Iraq we lost that support. We have no right to invade another country that does not cause us direct harm .

At least we agree on re-investing back in our country, education, jobs, etc. But here again I'm confused as to why you didn't vote for Kerry in the last election as he was for all of these things. GW has given big business the free ride it's wanted and what do they do with it? See that's what happens when you vote with your wallet instead of your brain

[emayer]

"We played schoolyard bully for no reason, other than to prove a point."

Agreed.  The issue is whether the point was worth making at the supposed wrath of our Allies.  Growing up I used to hear constant complaining about the military and nuclear presence in Germany, that is until they packed up and left.  Now they are missed for their economic and security contributions.  Many other European countries have to tread carefully on the subject of Muslim extremism as they make up a substantial portion of their constituency.  There is more to the story here than is outwardly apparant.

That said, we should come out and call the Iraq invasion for what it was:  A pre-emptive strike against Islamic extremism (both symbolic and real), a viable target to draw their attention from further attacks and our soil (successful thus far), a perfect geographic location from which to base operations in neighboring countries.  I am no hawk, but I can see the rationalization for this venture.  Our issue as a country is how the campaign was managed in the early phases, and we are paying the price for this now.

As for the cost of the war, we should be forthright about our expectations.  I would have no issue with the administration saying that they would fund reconstruction, infrastructure, and military protection provided that the costs are eventually offset by a reduction in the price of Iraqi oil.  The mere discussion of this would likely destabilize OPEC and further drive prices down.

From a historical and philisophical point, would the cost to America have been as great if we had taken a more proactive approach in dealing with Kaiser Wilhelm or Adolf Hitler?

[catchacab]

I wouldn't call the invasion of Iraq, the battle against Muslim extremist.  Iraq is more of a secular society than other nations.   What we were dealing with was a leader who didn't comply as he should have with international agreements.  One error that was made by GHB, is he let the UN resolve Iraq, instead of the US having a direct end of conflict treaty.  Had we had a direct treaty with them we would have had the legal authority to work outside of the UN with our unilateral actions.

I believe part of the invasion of Iraq, was to show other nations that are more dangerous that we have the resolution to take action against them if they become an impending threat to our national security (primarily Iran and South Korea).  Additionally, Iraq is a good launching point for a conflict with Iran.

We were a bully.  Had we executed the rebuilding of Iraq better, managed the different religious sects, and ethnicities better, the public opinion would be different. 

The bottom line when it comes to Iraq, WE made the situation what it is, it is up to us to make Iraq an a self sustaining, safe, stable and independent democratic country.  The only problem is that due to the different religious sects and ethnicities, a strong dictator is more likely to make Iraq stable, safe and self sustaining than a democracy will.