Tom Daschle is a sack of shit

[Durandal]

You could drive a truck through that false dilemma.

This is a very simple train of thought. The war is going to cost $75 billion. That money isn't going to fall out of the sky, and cutting taxes isn't something to be done in the wake of a war whose length is becoming continually uncertain.

Fine, you can say that we should lower taxes and count on all the loyal Americans to run out and spend their money, despite assloads of them just being royally fucked by the economy, which doesn't exactly put people in a spending mood, but you're burying your head in the sand. Taxes are guaranteed income. Economic projections of spending increases based on lower taxes after an economic downturn are not.

[Joe]

Or I can advocate *gasp* spending cuts.

[Durandal]

Or I can advocate *gasp* spending cuts.

Well there's that too ... duh. I forgot.

What would you have cut?

[Joe]

Or I can advocate *gasp* spending cuts.

Well there's that too ... duh. I forgot.

What would you have cut?

Goodness, where to start, where to friggin' start...well, I suppose I should just deal with things that most people can disagree with.

We can get rid of the DEA & the federal drug war, gut the TransPorktation department's massive budget, limit the growth of spending in welfare and such in order to save some cash, and all and all go after the various pork barrel spending projects located in the various departments.

I personally would go a LOT further, but I'm trying to find some common ground here.

[Durandal]

The drug war would be a huge load off the budget. Unfortunately, however, cutting what you want (no matter how reasonable it is), simply won't happen. There's too many professional bribers ... er, lobbyists, protecting the interests of those groups.

Hell, I'd almost like to see all lobbyists thrown out before the lawyers.

[Sr.mal]

So, which programs would you want to cut?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

The entire DEA, for starters.

Hear Hear!!!!!! I agree.

[weemadando]

[theski]

LOL! even from the the right wing , thats funny shit....

[Sea Skimmer]

Given the huge chunk of change Bush is asking for it's not suprising. And given the fact that the tax cut is of dubious value to begin I'm not suprised they cut it.

75 billion sure is a lot out of a multi trillion dollar budget

[Sea Skimmer]

Hell, I'd almost like to see all lobbyists thrown out before the lawyers.

Many are both; we can save bullets, or bottomless pit space depending on preference.

[Sam Or I]

Historically speaking when has war not been good for the economy? WWI there was the "booming" 20's, WWII is the single most sited thing to bring the US out of the great depression. Kennedys tax cuts (which if you look at them are alot like Bush's) plus Vietnam boosted the economy. The Gulf War 1 helped lay the fooundation for the big boom in the 90's.

That tax money is going right back into the American economy. American companies manufacture the weapons of war, American companies will be the ones the US spends money on to rebuild Iraq.

Bloody money helps the economy, not hinders it.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I can say for me a tax cut will go straight to savings or paying bills. No extra spending. There are 10s of thousands of people in the same boat. At tax cut for us will not promote additional spending. Any spending I would do would benefit local govt more.

Since you cant cut what ever programs you want, we have a choice, reduce the tax cut to help pay for defense or increase deficit spending. Will still have not payed off the bills from the 1980's build up. The sad thing about the national debt is it gets handed off to future generations who didnt even have a choice in the matter.

[Joe]

Historically speaking when has war not been good for the economy? WWI there was the "booming" 20's, WWII is the single most sited thing to bring the US out of the great depression. Kennedys tax cuts (which if you look at them are alot like Bush's) plus Vietnam boosted the economy. The Gulf War 1 helped lay the fooundation for the big boom in the 90's.

That tax money is going right back into the American economy. American companies manufacture the weapons of war, American companies will be the ones the US spends money on to rebuild Iraq.

Bloody money helps the economy, not hinders it.

War is not good for the economy, other things being equal. Economists call this the broken window fallacy.

[irishmick79]

Vietnam boosted the economy

initially, it did. By the end of it though, it was so expensive that it was causing inflation within the American economy, and wreaking havoc on Lyndon Johnson's domestic agenda. The Vietnam War played a big part in the economic lull of the late seventies for the United States.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Historically speaking when has war not been good for the economy? WWI there was the "booming" 20's, WWII is the single most sited thing to bring the US out of the great depression. Kennedys tax cuts (which if you look at them are alot like Bush's) plus Vietnam boosted the economy. The Gulf War 1 helped lay the fooundation for the big boom in the 90's.

That tax money is going right back into the American economy. American companies manufacture the weapons of war, American companies will be the ones the US spends money on to rebuild Iraq.

Bloody money helps the economy, not hinders it.

War is not good for the economy, other things being equal. Economists call this the broken window fallacy.

I agree, wars usually are not good for the economy. WW2 was a bit different for US. Europe and most of the combatants were broke after WW2. Remember at the end there were two major powers, The US and Russia. Many of the other industrial nations were in shambles.

The Gulf war did nothing to set the boom. Why do you say that. We entered into recession during that time. Some people actually say the reduction in military spending after the Cold War helped the boom. I do not know if that is really true, but something to think about.

[David]

Given the huge chunk of change Bush is asking for it's not suprising. And given the fact that the tax cut is of dubious value to begin I'm not suprised they cut it.

Bush only asked for 100 million of that, and they took another 250 million. Given the fact that the vote went nearly straight down the party lines I suspect this had more to do with P&P ( politics and pork) than anything else.

[Master of Ossus]

Damn, Daschle reversed his position on Iraq fast. He even voted for the act that gave Bush the authority to launch this attack!

I wouldn't call 5 years "fast." In 1998, the economy was booming, and we had the money to take on Iraq without worrying about whether or not lowering taxes will cover it.

Wrong. He's not talking about the economic costs of the war, or the differences between the economy then and now. He's talking about the DIPLOMATIC relations between the United States and the rest of the world. In Clinton's case, he was the first to jump on the bandwagon to support it, even though Clinton did FAR less to earn support for the war. Then when Bush came along, he IMMEDIATELY attacked the Bush diplomatic effort, and blamed it for forcing the Americans into the war, even though he had said in Clinton's case that there could be no division between political parties over Iraq because Saddam needed to be removed. That IS flip-flopping quickly, and not because of anything but politics.

I agree with you that supporting the war without wanting to pay for it is hypocritical, but that is a GIANT RED HERRING. The subject is Tom Daschle. He's not claiming that the differences in the economy or the budget are the reasons for his lack of support for the war. He's claiming it was the lack of Bush administration diplomacy. He loses. Good try to get him off the hook, though.

[jegs2]

We could get the money from Iraqi oil sales, but I don't see that happening. Nonetheless, the long-term dividends will be worth it if Iraq becomes a stable and affluent democracy -- not to mention a US ally in the Middle East that isn't an Arab dictatorship.

I was under the impression that the oil was for the Iraqi people. Am I off base?

XPViking

Thus the portion of my quote :

...but I don't see that happening...

[RedImperator]

Unfortunately, however, cutting what you want (no matter how reasonable it is), simply won't happen.

What the government makes, the government can unmake. We could take a chainsaw to the Federal budget tomorrow--cut entire Cabinet departments, tear the guts out of others. Give me a copy of the Federal budget and a Hi-Liter and I'll give you a half-billion dollar surplus for FY 2004 tomorrow. The government could do that and save us from the day this whole castle in the air called American fiscal policy crashes down on everyone's head. All it would take is bipartisan cooperation, political will, an understanding that all branches and all levels of government are going to have to learn to deal with money the way people and businesses do, and the courage on the part of the President, the leaders of Congress, state governors, and local mayors to tell their constituents that they're not entitled to anything more than protection from criminals and foreign armies from their government.

And then we'll all have bacon, because pigs will be flying out of my ass.

[Joe]

Unfortunately, however, cutting what you want (no matter how reasonable it is), simply won't happen.

What the government makes, the government can unmake. We could take a chainsaw to the Federal budget tomorrow--cut entire Cabinet departments, tear the guts out of others. Give me a copy of the Federal budget and a Hi-Liter and I'll give you a half-billion dollar surplus for FY 2004 tomorrow. The government could do that and save us from the day this whole castle in the air called American fiscal policy crashes down on everyone's head. All it would take is bipartisan cooperation, political will, an understanding that all branches and all levels of government are going to have to learn to deal with money the way people and businesses do, and the courage on the part of the President, the leaders of Congress, state governors, and local mayors to tell their constituents that they're not entitled to anything more than protection from criminals and foreign armies from their government.

And then we'll all have bacon, because pigs will be flying out of my ass.

We can dream. But we will succeed, one day (yes, I'm still an optimistic libertarian, though not very optimistic about what's going on now).

[Durandal]

Wrong. He's not talking about the economic costs of the war, or the differences between the economy then and now. He's talking about the DIPLOMATIC relations between the United States and the rest of the world. In Clinton's case, he was the first to jump on the bandwagon to support it, even though Clinton did FAR less to earn support for the war. Then when Bush came along, he IMMEDIATELY attacked the Bush diplomatic effort, and blamed it for forcing the Americans into the war, even though he had said in Clinton's case that there could be no division between political parties over Iraq because Saddam needed to be removed. That IS flip-flopping quickly, and not because of anything but politics.

I agree with you that supporting the war without wanting to pay for it is hypocritical, but that is a GIANT RED HERRING. The subject is Tom Daschle. He's not claiming that the differences in the economy or the budget are the reasons for his lack of support for the war. He's claiming it was the lack of Bush administration diplomacy. He loses. Good try to get him off the hook, though.

He never said that he didn't support the war because of the failure of diplomacy; he said that he was disappointed that the administration didn't put forth what was (in his opinion) sufficient diplomatic effort to avert the war. Those two are not equivalent. He left his own reasons for not supporting the war ambiguous. He's basically saying, "I wish he would have done this to prevent the war, because I don't support the war (for whatever other reasons)."

Now, granted, it's likely that part of the reason he doesn't support the war because the Republicans want to wage it (it is a partisan government, after all), but you also have to consider that we simply don't have the money now that we had in 1998.

[theski]

I guess this could go in either this or the Anti-war protestors thread.. Check out Barbara Streisands comments from her web site.. Sounds Familiar its now become the hip DNC comment on the warhttp://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover. ... /25/101542

[Master of Ossus]

He never said that he didn't support the war because of the failure of diplomacy; he said that he was disappointed that the administration didn't put forth what was (in his opinion) sufficient diplomatic effort to avert the war. Those two are not equivalent. He left his own reasons for not supporting the war ambiguous. He's basically saying, "I wish he would have done this to prevent the war, because I don't support the war (for whatever other reasons)."

Now, granted, it's likely that part of the reason he doesn't support the war because the Republicans want to wage it (it is a partisan government, after all), but you also have to consider that we simply don't have the money now that we had in 1998.

So what? It's still hypocritical of him to claim that the Bush administration did not properly use diplomacy when it had the opportunity to, when the Clinton administration did FAR less and he claimed that they had exhausted all diplomatic efforts to avert armed conflict.

[theski]

Loser Tom is backpeddling like a little girl..http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD= ... =461&rfi=9

[Soontir C'boath]

Loser Tom is backpeddling like a little girl..http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD= ... =461&rfi=9

Muahahahahaha... losing focus the Demos are.

Cyaround,
Jason