Democratic Convention

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Firehouses are funded by the States and counties not the Federal government. The same reason why my gives a **** breaks whenever a candidate for federal office expects me to takes his education programs seriously.

Except for a few small details.

(a) the Feds tax the hell out of everything, so the states and municipalities are limited in what they can do on the tax and revenue side before they become the proverbial straw that breaks all the camel's backs;

(b) the Feds compound this further with unfunded mandates of every conceivable type, further draining state and municipal discretionary funding;

(c) the DHS and related agencies impose further WoT specific mandates on states and municipalities, and many of the state and municipal first response agency budget crises are directly related to DHS mandated actions and staffing levels, many of which are unfunded, as is typical of Federal arrogance.

The Feds may not fund firehouses, but they directly and indirectly affect the ability of states and municipalities to fund those items.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home."

Theres no prospect of getting more than a few thousand troops from our allies. Thats clearly not going to be enough to "do the job" and "bring our troops home" unless its going to be simply a face saving exercise for a retreat, a la Nixon in Viet Nam. Given that it seems quite plausible that John Kerry thinks building firehouses in Baghdad is a waste.

Funny what difference an "H" makes. As in George H. W. Bush, who did an outstanding job of getting international support and commitment to deal with Saddam the first time.

Somehow, I don't think that "impossible" and "impossible for the George W. Bush administration" are synonymous.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat



Uh, let's see if you can hold two concepts in your head simultaneously and compare them.

Spending US tax money nationbuilding, (i.e. firehouses in Baghdad) vs. simultaneously reducing public services in the US due to lack of funding...

There, that wasn't too hard, was it, tovarich?

I was trying to get MrFun to see that *******

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Who pays most of the money? There's a cookie for you if you get the right answer.

local gov'ts via property taxes

but there is an indirect effect when federal funds are cut or reduced... local taxes usually go up to cover the loss. For example, in 2002 during the gubenatorial elections, my city, Naperville, increased property taxes through a referrendum. If "No Child Left Behind" was actually being funded, my family wouldn't be paying more taxes. So while that $400 tax cut might seem nice, our local taxes got raised higher than that because of less federal money to education. And my local school disctrict is a good one... but still the fed gov't doesn't give it the necessary funding.

So Bush indirectly raised my taxes. Thanks.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Funny what difference an "H" makes. As in George H. W. Bush, who did an outstanding job of getting international support and commitment to deal with Saddam the first time.

Somehow, I don't think that "impossible" and "impossible for the George W. Bush administration" are synonymous.

You seem to forget the fact that the first war was a protracted engagement designed to liberate Kuwait, It lasted a month, not because we won, but because that is what the deal was. This is the only reason France, Russia, and all the other Allies threw in for the fight. The opposition to invading Baghdad was there, just as it was a year ago.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle


You seem to forget the fact that the first war was a protracted engagement designed to liberate Kuwait, It lasted a month, not because we won, but because that is what the deal was. This is the only reason France, Russia, and all the other Allies threw in for the fight. The opposition to invading Baghdad was there, just as it was a year ago.

It was designed to restore the dictator of Kuwait... not liberate. It's an important distinction, restoring an oppressive totalitarian regime, and "liberating" a people.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Somehow, I don't think that "impossible" and "impossible for the George W. Bush administration" are synonymous.

Bull**** and you know it Michael. I highly doubt that a change of leadership here is going to lessen the resistence of the European populace to getting involved with Iraq and it's going to take more than mere platitudes from you to even begin to convince me that it might be so.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Bull**** and you know it Michael. I highly doubt that a change of leadership here is going to lessen the resistence of the European populace to getting involved with Iraq

You really don't understand how hated Georgie is, do you? They'd work with Kerry just to spite Georgie and prove John-boy right.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
You really don't understand how hated Georgie is, do you? They'd work with Kerry just to spite Georgie and prove John-boy right.

Bull**** and you know it... it's going to take more than mere platitudes from you to even begin to convince me that it might be so.

[Sava]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You really don't understand how hated Georgie is, do you? They'd work with Kerry just to spite Georgie and prove John-boy right.

[chequita guevara]

I honestly believe it to be so. I honestly think a lot of resistence is due soely to the man in the office. Bush is so loathed that few countries want to help him out of the mess he made.

[DinoDoc]

I honestly don't really care about BAM!s and would like something more substantive than an "I honestly believe it to be so".

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle


You seem to forget the fact that the first war was a protracted engagement designed to liberate Kuwait, It lasted a month, not because we won, but because that is what the deal was. This is the only reason France, Russia, and all the other Allies threw in for the fight. The opposition to invading Baghdad was there, just as it was a year ago.

Bush Sr. also managed to get financial commitments from many parties who were TOAB contributors on the ground. I really don't expect much in terms of bodies, and hopefully that's going to become more and more of an Iraqi issue, but this thing is going to cost well in excess of a trillion when you factor in the effect on global oil and gas prices.

Even if NATO bodies were limited strictly to providing training cadres for future Iraqi security forces, that would increase the quantity and quality of Iraqi swinging dicks on the ground.

Since most of the industrial world are net oil consumers, not producers, there's an economic case that can be made for increased financial contributions towards stabilization and security, since the money will either be paid by all parties anyway in the form of higher oil costs, or the money will be recovered by a more rapid stabilization of the security and oil infrastructure situation.

[Sava]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I honestly don't really care about BAM!s and would like something more substantive than an "I honestly believe it to be so".

I believe it to be so because I have friends who live in both England and France who visited recently(and relatives who live in Germany) who say people in their countries would support reconstruction in Iraq if Kerry was president. The feeling in Europe isn't "anti-American"... it's ANTI-BUSH.

But Republicans want everyone to think that being against Bush is being anti-American.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The flip side of "nationbuilding" is creating new targets for low-rent *******s to blow up as their way of sending messages, by hiring a limited number of contractors who are thoroughly versed in the legal corruption of government procurement (or hiring locals who are so corrupt they put our guys to shame), while running record deficits, swelling the national debt beyond all reason, and having the constant instability affect resource prices, further straining the economy.

Nationbuilding is nice in theory, but nationbuilding in the midst of unresolved hostilities isn't really doing a hell of a lot for us, so far.

I knwo what you believe about nationbuilding MtG, and im not going to argue it again. I DONT know what John F. Kerry believes, and that matters.