How long will it take to repair the damge to America done by the Bush regime

[Ming]

You two better start chilling... or I will chill the both of you...

YOU GOT THAT!

[SlowwHand]

Ok, Larry.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
clear like everything else texan huh?

texas justice - string up the nearest minority. thats pretty clear
texas rangers - beat up the nearest minority. thats pretty clear

hmmm im too dumb to see the difference between secular and non secular governments, or the difference between islamic fundamentalists and non fundie muslims. hell, i cant even find them on the map, but someone told me about where they are. well they all look alike and live in the same area, so they are all the same. lets go get em. round up the posse, and ride into town with our six shooter and a fanbelt around you chest.
still like the old west eh? 'the only good indian is a dead indian' looks like its now evolved into 'the only good arab is a dead arab' the more things change the more they stay the same.

meanwhile, i'll just wallow in my own ignorance and stupidity.

yep, things are a lot clearer in texas . . . especially if you're a stupid, racist dumbass.

thats all i have to say about that

[SlowwHand]

Sorry, Ming.
The last were true cross-posts.
And they were just attempts to fend off attacks.
Should have let it pass entirely.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

i'll wait till you leave ming . . .

[Ming]

NP...

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Two points here - arab resentment of western-imposed "reform" will be extremely high among the many "have nots" that won't be the beneficiaries of that reform, and

arab "gratitude" will be non-existent among many of the groups empowered and legitimized by reforms. Do you honestly think that organized fundamentalist political parties will be grateful to us for setting up a system that allows them to act politically?

MTG, I am trying to understand your point 1. Who are the people who do not benefit from democracy, from a free press, from liberty from politically inspired torture and death?

The only people I can think of are those who want to impose arbitrary government on the people, which may include socialists, communists, and fundamentalists.

As to point 2, I think one of the things we will have to do is model any constitution on the Turkey's - where not only is there separation of church and state, but also, where religious parties are outlawed. There is a fundamental incompatibility between democracy and ultimate control by mullahs.

However, Bush is not talking about detailed post war plans. I suspect these actually will be highly negotiated with the Iraqi's themselves who will be eager to form their own government ASAP.

As to anti-Americanism in Iraq, the only people who will be anti-american are those who are put on trial for abuses of power. Actually, there may be a bloodbath in the immediate days after Saddam's fall as Saddam's victims take revenge. I can still recall the fate of SS troopers who fell into the wrong hand in the closing days of WWII. Saddam's henchmen must fear the same fate.

[Berzerker]

Duncan -

Reagan cut taxes under the assumption that that budget would be balanced in the future without tax increases.

Taxes were increased, repeatedly. The payroll tax went from ~1 1/2% to ~6 or 7% (if not more) by the time Reagan left office, and the trend of eliminating write-offs, "loopholes" being closed continued under Reagan. Btw, revenues to the fed rougly doubled under Reagan, it's just that Congress and Reagan ~tripled spending. Getting a pay raise won't balance your checking account if you spend even more money.

So Bush Sr. adn Clinton had to raise taxes otherwise the economy would have been swallowed up by the deficits.

They didn't have to raise taxes, they did because the cowardly 2 parties wouldn't restrain spending and the S&L scam cost us ~1/2 trillion dollars. And contrary to what some liberal pundits claim, it takes more courage to cut spending than raise taxes. The pols just find ways to increase taxes without most of us finding out.

Reagans stupidity pales in comparison to Bush's however. Not only will the tax cuts not cause economic growth, but tax revenues are sure to decrease and and spending on health care and social security will surely increase significantly.

And Congress has no say in expenditures? Even Jack Kennedy significanly reduced taxes because he knew there was a point at which high taxes cause less economic activity and reducing those taxes creates more economic activity.

I would give you at least 20 to 1 odds that any tax cut will one, not balance the budget, and two, taxes are going to be raised so high in the next ten years that it will make a democrat out of you.

Not if spending isn't restrained, you focus on your desire to tax without thinking about spending. Here's a rule about Wash DC, increase taxes and spending will increase because if there's one thing most politicians and bureaucrats can't stand is a surplus of money they haven't spent buying votes.

[DuncanK]

Berzerker,

My point is that the tax cuts didn't help the economy the way Republicans claim that it did. You support tax cuts because you believe that it keeps a lid on spending. That's a different issue I believe. I think Chris was saying that the tax cuts were successfull and that neither tax increases or spending cuts were necessary after the tax cuts. Do you support that view? Do you think that the Bush tax cut will balance the budget without any changes in future spending, or are you just figuring that spending will be cut because of the tax cuts?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Like Berz said Duncan, revenues increased two-fold in the 80s, but spending increased much, much more.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Like Berz said Duncan, revenues increased two-fold in the 80s, but spending increased much, much more.

And how much of the revenue increase was due to the spending increases?

[DuncanK]

btw, i would like to see the source for those figures. i jsut took them as an exaggeration

[Imran Siddiqui]

Here is one source:

http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=48

The Reagan tax cuts of 1981 were followed by further reductions in 1986. The top income tax rate was slashed from 70 percent when Reagan took office all the way down to 28 percent in 1986. Yet during the 1980s, tax revenues almost doubled from about $500 billion in 1980 to over $1 trillion in 1990.

... and from a more biased site:

http://www.nationalreview.com/balance/balance081701.shtml

Between 1980 and 1990 the federal tax collections doubled from $500 billion to $1 trillion

And this is some interesting reading as well:

http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s159/s159.html

[DuncanK]

I don't know what the abosolute numbers were, but as a precent of GDP it didn't increase too much at all. I don't see how spending could have tripled unless the GDP tripled.

CBO produces estimates of revenues and outlays that adjust for the state of the business cycle. These figures indicate that, adjusted for the state of the business cycle, revenue fell from 19.4 percent of GDP in 1981 to 16.9 percent of GDP in 1986 and 17.3 percent in 1987. Outlays rose from 19.9 percent of GDP in 1981 to 21.7 percent in 1986 and 20.6 percent in 1987. Between 1981 and 1987, revenues fell three times as much as a percentage of GDP as spending increased. (Revenues declines by 2.1 percent of GDP while outlays increased by 0.7 percent of GDP.) These data indicate that the Reagan tax cuts contributed to the budget deficits of the 1980s and early 1990s.

http://www.cbpp.org/2-6-01tax2.htm

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Here is one source:

http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=48

The Reagan tax cuts of 1981 were followed by further reductions in 1986. The top income tax rate was slashed from 70 percent when Reagan took office all the way down to 28 percent in 1986. Yet during the 1980s, tax revenues almost doubled from about $500 billion in 1980 to over $1 trillion in 1990.

... and from a more biased site:

http://www.nationalreview.com/balance/balance081701.shtml

Between 1980 and 1990 the federal tax collections doubled from $500 billion to $1 trillion

And this is some interesting reading as well:

http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s159/s159.html

I was speaking more of the spending increases. I acknowledge the tax revenues increased, because taxes were raised.