"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:27:11 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 17:17:44 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 16:14:19 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .

It was a disaster and created more racism than it got rid of.

They invented deficit spending, they abolished the gold
standard.

Ummmmmm, who's taken that to new levels? Created the Platinum
Standard? (here's a hint, who actually balanced the budget

The GOP is why we have a balanced budget.

I meant to say that there *is* no balanced budget. Why, just
yesterday, the Administration announced the largest deficit in
history. And, guess what, it doesn't matter *what* percentage it
is
of
GNP, it's still an UNBALANCED BUDGET.

You lose.

Again.

It's a very small debt compared to the debt run up by the dems in
the
past
when seen in light of GDP as is the custom.

Bull****. Prove that a $450,000,000,000 deficit is "small". It's
over
4% of GNP. And imagine if President Bush included the cost of the
war
in Iraq, something that he's hiding from the deficit at the
moment...

And what percetage was under Carter or Johnson?

Ummmm, wasn't there a war going on under Johnson? Weren't we getting
the interstate system completed? It's OK to run a deficit during
wartime *only* if they're Republicans, right?

That's not what I'm saying.

I wonder what the
percentage under Bush would be if he folded in the costs of the Iraq
war in, something he refuses to do.

Oh yeah, let's not forget about Reagan's use of debt spending as
well...

You mean congress spending?

No, I mean the hugely increased military spending that Reagan rammed
through. Star Wars anyone?

The tax cuts under Reagan caused a dramatic increase into the treasury.
The problem was for every dollar in they spent
$1.25.

And who's idea was that? Star Wars anyone? It's generally accepted by
anyone with half a brain that the increase in defic spending during
the Regan era was due to Reagan's desire to spend spend spend on the
military.

Desire isn't law. Read the Constitution, only Congress can spend money.
Presidents can merely ask for it.

It's still an idea invented by the dems and the reasons for it
currently
are
acceptable. Had it not been for the GOP we'd never have had a
balanced
budget.

Bull****.

Youu keep dishing it.

It's funny how you blame Democratic presidents for all sorts of
things, but when Republican presidaents are blamed for things,
suddenly it's not their doing.

I don't blame presidents for much to do with the economy since they have
very little to with it either way.

That is sooooo wrong. They are the ones who submit the budget after
all. They are the ones who have the power of veto after all.

And Congress can overide.

And, nice speaking out of both sides of your mouth again -
apparently
this "*acceptable* defit spending" was invented by Democrats. So,
you
should thank them, right?

All things considered, no.

OK, so it's back to being a bad thing. Make up your mind please...

I never said it was a good thing, only that the current one while as a
number is big, it's a small % of GDP which is the way we have
traditionally
viewed it. I prefer governments to have balanced budgets. If it were up
to
me they'd have much smaller budgets to begin with.

Except for military spending, right?

You also seem to think I'm enamoured of the GOP, I'm not, they have
plenty
of faults, I just get tired of the constant distortions and blank outs
from
the left.

You've thrown plenty of those blinkered viewpoints yourself. For
instance, Clinton can't seem to have done anything right, and yet, his
administration marshalled just about the strongest economic period in
American history.

Do you think that would have been true with the Tax cuts that preceded him
or if National Healtcare had passed, or if the GOP hadn't been a majority in
the House?

Name one thing that CLINTON himself did to improve the economy?

True, he did somethings wrong, like actually being
the cause of 9/11 with his botched attempt on bin Laden's life. But,
Ithink if you throw out the vindictiveness of the Republican
marshalled sexual harassment suit, the intense scrutiny of the
Republicans over Whitewater (talk about your massive spending), and
the hectoring over extramarital affairs, the Clinton times ccan be
seen as a period of great things for the US as a whole.

Sure if you leave out bombing an aspirin factory because of bad intelligence
that nobody bitched about like they are over allegedly bad info in the SOU.
Or if you forget that the firast 2 years of his admin. he was a tax and
spend liberal and tried to nationalize healthcare which would sure have lead
to massive deficits, or if you forget how he completely ignored terrorism
and sold the chinese computers that made it posiible for them to target
multiple warheads, or that he was offered Bin Ladin three ****ing times and
claimed he could not come up with a reason to hold him. Or forget that
there was a bimbo alert team. Or that those nasty Whitewater investigations
led to 15 prison terms for former cronies. Or That he lied every time he
opened his mouth. Whatever good things happened during his administration
were in spite of not because of him. The only thing I can remember he did I
liked was allowing fetal tissue research not to be banned anymore.

And, it seems that President Bush is no Truman. Whatever happened to
"The buck stops here".

I don't know I'm having to much fun with his anti-semitism.

What evidence do you have that it isn't so with Bush?

Consider that we've heard almost nothing on how and why Liberia is in
such a
state of chaos. Not that long ago Liberia and it's president were fading
out due to the world turning it's back on the regime there. Then some
asshole gave the Taylor governement legitimacy.

Well, who gave weapons to Hussein way back when?

We did because we wanted them to kill Iranians.
We never gave them actual poison gas BTW.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"dave weil" wrote in message


And, it seems that President Bush is no Truman. Whatever happened to
"The buck stops here".

Different times, different worlds ...

... different political party.

What proof do you have that the buck doesn't stop with Bush?
More OSAF?

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

You mean congress spending? The tax cuts under Reagan caused a dramatic
increase into the treasury. The problem was for every dollar in they
spent
$1.25.

That's not true.

It is true.

Revenues rose in absolute terms, but they declined
as a percentage of GDP and relative to what they would have been in
the absence of a tax cut.


A four fold increase in revenue would not have happened without the tax
cuts. The same sort of thing happened with the tax cuts under Kennedy.

This is one of the great fallacies that is nonetheless not even
credible enough for Bush to attempt to invoke it. Instead he claimed
that the loss of revenue would be less than the projected surplus. In
Reagan's case, according to his budget director David Stockman, the
tax cuts were never really expected to increase revenues, but were
instead a way to put pressure on spending. This was probably the case
with Bush as well, although the cuts were put forward as
"privatization" of medicare and Social Security, "school choice," and
greater "flexibility" for state governments, hence the changing
rationale for the tax cuts: to increase growth, to reduce the
surplus, then to promote recovery. The real goal is to reduce taxes
and the size of the federal government.

Bull****. The government has grown under Bush. The budget get bigger every
year no matter who is Prez because politicians on both sides aren't happy
unless they can show they did something and something means spending.

Perhaps in his 2nd term with a bigger majority in both houses some real cuts
might happen and vouchers, privitization of medicare and SSI might happend
but rest assured these ideas make far to much sense for the dems to ever
agree to them.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...
dave weil wrote:
It was a disaster and created more racism than it got rid of.


They invented deficit spending, they abolished the gold standard.

Ummmmmm, who's taken that to new levels? Created the Platinum
Standard? (here's a hint, who actually balanced the budget

The GOP is why we have a balanced budget.


I meant to say that there *is* no balanced budget. Why, just
yesterday, the Administration announced the largest deficit in
history. And, guess what, it doesn't matter *what* percentage it is of
GNP, it's still an UNBALANCED BUDGET.

Factor in the purplus we had before.

We never had a surplus we had a projected surplus. Surpluses are supposed to
be returned.

Then add in the military spending which does NOT appear in that report.

It's closer to $650 billion. Holy crap.

Oh - 600 billion is pure oversepnding domestically. WTF is it all going?

Can you say pork and waste? If they could track down all the waste and
overlapping programs the budget could likely be reduced by 1/3. I'm
guessing but I wouldn't be surpized if it were even more.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:37:57 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:

The GOP is why we have a balanced budget.

Now there's a good one. What do you mean by this?

Without a GOP majority in the house holding Clinton's feet to the fire for
saying he could deliver in balanced budget in 4, 7, or whatever number he
happened to be thinking of at any given moment, it never would have
happened.



Jacob Kramer

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 13:15:14 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
. com...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

When are you going to admit that the democrats are simply
making
****
up
for
political advantage

This really isn't a partisan issue:
You're dreaming.


'On Capitol Hill, Senator Charles Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, a
leading foreign policy player, demanded a thorough investigation
and
declared: ''There's a cloud hanging over this administration.''
''Listen, it wasn't just the CIA involved here. We had the vice
president and his office involved,'' Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary
of
State Colin L. Powell, Hagel said. ''This wasn't just a one-man
show.
And this is too serious here for this country to not know what
happened."'




http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/19...after_uranium_
claim+.shtml

Also this is fairly astonishing. The administration considers it
classified who wrote that line in the speech. Normally you would
think the person speaking is the author of a speech, but of course
everyone knows that's not the case when it comes to Bush.

Everyone? Who told them?

In fact
with this president, it's come so far that the president not only
can't even be held responsible for his own words, can not only
blame
them on somebody else, but can even keep the author secret:

Clinton NEVER did anything like that did he?

What in the heck does Clinton have to do with this?


A Hell of a lot, since he is part of the reason Iraq needed to be dealt
with
and Bin Laden was able to raise so much hell. He ignored both while
trying
to hold onto his job and get his wife elected. Bin laden would have
been in
jail and Iraq would have been disarmed if he'd been paying atention.
Then
of course ther's the fact that he couldn't ever be trusted to tell the
truth
about anything. As Jay Leno put it, he didin't strectch the truth, he
came
nowhere near the truth.

Clinton could be Jeffrey Dahmer and it would have no effect on whether
Bush distorted the intelligence.

He did not distort the evidence. they had the same evidence under Clinton.
They have evidence as reported by Tom Brokaw that will take about 2 months
to go through and then according to brokaw bush will be vindicated on the
WMD issue.

Do you know the meaning of
"non-sequiter"? This is the fifth or sixth time at least you have
invoked one in this thread. This is not about Clinton. It's about
Bush. You know, the president?

The president cleaning up after Clinton's sloth.

Get a clue.

"mikemckelvy" wrote in message ...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

You mean congress spending? The tax cuts under Reagan caused a dramatic
increase into the treasury. The problem was for every dollar in they
spent
$1.25.

That's not true.

It is true.

Revenues rose in absolute terms, but they declined
as a percentage of GDP and relative to what they would have been in
the absence of a tax cut.

A four fold increase in revenue would not have happened without the tax
cuts. The same sort of thing happened with the tax cuts under Kennedy.

A four-fold increase in revenue? Where did you get that one from?

Inflation-adjusted income tax revenues were lower in each of the first
5 years of the Reagan tax cut than they had been the year prior to the
tax cut. These are the years when the deficit exploded.

Tax revenue finally recovered in the 6th year only because most
exemptions and deductions were either eliminated or severely limited
(i.e., loopholes closed) thanks to Bill Bradley.

Now given those facts, you don't really believe that tax revenue would
have been lower (and thus the deficits even higher) without the tax
cut? Of course you don't because the exact opposite is the truth.

Josh Rosenbluth

"mikemckelvy" wrote in message ...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

You mean congress spending? The tax cuts under Reagan caused a dramatic
increase into the treasury. The problem was for every dollar in they
spent
$1.25.

That's not true.

It is true.

Revenues rose in absolute terms, but they declined
as a percentage of GDP and relative to what they would have been in
the absence of a tax cut.


A four fold increase in revenue would not have happened without the tax
cuts. The same sort of thing happened with the tax cuts under Kennedy.

Here's the problems with the theory:

"The supply-side claim was that when the tax rate fell, income would
rise enough that total income tax revenue would increase. For
instance, suppose that the tax rate was cut from 20 to 15 percent.
Suppose income was originally equal to $2 trillion. Taxes would thus
be $400 billion to begin with. With a tax rate of 15 percent, income
would have to rise to $2,667 billion for total revenue from the income
tax to increase. It is rare, indeed, that income rises by one-third
within a short time--but that is the size of the increase that would
be needed if taxes were cut by one-quarter, as in the example of this
paragraph."

Here's the reality:

"Whatever the theoretical possibilities, the [1981 to 1983] Kemp-Roth
tax cuts did not lead to an increase in government revenue. Even if
we concentrate on the full-employment budget, we do not see an
increase in government revenue resulting from the tax cuts. This
excessively optimistic element in supply-side economics was never
believed by any but a small minority of economists, and it is now
totally dismissed."

Rudiger Dornbusch and Stanley Fisher, Macroeconomics, Fifth Edition
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990), 605, 607.

Here are specifics:

Measuring from points of approximately equal unemployment to give a
consistent baseline in the deficit, as opposed to a full-employment
deficit versus a recessionary deficit, in 1981 receipts were 20.2
percent of GDP, in 1992 18.6 percent. Outlays were 22.9 percent in
1981 and 23.5 percent in 1993.

"In 1981, the federal government ran a deficit of 2.7 percent of GDP;
in 1992, the number was 4.9 percent. With some caveats, we can say
that the difference between those two numbers, 2.2 percent of GDP,
represents the deficit problem that Ronald Reagan created."

"Where did the increase come from? Mostly from a reduction in tax
income: a fall in the share of GDP collected as government revenue
accounted for more than 70 percent of the rise in the deficit. The
rest was due to an actual slight rise in expenditures as a share of
GDP. One might be tempted to summarize this by saying that the
conservatives succeeded in cutting taxes, but failed to reduce the
size of the government. But that's not quite right. By 1992 the
federal government was paying interest on a debt that was twice as
large a share of GDP as in 1981, so even though the interest rate was
lower, interest payments were much higher; expenditure other than
interest had in fact fallen as a share of output."

Paul Krugman, Peddling Prosperity (New York: W. W. Norton, 1994), 153,
154.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:47:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

There are no true innocents in any country at war. If you haven't noticed,
you bear moral responsibility if your country goes to war and you stick
around.

Genocidal thinking noted.

--

Jacob Kramer

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:29:18 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
. com...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"dave weil" wrote in message


And, it seems that President Bush is no Truman. Whatever happened to
"The buck stops here".

Different times, different worlds ...

... different political party.

What proof do you have that the buck doesn't stop with Bush?
More OSAF?

That he didn't take responsibility for his own State of the Union
Address.

--

Jacob Kramer

mikemckelvy wrote:

A Hell of a lot, since he is part of the reason Iraq needed to be dealt with
and Bin Laden was able to raise so much hell. He ignored both while trying
to hold onto his job and get his wife elected. Bin laden would have been in
jail and Iraq would have been disarmed if he'd been paying atention. Then
of course ther's the fact that he couldn't ever be trusted to tell the truth
about anything. As Jay Leno put it, he didin't strectch the truth, he came
nowhere near the truth.

And poor Bush can't even recognize the truth.

Maybe we should make an ammendment that requires the President to pass
an I.Q. test and get a score over 130.

"mikemckelvy" wrote in message ...

I'll still defer to the people who have the best information, those on the
Intelligence Committees, when they atart making such claims I'll listen,
until then it's just opinions.

You still haven't admitted that your contention that the Intelligence
Committees members aren't making these claims is no longer true, if it
ever was. I was reminded of this when I saw this story in today's
Times, which says that yesterday Tenet told the Senate Intelligence
Committee that a specified White House Aide insisted on keeping the
reference to the African uranium despite Tenet's urgings:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/17/in...partner=GOOGLE

Also, you said you would take the claim seriously once it was made by
the Intelligence Committee. Why are you still no longer taking it
seriously? And why haven't you admitted that your statement about the
committee is no longer true?

dave weil wrote:

But in only six years since 1946 has the deficit been larger than 4.2
percent of the gross domestic product. Not counting the current
surplus in the Social Security fund, the deficit would be 5.7 percent
of the total economy, the largest since World War II except for 1983,
when there was no Social Security surplus".

But Social Security is a "locked box", isn't it?



So it should be excluded from the figures. 5.7 precent.

PLUS the cost of this war. We're suddenly *over* 6%. No wonder
he's cooking the books - he doesn't want to be known as the
President that gave us the worst defecit in U.S. history.

Schizoid Man wrote:
"Arny Krueger" said:

"dave weil" said


snip

Yeah, it was simple to decide to drop an atomic bomb back then.

Indeed. History says that it was a fine idea, a few noisy technophobes and
revisionists notwithstanding.


Please elucidate why it is a 'fine' idea to drop an atomic bomb and
instantly snuff out 105,000 lives, notwithstanding all those who succumbed
to burns and the radiation fall-out.

Add Dessden into that figure(a proven terrorist act - done purely
to create fear and for psychological effect) and we're even less
deserving of that white hat.

"mikemckelvy" wrote in message ...

Name one thing that CLINTON himself did to improve the economy?

Raised taxes -- budget surplus -- low interest rates -- 90s boom.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:00:54 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:

mikemckelvy wrote:

A Hell of a lot, since he is part of the reason Iraq needed to be dealt with
and Bin Laden was able to raise so much hell. He ignored both while trying
to hold onto his job and get his wife elected. Bin laden would have been in
jail and Iraq would have been disarmed if he'd been paying atention. Then
of course ther's the fact that he couldn't ever be trusted to tell the truth
about anything. As Jay Leno put it, he didin't strectch the truth, he came
nowhere near the truth.

And poor Bush can't even recognize the truth.

Maybe we should make an ammendment that requires the President to pass
an I.Q. test and get a score over 130.

**** how about over 100?

--

Jacob Kramer

Jacob Kramer said:

Name one thing that CLINTON himself did to improve the economy?

Raised taxes -- budget surplus -- low interest rates -- 90s boom.

I know you're only "debating" against duh-Mikey, but could you
please bring at least your B game to the party?

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message

Schizoid Man wrote:
"Arny Krueger" said:

"dave weil" said

snip

Yeah, it was simple to decide to drop an atomic bomb back then.

Indeed. History says that it was a fine idea, a few noisy
technophobes and revisionists notwithstanding.

Please elucidate why it is a 'fine' idea to drop an atomic bomb and
instantly snuff out 105,000 lives, notwithstanding all those who
succumbed to burns and the radiation fall-out.

Compare and contrast 105,000 lives with what we accomplished by
firebombingTokyo. I've seen death counts as high as 500,000 or more for the
Tokyo firebombing. I guess someone is far more worried about killing 105,000
people in a day with an A-bomb than killing 500,000 people in a night with
incendiaries. While we're mourning 105,000 in Hiroshima, shall we not mourn
the 100,000+ who died in the London Blitz?

Add Dessden into that figure(a proven terrorist act - done purely
to create fear and for psychological effect) and we're even less
deserving of that white hat.

Dresden was far more difficult to justify than dropping the A-bomb on the
two cities in Japan. The point of dropping the A-bomb was telling the
Japanese quite unambiguously that all that damage could be done with just
one plane and just one bomb. It worked.

What we did in Dresden involved a far more conventional effort, and it
didn't work despite the deaths of up to 250,000 Germans. Furthermore, we had
a far less fanatical enemy population in Germany. At the end of the war they
were beaten, they knew it, and they generally preferred to throw themselves
on the mercy and into the protection of the Western allies as opposed to
being captured by the Russians. There's no doubt that their fear of the
Russians was justified.

Hiroshima was a valid military target with 40,000 soldiers and shipyards.
Dresden wasn't.

And that brings up another issue. Had we not dropped the bombs on Japan, and
the war dragged on, the Russians could have easily ended up occupying part
of Japan. Thus we avoided the opportunity to have two Korea-like situations,
instead of just one.

You know what? War is one messy business.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:29:18 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
. com...
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"dave weil" wrote in message


And, it seems that President Bush is no Truman. Whatever happened
to
"The buck stops here".

Different times, different worlds ...

... different political party.

What proof do you have that the buck doesn't stop with Bush?
More OSAF?

That he didn't take responsibility for his own State of the Union
Address.

Presidents don't write their speeches, the information was true.

Just curious, was Truman a man you respect? Do you still repect him in
light of his recently revealed anti-semitism?

Jacob Kramer

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

Name one thing that CLINTON himself did to improve the economy?

Raised taxes --
If you believe raising taxes helps the economy, you're beyond help.

budget surplus --
Budget surplus was due to OVER taxation combined with the productivity of
the American people, not Clinton.

low interest rates -- 90s boom.

Clinton did set the interest rates, they were lower because greenspan
lowered them as a response to a slow economy and trying to head off
inflation.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

You mean congress spending? The tax cuts under Reagan caused a
dramatic
increase into the treasury. The problem was for every dollar in
they
spent
$1.25.

That's not true.

It is true.

Revenues rose in absolute terms, but they declined
as a percentage of GDP and relative to what they would have been in
the absence of a tax cut.


A four fold increase in revenue would not have happened without the tax
cuts. The same sort of thing happened with the tax cuts under Kennedy.

Here's the problems with the theory:

"The supply-side claim was that when the tax rate fell, income would
rise enough that total income tax revenue would increase. For
instance, suppose that the tax rate was cut from 20 to 15 percent.
Suppose income was originally equal to $2 trillion. Taxes would thus
be $400 billion to begin with. With a tax rate of 15 percent, income
would have to rise to $2,667 billion for total revenue from the income
tax to increase. It is rare, indeed, that income rises by one-third
within a short time--but that is the size of the increase that would
be needed if taxes were cut by one-quarter, as in the example of this
paragraph."

Here's the reality:

"Whatever the theoretical possibilities, the [1981 to 1983] Kemp-Roth
tax cuts did not lead to an increase in government revenue. Even if
we concentrate on the full-employment budget, we do not see an
increase in government revenue resulting from the tax cuts. This
excessively optimistic element in supply-side economics was never
believed by any but a small minority of economists, and it is now
totally dismissed."

Bwahahaha. It is reality that democrats try to deny.

Rudiger Dornbusch and Stanley Fisher, Macroeconomics, Fifth Edition
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990), 605, 607.

Here are specifics:

Measuring from points of approximately equal unemployment to give a
consistent baseline in the deficit, as opposed to a full-employment
deficit versus a recessionary deficit, in 1981 receipts were 20.2
percent of GDP, in 1992 18.6 percent. Outlays were 22.9 percent in
1981 and 23.5 percent in 1993.

"In 1981, the federal government ran a deficit of 2.7 percent of GDP;
in 1992, the number was 4.9 percent. With some caveats, we can say
that the difference between those two numbers, 2.2 percent of GDP,
represents the deficit problem that Ronald Reagan created."

Presidents DON'T create deficits, Congress does.

"Where did the increase come from? Mostly from a reduction in tax
income: a fall in the share of GDP collected as government revenue
accounted for more than 70 percent of the rise in the deficit. The
rest was due to an actual slight rise in expenditures as a share of
GDP. One might be tempted to summarize this by saying that the
conservatives succeeded in cutting taxes, but failed to reduce the
size of the government. But that's not quite right. By 1992 the
federal government was paying interest on a debt that was twice as
large a share of GDP as in 1981, so even though the interest rate was
lower, interest payments were much higher; expenditure other than
interest had in fact fallen as a share of output."

Paul Krugman, Peddling Prosperity (New York: W. W. Norton, 1994), 153,
154.

The increase in revenues from tax cuts don't come instantly, it takes time
for investment and the resulting profit from good ones to take hold.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...
mikemckelvy wrote:

A Hell of a lot, since he is part of the reason Iraq needed to be dealt
with
and Bin Laden was able to raise so much hell. He ignored both while
trying
to hold onto his job and get his wife elected. Bin laden would have
been in
jail and Iraq would have been disarmed if he'd been paying atention.
Then
of course ther's the fact that he couldn't ever be trusted to tell the
truth
about anything. As Jay Leno put it, he didin't strectch the truth, he
came
nowhere near the truth.

And poor Bush can't even recognize the truth.

Maybe we should make an ammendment that requires the President to pass
an I.Q. test and get a score over 130.

Yesh right that's why he's the firs Republican preseidnt in 40 years to have
a majority in the house and the senate.

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:37:09 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...
mikemckelvy wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...

mikemckelvy wrote:


It wasn't about hanky-panky, it was about not telling the truth
under

oath.

So - what about bald-faced lying when addressing the entire nation?

I see no difference.


You're right Clinton lied all the time.

So does Bush. Both are bums. The diffeerence, though, is that
Bush's policies are driving us to record levels of debt. Forget
about saving social security at this rate.

There's no way to save social security that the dems will allow.
Privatization is the possible hope.

Sort of like the obstructionist Repubs that have allowed 23,000,000
people who can't get health insurance...

We're spending as if we were in the height of the Cold War and
yet we squished the forces in Iraq in what - three weeks?

If you check you'll notice it's still a bit dicey there, plus we've more
of
the Clinton legacy to deal with in Korea and Liberia.

You mean like we had to deal with the Reagan legacy in Iraq?

Is *that* what you mean?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp?cp1=1#BODY

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...866942,00.html

This bit is especially telling:

"The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or
German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents,
including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster
bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says".

Oooops! Once again, you bring something up, I counter it with worse
stuff...

Ir would be if the context were dropped but the contex was we wanted the
Iranian government gone.
I've never defended all of our foriegn policy, moves. IMO not taking Bin
Laden when he was offered on a silver platter is vastly worse.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:37:09 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...
mikemckelvy wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in
message
...

mikemckelvy wrote:


It wasn't about hanky-panky, it was about not telling the truth
under

oath.

So - what about bald-faced lying when addressing the entire nation?

I see no difference.


You're right Clinton lied all the time.

So does Bush. Both are bums. The diffeerence, though, is that
Bush's policies are driving us to record levels of debt. Forget
about saving social security at this rate.

There's no way to save social security that the dems will allow.
Privatization is the possible hope.

Sort of like the obstructionist Repubs that have allowed 23,000,000
people who can't get health insurance...

We're spending as if we were in the height of the Cold War and
yet we squished the forces in Iraq in what - three weeks?

If you check you'll notice it's still a bit dicey there, plus we've
more
of
the Clinton legacy to deal with in Korea and Liberia.

You mean like we had to deal with the Reagan legacy in Iraq?

Is *that* what you mean?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp?cp1=1#BODY

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...866942,00.html

This bit is especially telling:

"The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or
German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents,
including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster
bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says".

Oooops! Once again, you bring something up, I counter it with worse
stuff...

Let him chew on this, Dave...

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=19255


Nice propaganda piece, unfortunately untrue. David Kay has already indicate
that the documents they have found will prove the case for WMD's.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...

I posted this link because you said the same thing about the State of
the Union Address.

My mistake, I see he may have referred more than once to Iraq and WMD's.
It
was not however the drone that most people seem to think it was.

I don't know what you mean here. It was a consistent part of the case
for fighting the war that the administration clearly desired. Here is
a helpful timeline from ABC:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/w..._timeline.html

It starts with a false premise, there was no false evidence..

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message

snip

Compare and contrast 105,000 lives with what we accomplished by
firebombingTokyo. I've seen death counts as high as 500,000 or more for
the
Tokyo firebombing.

That's because Tokyo is about 10 times the size of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
combined. Why did the Allies drop it on Nagasaki and Hiroshima and not Tokyo
and Osaka? Because of that reason. The death count would have been
staggering. Genocide, anyone?

I guess someone is far more worried about killing 105,000 people in a day
with an A-bomb than killing 500,000 people in a night with incendiaries.
While we're mourning 105,000 in Hiroshima, shall we not mourn the 100,000+
who died in the London Blitz?

No one is excusing the Nazis. They were butchers.

Dresden was far more difficult to justify than dropping the A-bomb on the
two cities in Japan.

Why is that? If this group was politically correct, I would have suggested a
subtle subcontext to your statement.

The point of dropping the A-bomb was telling the Japanese quite
unambiguously that all that damage could be done with just one plane and
just one bomb. It worked.

If the Allies wanted to be so damn unambiguous about it, why didn't they
drop it on the outskirts of the city. Surely seeing what the bomb is capable
of would have caused Hirohito to capitulate. There would have been no need
to lob in on 100,000 suspecting civilians.

That being said, what was the need for the second A-bomb? I'm sure the first
would have been quite enough to secure a surrender. Unfortunately, the
bombings were just two days apart.

What we did in Dresden involved a far more conventional effort, and it
didn't work despite the deaths of up to 250,000 Germans.

Didn't work? Dresden was reduced to nothing more than a pile of rubble. The
reason it didn't work in securing a German surrender was because Dresden was
brute force, not one almighty weapon. Secondly, Hitler was off his rocker by
then. Hirohito was not.

Hiroshima was a valid military target with 40,000 soldiers and shipyards.

Give me a break. The last major sea battle was in the South Pacific in the
winter of 1944. The Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings were in the August 1945,
almost nine months later.

And that brings up another issue. Had we not dropped the bombs on Japan,
and
the war dragged on, the Russians could have easily ended up occupying part
of Japan.

What? The Russians had concentrated almost all their resources and efforts
in the West. And anyway, Japan didn't declare war on Russia. It declared war
on America, and Germany invaded Russia. How do you reconcile those facts to
say that Russia would have invaded Japan?

You know what? War is one messy business.

You know what else? You need a lesson in history and ethics. Probably not in
that order though.

Schizoid Man said:

That being said, what was the need for the second A-bomb?

Have you been taking "debating trade" lessons from duh-Mikey?

Schizoid Man said:

What? The Russians had concentrated almost all their resources and efforts
in the West. And anyway, Japan didn't declare war on Russia. It declared war
on America, and Germany invaded Russia. How do you reconcile those facts to
say that Russia would have invaded Japan?

Even Krooger gets one partly right once in a while. Stalin was busy,
busy, busy making plans for the Pacific even while he was still up to
his neck in Nazis. As you have pointed out, in 1945 the Japanese war
machine was staggering from the poundings they were taking. They
were trying desperately to negotiate a truce with the Soviets that
would avert a total capitulation to the U.S. With the Nazis now
defeated, Stalin knew how weak Japan was and was sharpening up his
carving knife while his ambassador was stringing them along about a
supposed truce. Rather than invading Japan, his goal was most likely
to negotiate a truce of fealty, which he hoped would give him the
leverage to prevent the U.S. from executing their own occupation.
But the fiery arrival of the atomic age scotched Stalin's plans. So
even though an invasion of Japan was not on Stalin's front burner,
the notion of an "occupation" of sorts was indeed there.

Don't you watch the History channel?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message


On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:47:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

There are no true innocents in any country at war. If you haven't
noticed, you bear moral responsibility if your country goes to war
and you stick around.

Genocidal thinking noted.

Say what?

It's called taking responsibility for your country's actions and expecting
your opponents to do the same.

Does this include children, babies, and the hospitalized? Living in a
country does not imply consent to its policies, particularly when it
isn't a democratic country, as Japan wasn't.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:58:55 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"In 1981, the federal government ran a deficit of 2.7 percent of GDP;
in 1992, the number was 4.9 percent. With some caveats, we can say
that the difference between those two numbers, 2.2 percent of GDP,
represents the deficit problem that Ronald Reagan created."

Presidents DON'T create deficits, Congress does.

Actually BOTH do.

And in this case, both are basically Republican.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 16:09:28 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"Sandman" wrote in message
.. .

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 01:37:09 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
...
mikemckelvy wrote:
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in
message
...

mikemckelvy wrote:


It wasn't about hanky-panky, it was about not telling the truth
under

oath.

So - what about bald-faced lying when addressing the entire nation?

I see no difference.


You're right Clinton lied all the time.

So does Bush. Both are bums. The diffeerence, though, is that
Bush's policies are driving us to record levels of debt. Forget
about saving social security at this rate.

There's no way to save social security that the dems will allow.
Privatization is the possible hope.

Sort of like the obstructionist Repubs that have allowed 23,000,000
people who can't get health insurance...

We're spending as if we were in the height of the Cold War and
yet we squished the forces in Iraq in what - three weeks?

If you check you'll notice it's still a bit dicey there, plus we've
more
of
the Clinton legacy to deal with in Korea and Liberia.

You mean like we had to deal with the Reagan legacy in Iraq?

Is *that* what you mean?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp?cp1=1#BODY

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...866942,00.html

This bit is especially telling:

"The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or
German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents,
including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster
bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says".

Oooops! Once again, you bring something up, I counter it with worse
stuff...

Let him chew on this, Dave...

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=19255


Nice propaganda piece, unfortunately untrue. David Kay has already indicate
that the documents they have found will prove the case for WMD's.

Yeah, it's all propoganda if it doesn't agree with your worldview.

That's a pretty lazy rhetorical device...

I think I'll use it for every link that *you* throw up here...

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message


On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:47:27 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

There are no true innocents in any country at war. If you haven't
noticed, you bear moral responsibility if your country goes to war
and you stick around.

Genocidal thinking noted.

Say what?

It's called taking responsibility for your country's actions and
expecting your opponents to do the same.

Does this include children, babies, and the hospitalized?

In fact it does. For children, and those who can't care for themselves, the
responsibility passes to those who are their parents, guardians, and
caretakers.

Living in a country does not imply consent to its policies, particularly
when it
isn't a democratic country, as Japan wasn't.

In fact, it does. In any society, democratic or not, the historical means of
*voting* against policies you don't agree with is to leave the country,
whether you do it legally or not.

Ever hear of refugees?

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message


"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message

snip

Compare and contrast 105,000 lives with what we accomplished by
firebombingTokyo. I've seen death counts as high as 500,000 or more
for the Tokyo firebombing.

That's because Tokyo is about 10 times the size of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki combined.

Irrelevant to the ethical issue of 500,000 deaths.

Why did the Allies drop it on Nagasaki and
Hiroshima and not Tokyo and Osaka? Because of that reason.

A study of history says no. In fact, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen
because they had never been seriously bombed, and the effects of this new
bomb would be easier to study.

The death count would have been staggering. Genocide, anyone?

War and genocide are two different things. You should learn the difference.

I guess someone is far more worried about killing 105,000 people in a day
with an A-bomb than killing 500,000 people in a night with
incendiaries. While we're mourning 105,000 in Hiroshima, shall we
not mourn the 100,000+ who died in the London Blitz?

No one is excusing the Nazis. They were butchers.

They go down in history and war crimes trials as butchers because of their
actions against their own citizens and captured peoples, not because they
bombed their enemies. After all, the British and Americans bombed the heck
out of German civilians.

BTW one undeniable lesson of modern history is that bombing civilians is in
and of itself almost always ineffective. It's a waste of time, weapons and
manpower. Always has been. Any country that bombs just enemy civilians might
as well cut to the chase and bomb itself.

Dresden was far more difficult to justify than dropping the A-bomb
on the two cities in Japan.

Why is that?

For one thing, Dresden wasn't a military target.

If this group was politically correct, I would have
suggested a subtle subcontext to your statement.

And that means what in plain English?

The point of dropping the A-bomb was telling the Japanese quite
unambiguously that all that damage could be done with just one plane
and just one bomb. It worked.

If the Allies wanted to be so damn unambiguous about it, why didn't
they drop it on the outskirts of the city.

Obviously, minimizing or reducing the damage makes the statement more
ambiguous.

Surely seeing what the
bomb is capable of would have caused Hirohito to capitulate.

The first bomb did not cause Hirohito to capitulate. It took two.

There would have been no need to lob in on 100,000 suspecting civilians.

The possibility of a *demonstration* over the ocean or a less-populated area
was considered at the time. Given that the first full-scale attack was
insufficient to get Japan to capitulate, the demonstration would have
certainly been even more insufficient.

There were only three bombs in the US inventory and the fourth and sequel
bombs would have been months, perhaps a year or more in the future.

Remember, the goal was a quicker end to the war.

That being said, what was the need for the second A-bomb?

Ask Hirohito. He seemingly shrugged off the first bomb.

I'm sure the first would have been quite enough to secure a surrender.

It wasn't. That's a historical fact.

Unfortunately, the bombings were just two days apart.

Fortunately the bombings were two days apart. This created the impression of
more capability than we actually had. It was obviously the presumed, but at
the time non-existent threat of a fourth and fifth bomb that made Japan
surrender. It took about a year to come up with the U-235 and plutonium for
the first three bombs.

What we did in Dresden involved a far more conventional effort, and
it didn't work despite the deaths of up to 250,000 Germans.

Didn't work? Dresden was reduced to nothing more than a pile of rubble.

Germany didn't surrender because of Dresden. Japan surrendered because of
the two A-bombs.

The reason it didn't work in securing a German surrender was
because Dresden was brute force, not one almighty weapon.

That was one of my points. Thanks for agreeing with it.

Secondly, Hitler was off his rocker by then.

Oh, so you think that Hitler was sane at any point during the war? LOL!

Hirohito was not.

Both men were strongly affected by the cultures they were in, which were
both arguably quite insane. Hirohito thought he was a living god, how sane
is that? I don't believe that Hitler was so insane as to think he was a
living god.

Hiroshima was a valid military target with 40,000 soldiers and
shipyards.

Give me a break. The last major sea battle was in the South Pacific
in the winter of 1944. The Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings were in the
August 1945, almost nine months later.

Irrelevant. Given time, Japan would have rearmed itself at sea. The soldiers
in Hiroshima weren't all sailors. There were large army bases there.

And that brings up another issue. Had we not dropped the bombs on
Japan, and the war dragged on, the Russians could have easily ended
up occupying part of Japan.

What? The Russians had concentrated almost all their resources and
efforts in the West.

History says that Russia declared war on Japan only 7 days before we
dropped the bomb. In those few days before Japan surrendered, Russia moved
troops into Southern Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands, which were staging
areas for invading the Japanese main islands. Russia's troops walked all
over Japanese forces in those areas. It was stunning at the time. Japan was
reeling from their losses to the Russians.

And anyway, Japan didn't declare war on Russia.

Irrelevant. Japan desperately didn't want war with Russia.

It declared war on America, and Germany invaded Russia.

True, but a highly incomplete recitation of the relevant facts.

How do you reconcile those facts to say that Russia would have invaded
Japan?

Just the facts, stated above. Why would Russia NOT invade Japan given that
it declared war against Japan, and quickly redeployed its forces in obvious
preparations for invading Japan?

You know what? War is one messy business.

You know what else? You need a lesson in history and ethics.

It appears that the historical facts are on my side, and I have a better
command of them.

Probably not in that order though.

I think Schizoid, you are very confused about ethics. This has not been a
discussion of ethics at all but a discussion of historical facts, and how
the world actually has worked. The world does not care that much about
ethics, it does what it will.

The ultimate justification for dropping the bombs on Japan is that this
brought a very messy war to a quicker end, thus reducing total human pain
and suffering. Given the proximity between the bombings and Japan's
capitulation, that has to be accepted as a fact.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Schizoid Man said:

What? The Russians had concentrated almost all their resources and
efforts in the West. And anyway, Japan didn't declare war on Russia.
It declared war on America, and Germany invaded Russia. How do you
reconcile those facts to say that Russia would have invaded Japan?

Even Krooger gets one partly right once in a while.

No George, I am 100% right about what I said. I'm sure you're gagging on
your own deceptive admission, as limited and begrudging as it is.

Stalin was busy,
busy, busy making plans for the Pacific even while he was still up to
his neck in Nazis.

Except that the Nazis had capitulated in May, and it was August. There were
no functional Nazis in Europe, just a lot of really confused and bedraggled
Germans who were trying hard to forget how to even spell the word Nazi.

As you have pointed out, in 1945 the Japanese war
machine was staggering from the poundings they were taking.

You're delusional George. I don't see where Schizoid has said any such thing
to me.

They were trying desperately to negotiate a truce with the Soviets that
would avert a total capitulation to the U.S.

A truce with the Soviets may or may not have had that outcome. Had Stalin
reneged on his promise to attack Japan, it would have thrown his diplomatic
gains vis-a-vis eastern Europe into question (to say the least).

At best there would have been renewed negotiations, this time with a very
healthy and feisty Harry Truman instead of with a half to 9/10ths-dead
Roosevelt.

With the Nazis now
defeated, Stalin knew how weak Japan was and was sharpening up his
carving knife while his ambassador was stringing them along about a
supposed truce.

Even the Middiot gets a little something partially right every 5 years or
so.

Rather than invading Japan, his goal was most likely
to negotiate a truce of fealty, which he hoped would give him the
leverage to prevent the U.S. from executing their own occupation.

Nobody, not even Stalin was crazy enough to try to invade Japan if there was
some other way. However, if Stalin reneged on his promises to the US
vis-a-vis Japan, Europe would have gone back on the negotiating table under
very unfavorable circumstances. Japan is just one little country. Eastern
Europe is many and the deal included half of Germany, much of which was in
US hands at the point of German surrender.

But the fiery arrival of the atomic age scotched Stalin's plans.

But this arrival was no surprise to Stalin. He arguably knew as much if not
more about what was happening with the US A-bomb project than Truman did.
Certainly that was true while Roosevelt was alive (prior to April 12, 1945).

So even though an invasion of Japan was not on Stalin's front burner,

Since Germany had capitulated months earlier, Japan was the front and only
burner for both the US and Russia.

the notion of an "occupation" of sorts was indeed there.

It was more than a notion. It was the hottest game in town.

Don't you watch the History channel?

Reading works, too Middiot. You ought to try it some time.

Oh, and have a nice day.

;-)

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

snip

I am at work, Arny and though I could argue my points (and yours) tirelessly
for hours, I will concede. However I'd like to give my rebuttal of your
statement below:

BTW one undeniable lesson of modern history is that bombing civilians is
in
and of itself almost always ineffective. It's a waste of time, weapons and
manpower. Always has been. Any country that bombs just enemy civilians
might
as well cut to the chase and bomb itself.

snip

The possibility of a *demonstration* over the ocean or a less-populated
area
was considered at the time. Given that the first full-scale attack was
insufficient to get Japan to capitulate, the demonstration would have
certainly been even more insufficient.

snip

Now it seems to me that in this one instance, bombing civilians and a few
soldiers, sailors and ships while at it seems to have worked wonders for the
Allies (as you have suggested in the second paragraph). Why do you say it is
ineffective in the first?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
"George M. Middius" wrote in message
Schizoid Man said:

snip

As you have pointed out, in 1945 the Japanese war
machine was staggering from the poundings they were taking.

You're delusional George. I don't see where Schizoid has said any such
thing
to me.

That's not entirely untrue. Even as late as the summer of 1945, Japan was in
a relatively strong position. If you follow the history of the Enola Gay,
one of the most compelling reasons behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the
tremendous number of casualties that the Americans were suffering at the
hands of the Japanese in Okinawa.

snip

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:58:55 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"In 1981, the federal government ran a deficit of 2.7 percent of GDP;
in 1992, the number was 4.9 percent. With some caveats, we can say
that the difference between those two numbers, 2.2 percent of GDP,
represents the deficit problem that Ronald Reagan created."

Presidents DON'T create deficits, Congress does.

Actually BOTH do.

And in this case, both are basically Republican.



Where was the outcry from the left when they constantly ran up deficits for
40 years? They didn't complain until Reagan wanted the a GOP president
wanted the same privilege.

It would seem it's perfectly fine to run deficits for social welfare but bad
when it has to with national defense.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"mikemckelvy" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:37:57 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:

The GOP is why we have a balanced budget.

Now there's a good one. What do you mean by this?

Without a GOP majority in the house holding Clinton's feet to the fire
for
saying he could deliver in balanced budget in 4, 7, or whatever number
he
happened to be thinking of at any given moment, it never would have
happened.

Okay, please support this opinion with some sort of factual evidence.

How old are you?

I fyou are old enough to remember Clintonb as president and when the GOP
took control of the house, then you ought to be able to remember Clinton's
umpteen different statements about a timetable for a balanced budget and the
subsequent prooding by the House for him to provide one.

To be more accurate it had to with some prodding by Dick Morris.

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 09:56:59 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:58:55 -0700, "mikemckelvy"
wrote:


"In 1981, the federal government ran a deficit of 2.7 percent of GDP;
in 1992, the number was 4.9 percent. With some caveats, we can say
that the difference between those two numbers, 2.2 percent of GDP,
represents the deficit problem that Ronald Reagan created."

Presidents DON'T create deficits, Congress does.

Actually BOTH do.

And in this case, both are basically Republican.



Where was the outcry from the left when they constantly ran up deficits for
40 years?

Large deficit spending effectively started with the Nixon
administration.

They didn't complain until Reagan wanted the a GOP president
wanted the same privilege.

Because, basically, they weren't of the same levels. Look it up.

It would seem it's perfectly fine to run deficits for social welfare but bad
when it has to with national defense.

You haven't been paying attention. Let me remind you:

"In 1981, the federal government ran a deficit of 2.7 percent of GDP;
in 1992, the number was 4.9 percent. With some caveats, we can say
that the difference between those two numbers, 2.2 percent of GDP,
represents the deficit problem that Ronald Reagan created."

1981 is about the end of the Carter presidency, right?

And the deficit during the Johnson administration wasn't just butter,
it was guns as well, remember? Why do you conveniently gloss over that
fact?

In fact, you haven't offered *any* facts about the percentage of debt
during Democratic administrations and Democratic-run Congress of the
past 50 years. You just throw out statements, but you don't back them
up with facts and figures. I'd be happy to look at any links that you
can offer that outlines the percentages during the Johnson and Carter
administrations.

Here's a more detailed view of how the deficit ballooned under Reagan:

http://www.ctj.org/html/canard.htm

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ...

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om

It's called taking responsibility for your country's actions and
expecting your opponents to do the same.

Does this include children, babies, and the hospitalized?

In fact it does. For children, and those who can't care for themselves, the
responsibility passes to those who are their parents, guardians, and
caretakers.

Living in a country does not imply consent to its policies, particularly
when it
isn't a democratic country, as Japan wasn't.

In fact, it does. In any society, democratic or not, the historical means of
*voting* against policies you don't agree with is to leave the country,
whether you do it legally or not.

Ever hear of refugees?

I'm just curious, are there any liberals among the objectivists (or
whatever term you prefer to use), or are you all right wing?

The Palm Beach ballot was a legitimate de facto literacy test.
There is no right to vote in the constitution.
Creation science is logical.
Evolution is unproven.
The United States should use nuclear weapons against Afghanistan.
The United States should use nuclear weapons against Israel.
Black people are genetically inferior.
Bush did not stretch the truth in his 2003 State of the Union Address.
Cutting taxes reduced the budget deficit in the 1980s.
Bombing of civilians during World War II was ethically justified.

What a wonderful world this would be.

Overdrawn bright line rules and overgeneralizations. Hrm, maybe there
is a connection.

Thank you for your time.