Would Someone Please Tell Me

[phuloi]

Just what the hell the ole Goober Farmer is up to in Cuba?

[sn-e3]

N/t

[Andy]

Bush and his boys just finish telling the world that Cuba is making bio-weapons (or at least the components) and may be making them available to some of the crazy nations. Carter visits Cuba for one day, apparently searchs the entire island and then announces there are no bio-weapons. It seems like Carter is pouring sand in the machine of government just to hear the grinding noise it makes.

Jimmy is a very intelligent man. He is very well intentioned. However he is the guy who gave us 20% inflation and got rid of that nasty old Shaw of Iran. Whatever happened to Iran after that?

Of course once someone reaches 77, I don't think I'd trust him with my TV remote control. Maybe he's just "lusting in his heart" for for a little attention.

Stay healthy,
Andy
PS: By the way, around here the letter "R" does exist. Many words that end with the letter "A" fall into that catagory. For example, Carter is visiting "Cuber". Don't ask, I have no answer.

[phuloi]

It seems that almost wherever he goes and whatever positions he pushes, Jimmy Carter leaves a wake of devastation and disaster.

Carter, we should note, has been cozying up to North Korea for years. He helped the U.S. and the communist country come to agreement during the Clinton years to defuse a tense situation over North Korea?s nuclear weapons program.

Under the wacko deal Carter arranged, the U.S. would stop complaining about Korea's nuclear weapons program as long as the U.S. gave aid to North Korea and helped the communists build more modern nuclear reactors.

The U.S. was well on the path to doing this when the new Bush administration sounded the alarm and immediately stopped the cockamamy plan dead in its tracks.

North Korea was not cooperating with the U.S. to stop its weapons program, but we should continue helping them to build nuclear reactors. Make sense?

Of course not.

But that's Jimmy Carter for you.

It's also Jimmy Carter the hypocrite. Carter has always claimed to be the champion of human rights worldwide.

Yet North Korea is one of the most, if not the most, repressive regimes on the planet.

The Stalinist nation is headed by a young madman named Kim Jong-il. Kim likes to watch American movies like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and then act out his fantasies on his own citizenry. Millions of North Koreans are starving at any given time.

Does Carter have much to say about this?

Of course not. North Korea is an enemy of the U.S., so Carter goes easy on them. When he met Kim, Carter didn't criticize him ? he kissed him!

But there is nothing new here.

The media would have us forget Jimmy Carter's presidential record.

But I won't.

Remember Carter's human rights program, where he demanded the Shah of Iran step down and turn over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini?

No matter that Khomeini was a madman. Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah's top military commanders ? about 150 of them ? to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him.

The Shah's military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah's first acts.

By allowing the Shah to fall, Carter created one of the most militant anti-American dictatorships ever.

Soon the new Iranian government was ransacking our embassy and held hostage its staff for over a year. Only President Reagan's election gave Iran the impetus to release the hostages.

I believe Carter's decision to have the Shah fall is arguably the most egregious U.S. foreign policy mistake of the last 50 years. [Former President Bush's decision to allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power is a close second.]

With the Shah gone, the whole region was destabilized. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan; no doubt a direct link to the rise of the Taliban can be traced to this invasion. Iraq also took advantage of the Shah's departure to invade Iran. A long war followed that helped make Saddam's Iraq a great Middle Eastern power.

I plucked this from newsmax.com

[Packo]

I admit to Voting for him because I really believed and still do, that he is a nice guy, too nice to be President. Ol' Jimmy has basically a worse legacy than Clinton on issues, but was a God morally compared to the SleezeBoy. I think he's a butt-in-ski who is trying to have some sort of legacy other than his idiotic Presidency. He needs to stick to building homes for Habitat. It's the only place he's done any good. And all this from a man who really does like him but has been getting on my nerves the last few years. If he was such a great diplomat, that he thinks he is, we won't be having the problems in the world we have right now. He had his chance and blew it.

Billy Packo

[sfc_darrel]

He believes that if you are nice to people that they will be nice to you. Especially if they give money to your campaign/library/Foundation.

He gave away the Panama Canal and now it looks like China will "own" it.

Served during his administration. Didn't like him then, don't like him now.

Darrel

[exlrrp]

There certainly are some creative reads on history here.
there's lots to deal with up above here but lets start with the "Jimmy Carter gave away the Panama Canal" myth
it was actually a smart deal for the US and I hate to say it but the negotiations started in the Ford administration. getting rid of it should be a plus for the side that whines about paying too much taxes but nooooo, Whats really creative is how the dittoheaded right wing conspiracy uses it to make carter look bad. Did Rush say that?
What some less informed people never start to think is that the Panama Canal had become a White Elephant for the US with little strategical value.Huge maintenance, no income. yet you guys would rather keep vulnerable bases there than do what was the smartest thing--keep a 2 ocean Navy--even the govt did better than that.
The late 70s--early 80s found the US downsizing our military commitmenet--this was bipartisan, a goal thruout several administrations and I can't fault the idea--who needed it? Nowadays we use our naval forces to move around an be our vbases--better for us and safer for them out in the ocean JUUUST like we did in Afghanistan.
lets start with this fact--virtually none of our strategic material or military pass through the Panama Canal--not oil, for sure, nor containers nor bulk on anything but bananas. the greatest number of ships to pass through there were cruise ships last year. the income didn't cover them maintenance
if we REALLY needed to take it back, as in wartime, don't you think we would in a New York minute? of course we would but the panamanians would rather rent it to us anyway--there's about a third of them there who want us back. Let the Chinese run it--they like working for low wages.
If youre smart, write your congressman not to renege on carter's excellent deal!! or isn' it Jimmy carter's fault now

carter's doing a good thing in Cuba now, its good PR for boh sides. Its time we normalised relations with Cuba, we sure cozyed up to some regimes a lot more atrocious. All of his efforts are good, Ive worked for habitat For Humanity. its good to see exPresidents doing something good for humanity on their own time, instead of selling $2million dollar speeches like Ronald reagan before he lost it too much. Yes I know what Bill Clinton does--same as GHB, selling pardons and all

james

[exlrrp]

Why did, Bush, Cheney, Schwartskpf, Powell not take baghdad when they were knocking on the door, the Iraqi forces defeated, the city wide open?
I know all about the "we didn't have a mandate" excuse but this was one of the most shortsighted decisions on Modern history--now we're going to have to do it all over again and oh, thats right, with the same people who made the shortsighted decision. The good news is theyre doing it with Clinton's Army so that turned out all right.
they totally negated their excellent victory. I thought the main lesson of Vietnam was not to go to war unless you were going to win it. Thats what I learned, anyway.

james

[Packo]

During Jimmy's administration we had double digit inflation and 30 year mortgages at....ummm 18 to 20 %. All this and we lost Iran as an stragegic allie to a fanatical muslem leader that took over our embassy and didn't release the hostages until Reagan took control. We had a military on the verge of collapse, and the steel and coal industry in this country died. All this he was able to accoplish and more with a Democrat Congress and Senate. All presidents make money on the talk circuit so I don't take that away from clinton although I wouldn't take money from him to hear him speak. Had eight years of that compulsive liar. As I said, I give Jimmy credit for his efforts with Habitat.....but I question all the money he has and still recieves from Arabs, North Koreans, and the Chinese. Wonder if there are any other dictators he's not friendly with. Certainly glad Hitlers dead.

Packo

[exlrrp]

Well, we still have a $5 trillion dollar debt to pay off, , 90 % of it run up during the reagan and Bush adminstrations so I can't give the republicans much credit for fiscal responsibility--certainly the 32 quarterss under Clinton (plus the first 2 quarters of Bush)were the longest period of contiunous economic growth in the 20th Century. How did that set up a "Clinton Recession" anyway, I never got that
republicans think lowering taxes will make this go away but we saw the falsity of that in the 80s--and now we're getting another republican deficit after 3 years of democratic surplus--no wonder theyre stalling the Balanced Budget Amendment in the House--they used to want this very bad.
James

[Packo]

you off all people should know that it was the Dems that wouldn't support the war in Kuwait anyway! THEY were the ones that voted not to give money for it. Maybe the Pres was just trying to be bipartisan, but I doubt it. The mandate was to Liberate Kuwait, nothing more, nothing less and they did it. Had he then attacked Iraq your boys and girls in congress would have had a shit fit. Since he didn't, they had a shit fit. Just like when he went back on a promise to not raise taxes and to appease the Dems didn't Veto it.....what happened when he was "bipartisan", the Dems used their own tax increase that he went along with, against him. Great people. Now that Gore thing is screaming to high heaven about a picture of our President on the phone during 9/11. Calls it dishonorable, disgusting, and a bunch of other nice terms. Now this comes from the guy who after clinton is impeached for numerous crimes says he's the best president ever. These people have NO crediblilty, and worse yet, no honor.

But I like the heck out of you!

Packo

[Packo]

Give me a break James, even you know that there never was any surplus and gee wizz where the hell do you expect him to get money to fight a war Clinton could have stopped? The tax cuts of the 80's gave us the prosperity and the recession started before Bush took office. Why is it that you people believe that by taking more of my salary and giving it away to crap programs that don't work, the ecomomy is stimulated? If I have less money to spend, I'm going to buy less goods and services. Not a hard concept to understand. If business is overtaxed, they invest less, upgrade less, and hire fewer employees'. If you like giving washington your money, fine....help me and give them yours for me. If you were a real friend, you would set that up with the IRS. (LOL)

Packo

[exlrrp]

I don't understand the picture thing-It seems stupid to me, just talkin head crap
the decision not to take Iraq fully was a classic boner--when were they going do do it? they were the ones running the show and they were right there to do it--if a democrat had got cold feet then you never would have let him forget it, never.

james

[exlrrp]

Originally posted by Paco
. Why is it that you people believe that by taking more of my salary and giving it away to crap programs that don't work, the ecomomy is stimulated? (LOL)

Packo

Well, republicans believed in giving Enron $267 million in incentives and tax breaks so they don't do much better--I know they got more out of Clinton but thats because they tanked soon into the Bush Administration-we're still laughing about watching all those Enron pople walking out of the ofice carrying their belongings with a long face--it was like a warm fuzzy. remember last year how you guys were godding and damming us for our energy "crisis?"' Turns out just like I said; our energy policy is just fine (republicans claim credit for it!) and the "crisis" was completely fabricated" this will be why Bush will never get his energy policy passed as written by Enron.

Another place where you sell the Demos short--your rather shortsightedly forgetting all the money Clinton put away for deficit removal in his budgets which the republicans gave him continuous crap over--they wanted to lower taxes just like GWB did--Don't you think the right thing to do is pay off the debts??
Obviously not, youre a Republican, but don't try to asume the mantle of fiscal responsiblity (por favor)

Abu!!
james

[exlrrp]

Packo
please--Splane to me again how lowering taxes is going to make a $5 trillion national debt go away? the only deficit reduction money has been proposed by democratic administration (Clinton's)

Thanks

james


PS, I don't think I'm taxed too much, really, I lead a very comfortable life.
PPS-Fiscal responsiblity, common sense and pure humanitarianism demands we cut out tobacco subsidies, talking about wasteful programs that don't work

[phuloi]

How we ended up on taxes has taken us through a couple of interesting turns in the career of Jimmy Carter and shed some light on several areas aside from his trip to see Fidel Castro.On the Panama Canal issue I would only add that if you believe that The Peoples Republic of China`s interest in the canal and The Bahamas are strictly commercial,you are very naive.Hutchison Whampoa,a Hong Kong based conglomorate,has constructed the worlds largest "port" at Freeport,and they have obvious strong ties to Biejing.This is right off our East coast!There are many military experts that view this as a serious threat to our national security....James!I can`t believe that you would want to see the United States open a dialog with a fiend like Castro!To what end,sir?

[exlrrp]

i think carter's trip is pointed to a good end. I think I'm a LOT more of a pragmatist than most here.
i don't see castro as a threat to us, certainly not as much a threat as we are to him.Look, We sent an armed incursion into his country, tried to have him assassinated several times with as motley a crew as we could find, hung an embargo on him for 40 years, almost had Nuke War III in his front yard. What more can we do to get him to change other than invade? in that case why didn't we do it years ago? Do you want to pay that price? And what has he actually done to us?
I don't think anything we can do is going to get the Cubans to change their govt while we consider each other enemies, this will only be done when we open the country up to our commerce, just like we did with the old USSR. Information ran them into the ground, the fax and the internet (thanks Al Gore!!lol) Castro's government is legitimately derived from the people.The Cubans will fight and die for their country--they were smart enough to figure out how to oust Batista even with all the help we gave him (shades of VN) and they could get rid of Castro if they wanted to--better learn to live with it. Hasn't the last 40 years proved that? they SURE don't think they'd be better of with the loomaloomas like what turned little Elian into a political football. if the Miami Cubans have the cojones, let them go and liberate Cuba--thats how castro did it, sure enough and against a lot longer odds--he was up against Batista AND the US--I'm not doing it for them nor my son either.
Castro in no way is as unsavory, violent and repressive as other dictators we have supported and cut lengthy deals with, most notably Batista, trujillo, Somoza, papa and Baby Doc Duvalier, Pinochet,Noriega and a dozen others more corrupt--why yes, Saddam Hussein himself (this was G Bush I) The Mexicans only had one party until recently which we NEVER protested--we have little right to point the finger at Cubans, actually theyre a pretty moral people compared to some of these others (Iraqis, guatemalans). And when you consider the rpressive govt they had to overthrow--which we supported-- they don't think we should be able to dictate their leader for them--Cubans will definitely fight for their country, theyre also stubborn
Ive known several people whove traveled in Cuba extensively and they all say that ending the embargo woujld improve the country trmendously--and what harm would it do? Do you think theyre going to be able to sell Communism to anyone any more? not on Moscow's dime, sure enough
democracy is the light in the darkness but you gotta get the light in the door and thats what Carter's doing-- I was real impressed with his speech ( I speak Spanish better than he does) You gotta finally say--"Look, can we talk? where's our common ground? Lets put this BS to rest" This is a definite liberal line of thought--conservatives don't think this way, no error, GHB and jerry Ford don't do this.--but Ive seen enough people needlessly killed for one lifetime, thanks, trying to talk is worth a shot, many shots, even if it doesn't work
can we be better than the israelis/ pallies about this? How can we point our fingers at them and say" How can you cary this sht on for decades" when we do it ourselves? Time to bury the hatchet--i only want to be at war with someone for so long, I get bored after 20 or 30 years--its my ADD--after over 40 years of no action, I am sooo outta here, don't call untill he starts loading his troops on landing barges, pulleeeeze. Don't catch a cold standing out there watching.
castro is reaching out here, he definitely wants into the market place real bad--he's a smart man and knows the US real well--he knows Cuba has to get into the main stream and he won't live forever--this may be the most leverage we can ever hold over Castro--smart people will see the opportunity here but looks like GWB will just blow it off, probably due to political debts to Florida Cubans who put him over the top last election--Gee its great having these foreigners dictate our national policy
I think carter's doing a good thing by engaging him, a good man trying to do a good thing--and all the conservatives want to do is crucify him and belittle him--just check above--this is the party that believes in Christianity? Whats your plan? keep the war going forever?
This is why I'll always be a liberal--just can't keep that unabiding hatred for the opposition going--I'd rather believe there's good people out there trying to do good things like working for peace that need my support. heck I'm even getting to like GWB--but not some of the people who keep their endless jihad against liberals going But have it your way--it'll be its own reward.

james

[blues clues]

do they think it will take the Cubans keep saying they want to liberate their home land,no one can liberate anything while sitting in an other country but thats another story. i think it's time to give up on the embargo for more trade, even the hundred year war didn't last for 100 years. as far as gwb2 i still don't like him never liked his daddy but thats my problem. now you have a good day yahear.
razz

[Packo]

Had a computer malfunction yesterday so could not keep up with our fun conversation.

Tax cuts alone don't get rid of deficits.....limiting stupid wasteful government spending does. Combine both and you can eliminated deficit spending. The way you guys want to pay down the deficit is to charge me more for it. Tax cuts to those that actually pay taxes which includes corporations, has people spending more because all their hard earned money isn't going to bozo's in washington of BOTH parties. Corporations invest more, hire more people, etc. Please explain to me how taking more money away from business and taxpayers has ever created one job? The logic of your argument would have us all just turning our paychecks over to the government and they could decide how best to spend it. The public school system started going down hill the minute the government stuck their hands in it and we are now competeting with 3rd world countries, and South Carolina, for the worst schools. But hey, lets take more money out of my pocket to fund crap like that. It would be better for parents to get vouchers or tax credits to send their kids to the schools of their choice, but many are forced to attend government schools that don't work. Just one example. The government needs to be on a strict budget like most working people. I would love to start taxing the government, grabbing what money they have, then spending it on crap that doesn't work. Washington would have a shit fit. Isn't it funny that the kids scoring the highest on achievement tests are being HOME SCHOOLED BY PARENTS WITHOUT EDUCATION BACKGROUNDS.
Our tax dollars at work.

The Gulf War: The logic of your argument means that Truman pulled the biggest boner of all in not Nukeing the USSR and Red China right after WWII. No Korean war, no Vietnam War, and probably not all this silliness we see all over the world. I mean, we had the armies and the only Nukes........ Remember that it was the Democrats, who owned the Congress and the Senate (for 40 years) that voted against us liberating Kuwait. They didn't want us there in the first place and are now whinning that we didn't take over Iraq. Had we then, which was not the objective of the war, they would have had a hissy fit. We didn't, so now they are having a hissy fit. With logic like that........hey you guys win!

Packo

[Packo]

I agree that it's time for the embargo to be lifted. We are not embargoing Red China or North Korea.....so why Cuba? It's political and spells votes in Florida. Why didn't Jimmy end the embargo when he had his 4 years? Why, VOTES IN FLORIDA. Why didn't Clinton, Votes in Florida, Why not GWB, Votes in Florida. Not until Castro is dead will it end.

As always people of the world, in most cases except the Middle East, can get along. I bet if we could vist CUBER we would all be buddies. Hell, I ain't got nothin' against some poor Cuberin TRYING to make a living and I'm sure he ain't got nothing against me. Governments cause most of the problems, not the average Joe's like us. As a matter of fact...I can't wait to be able to visit Cuber and would be honored to buy you the first Pina Coloda! (would order yours Virgin)

Packo

[Andy]

James:
About that Iraq thing: Maybe being on the left coast you get different news than we do, I?m serious about that. I recall that before Desert Storm started Teddy (the bad driver) Kennedy was on TV most ever day saying ?We have sent 10,000 body bags to the middle East. We must do everything in our power not to allow them to be filled, we must bring our boys home now.? If George Bush had expanded the war by going into Baghdad many a liberal senator would have wet their pants. Plus a power vacuum would have been created causing Divisions of US troops to still be in Iraq or Iran would have gotten a little larger. George and the boys should have done more to over throw the Baghdad government but hindsight is 20-20.

About Batista, yes he was owned and operated by the mob. His people were poor and un-educated. They could only make it as ball players, boxers, hookers, or working for the mob. Now they are educated (indoctrinated) and can make it by being members of the government. Not much of a step up.

Castro was supported by the CIA. Do you remember when he was the leader of just a small group in the mountains? He received arms, munitions, commo etc. from a nebulous character only known as Col. Green. We were playing both sides, just in case. But Castro turned on the US after he got into power and became buddies with the USSR.

Cuber is a poor place and should not be. It serves as a bad example of how to run a country. As long as Castro is in power, he serves as our bright shining example of what happens when you cross Uncle Sam and Go Red. We will have normal relations with that island and I look forward to it, but not until Castro is dead or deposed.
Then again, I could be wrong.

Stay healthy,
Andy

[Seascamp]

I would expect that the Carter trip to Cuba might be the opening steps of a decade or so long process of normalizing relations with Cuba. He was on his own hook and did not formally represent the US Government so the substance of the glad-handing, etc. may not be all that relevant in the long haul. But a start is a start I suppose.

Even if there were no debate about Cuba in the US, I believe Fidel and Raul are against normalization with the US. In the process they would have to succumb to their raging paranoia and heavy fists that would naturally result from more open borders and political processes. That wouldn?t be a pretty sight and big, big trouble for the Cuban People. So when Fidel and Raul call it a day (or it is called for them) I would expect a far more open attitude about Cuba from our Politicos but until then, the Carter exercise is little more than an interesting meeting and exchange of ideas. Some good stuff occurred, but way premature in my opinion. Talking openly to the Cuban people can?t hurt but talking to the long discredited Cuban bosses is not all that productive and may smack of more of the same old crap to the Cuban people.
Fair seas, Bill

[Keith_Hixson]

Carter is a wonderful man. Naive and Kind, the kind of person you would want as neighbor and fishing buddy. But I would never vote for him as president. His qualities that make him into a wonderful neighbor are those that can hinder him on the world's stage. He is kinda like Chamberlain before WW II. Always thinking and hoping for the best but not always capable of seeing the reality of the situation because all he wants to see is the good in everybody and everything.

At this point in history an embargo on Cuba is useless. Its a vote getter for both parties in Florida, totally political.

I really don't know what he is doing in Florida except vacationing.

Keith

P.S. James
I agee with you on not taking Bagdah when the opportunity
was there. However, the sentiment at the time was;
we didn't want the Arab countries to think we were
imperialistic. So, when the threat to Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia was over, it was home we go. It was a political
move. I believe any President in Office either party would
have done the same thing. It was a decision based on how
our image would look on the World's Political Stage.

[exlrrp]

OK Packo

Lets get to some basic economic facts which you seem to not be aware of. lets start giving references for our statements, that way we'll know we're not bullshtting each other--other than that there's no sense talking

A) When you SPEND more than you make you are in DEFICIT (DEBT). the accumulation of DEBT(assuming your CREDITORSwill allow this) over a length of time is your DEBT. How much you OWE!!
You will pay INTEREST on the DEBT you OWE while you are paying OFF the DEBT you OWE.
These are standard econ rules
As of this minute the US owes over 5 TRILLION dollars, thats 2.5 times what we took in in 2001.
So what does this mean??? It means that 20.8 % of all the money we spend ( source World Almanac2002 p113) Thats right guys, over one out of very 5 dollars we spend goes to pay the interst on our acumulated debt---thats OUR accumulated DEBT (I'll get to who accumulated it presently) This is why all talk of "surpluses" by anyone is complete bullsht
Ever wonder why we're not going to the moon anymore? Not building so many great things as in the 60s? Our budgets are always tight? Thats why.
I'm going to post a chart below this that wil show indisputably who accumulated the great majority of the debt--lets do some basic number crunching while we're looking at history
lets start with Carter. the last year Carter had responsiblity for the budget was FY 1981--deficit: $78 Billion (ibid) Reagans first budget almoat doubled that
that was a good deal lower than all the deficits reagan and Bush added as you can plainly see
lets quickly review the American Budget dynamic. The President proposes the budget, than cuts a deal with Congess to get it through after everybody's amended it and added their own pork--this is bipartisan, agreed? Do you want me to list all the Conservative PorK I know about? its considerable (Kill ALL Tobacco subsidies NOW!!) lets just say both sides do it the same.
The Prseident then signs his name on the botom of the budget INDICATING HIS APPROVAL--its a group effort but he gets the Kudos and the blame for it. he can send it back if he doesn't like it--Reagan did thi several times. his budget priorities dictate the financial course of the nation to a large degree.
Well, altho reagan and Bush had a LOT to say about how the country needed a Balanced Budget Amendment, THEY NEVER ONCE PROPOSED A BALANCED BUDGET!!!!! never, not even came close and as this chart clearly shows spent other people's money like drunkn sailors, signing their names to budgets that ran as high as 20% in deficit.
That means that they were writing more and more checks that were less and less good--Reagan and Bush clearly wrote more bouncing checks than any other 2 presidents in history, didn't they? it aint hard to look good when youre bouncing checks on someone elses account
Well, how do you get rid of a debt anyway? ( I always have to explain this to Republicans) here's how I do it-- buy less luxury items and/or increase my income so I can buy down the debt AND RETIRE THE DEBT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE I DON"T WANT TO KEEP PAYING THE INTEREST!!! I have done this many times, I know it works, I only owe serious money on one of my properties--I paid the other one off entirely doing just that.
I own everything else I have, I pay my credit cards bills off every month.
Thats what Clinton did also--put $540 million into his first budget for deficit reduction and molto millions every budget thereafter --and my what a political firestorm he ran into for doing it--remember that? he raised income tax on only the top 5% of Taxpayers ( higher for corporations) and the conservs NEVER let him forget it, I think thats where the rabid hatred started. he was in fact, the first President to do anything about the deficit other than raise it in quite some time--reagan and Bush couldn't do it, didn't even try as the chart shows, beacuse they were to chicken to take th political flack of raising taxes untill finally Bush began to see the light. I thought he did the right thingg--but I don't think I'm taxed too much to live in this great place, no, thats just the door fee.
Youre not going to retire the debt by lowering taxes, no way and untill you do One out every $5 you spend goes to pay the vig on a debt signed for by mostly Reagan and Bush--read the chart.
The question is will the Repubs EVER step up to the plate and do the right thing by retiring the debt they mostly created (see chart)--THEN we'll have LOTS of money and and can cut taxes--but, NOOOOOO, the first thing they did when elected is lower the taxes (national income) This is what rich people elct them for.
When someone is in serious debt affecting 20% of his disposable income just to pay interst do you say "hey, Kick back and cut your income, things will get better without tightening your belt?" not if youre smart--but you sure do if youre a Republican.
They CAN"T do this--they can NOT retire the debt with their plan and the proof is that under republican administration the debt gets bigger and under the Democrats it gets smaller-- don't take my word for this, there it is in black and white!.This is what I want ANY Republican to explain--how is lowering taxes going to retire the debt--its NEVER worked before and it won't work now.

Please--stop whining about how bad the taxes are when Republicans ONLY increase the national debt--theyre doing it again!!!!Theyre's going to be a $40 billion deficit IN George'Bush's first year!!!! And I'll wager every year thereafter, after 4 years of Clinton surpluses, too.
How bout that Balanced Budget Amendment, eh? the republicans screamed for decades about havng one altho they never produced a balanced budget (The last Repub president to do so:Ike) Now theyve kept it bottled up in The House for almost 4 years--Clinton would have signed it in a minute--they won't produce it now either BECAUSE George Bush will not be able to produce a balanced budget--ever-- Thanks to the tax cuts. if the republicans want to act like theyre fiscally responsible, let them produce it!! if not, its back to the good ol Republican "Borrow and Spend" strategy that plunked us down right where we are
more Econ Intro stuff:
Something else this chart CLEARLY shows is that the cost of govenrnment INDISPUTABLY rises greater year to year in Republican administrations than Democratic.
"this years cost of Govt minus last years cost of govt equals how much more the govt costs this year"
I did the math here (check it yourself please) suntractd the previous years costs from the current years and I found that the rising difference year to year in the Reagan administration averaged $80 billion, the 4 years of bush averaged $62 billion and the 8 years of Clinton averaged $48 billion. So Govt costs INDISPUTABLY rise higher in republican times than democratic times--this while theyre also running up the debt.
Anybody wanna crunch these numbers differently? other than that, i rest my case

Wanna deny this? Please !! Spin these numbers to make the republicans look good!! (hint: blame it all on Clinton and Gore)

Receipts/Outlays/Deficit History
Dollars in millions

YEAR RECEIPTS OUTLAYS DEFICIT
2000 ** 1,882,992/ 1,765,687/ 117,305
1999 ** 1,806,334/ 1,727,071/ 79,263
1998 1,721,798/ 1,652,552/ 69,246
1997 1,579,292/ 1,601,235/ -21,943
1996 1,453,062/ 1,560,512/ -107,450
1995 1,351,830/ 1,515,729/ -163,899
1994 1,265,000/ 1,467,000/ -202,000
1993 1,153,535/ 1,408,205/ -254,670
1992 1,090,453/ 1,380,856/ -290,403
1991 1,054,272/ 1,323,793/ -269,521
1990 1,031,308/ 1,251,703/ -220,395
1989 990,691/ 1,144,069/ -153,378
1988 908,954/ 1,074,051/ -155,097
1987 854,143/ 1,003,830/ -149,687
1986 769,091/ 990,258/ -221,167

1985 734,057/ 946,316 /- 212,259
1984 666,457/ 851,781 / -185,324
1983 600,562/ 808,327 / -207,765
1982 617,766/ 745,706 / -127,940
1981 599,272/ 678,209/ -78,937
1980 517,112/ 590,920/ -73,808


James

happy just to be alive- AND SOLVENT!!!!!!

[exlrrp]

" Remember that it was the Democrats, who owned the Congress and the Senate (for 40 years) that voted against us liberating Kuwait. They didn't want us there in the first place and are now whinning that we didn't take over Iraq. "

i don't remeber this sequence of events happening like this--First of all, I'm a Democrat and I supported the war and know lots of others who did. could you reference this version?
Re; the mandate for not taking Baghdad. The main lesson of Vietnam for me was not to get into a war youre not going to win--go for all the marbles. I thought not whguipping Sadam was a mistake then an I think it was even more so now-The UN mandate? American input WROTE the mandate or if not what was Bush doing? Ive heard GHB himself say he would have rethought it--he's an honest man.
Thanks

James

PS--Please!! just ask me to refernce any of this stuff, I ve done it all with Mortardude before!!

[usmcsgt65]

I am more on the side of exlurrp on this one. I am taking the postion that Carter is openning the door to Cuba so the US can restart trade AFTER Fidel is gone. I do not think we will do anything, expect sell them food, until Fidel steps down or dies.
I don't think I read in any of the threads about the on-going selling of food, corn/wheat, for their disaster relief.

[exlrrp]

from page 114, World Almanac2002 US Budget recepts and Outlays:
Corporate receipts: (expressed in millions)
fy1997--$182,294
fy1998--$188677
fy 1999--184, 680
fy2000 --195,618
well, goodness me, this shows that corporate taxes didn't hardly go up at ALL during this peoriod,doesn't it, actually went down in 1999.
Boy you sure hear a lot of crying from conservatives about how corporations pay too much money, don't you but gee, doesn't look too me like these years were TOO bad--seeing as how the Clinton years were the longest econmic boom of the 20th Century. What was the bottom line for all theese corporations?Zooming like the rest of the economy despite taxes staying fairly constant?? And theyre still pissin and moaning?
Anybody else crunch these #s different?
Could that have been partially in consequence of there being more short term money to invest that wasn't tied up loaning it to the government? HMMMM? ya think so? well, maybe.
Ask me to look up more stuff, go ahead--just ask

James

[exlrrp]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Andy
[B]James:
About that Iraq thing: Maybe being on the left coast you get different news than we do, I?m serious about that. I recall that before Desert Storm started Teddy (the bad driver) Kennedy was on TV most ever day saying ?We have sent 10,000 body bags to the middle East. We must do everything in our power not to allow them to be filled, we must bring our boys home now.?

Teddy kennedy does not speak for me or anyone else I know on most things. Does Strom Thurmond speak for you on everything?
Name some else that's smart

About Batista, yes he was owned and operated by the mob. His people were poor and un-educated. They could only make it as ball players, boxers, hookers, or working for the mob. Now they are educated (indoctrinated) and can make it by being members of the government. Not much of a step up.

The important thing here, like in Vietnam is that whatever ogvt they have should be derived from the people--they support it or not. Don't you think the Cubans could boot him if they wanted?? he's hella popular there, despite all his defects, the Cubans would not accept a foreign imposed govt. neither would the Vietnamese. they didn't make good choices about their govt from my viewpoint but thats their problem--I learned the folly of making everything right in someone else's country long ago--wake me up when the Bush twins enlist.

Castro was supported by the CIA. Do you remember when he was the leader of just a small group in the mountains? He received arms, munitions, commo etc. from a nebulous character only known as Col. Green. We were playing both sides, just in case. But Castro turned on the US after he got into power and became buddies with the USSR.

One thing about castro--he has some cojones, no error and thats why the Cubans love him--he doesn't need armed guards to walk in his own country. (he carries his own heat) I'd feel better about helping the Miami Cubans if they weren't such a strident lot, why don't they get some Prozac--they should have the balls to liberate their own country--Castro did and they have access to wealth and technology he can only dream of--again, wake me up when the Bush twins enlist--other than that I do NOT believe in going to war against a country that has committed NO aggressive acts towards us.

"Cuber is a poor place and should not be. It serves as a bad example of how to run a country."
Does the fact that we have had nothing but eternal enmity towards them contribute to their malaise? that we've isolated them economically from all the world markets? thnk that might have something to do with why its so poor? Can't trade with most of the western world altho theyr right in the middle of it? Its a wonder they do as good as they do.
Communism is not a good system, I'll be the first to agree and I put some holes in them to prove it. But whats going to end this is negotiation and commerce, EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE USSR AND CHINA, both of them far greater threats--This was reagans greatest triumph but I guess lots didn't learn the lesson

You stay healthy too, big guy, God bless

James

[Gimpy]

What James said bout thet thare "budget/deficit" stuff!

Numbers don't LIE! Onlyest politicians & coporate accountants and X-ecutives do!!

Jest asx those folks whut lost thay's pension funds frum "IN-vestin" width Enron??

[exlrrp]

Gimpy, ya ol liberal scumdog (lol)
I'm posting the whole chart and it proves something else!

2 out of the last 3 Democrat Presidents, Johnson and Clinton produced at least one balanced budget, altho they inherited deficits (Clinton:4 balanced budgets, including 2001, the record here)

None --thats ZERO-- of the last 5 Republican Presidents have been able to produce one, including this one altho he inherited budgetary surplus. (Nixon also) Is that a HUGE Coincidence, or what?*
Anybody read these #s different?

James



* during much of this time they controlled at least one of the sides of congress


Receipts/Outlays/Deficit History
Dollars in millions

YEAR RECEIPTS OUTLAYS DEFICIT
2000 ** 1,882,992 1,765,687 117,305
1999 ** 1,806,334 1,727,071 79,263
1998 1,721,798 1,652,552 69,246
1997 1,579,292 1,601,235 -21,943
1996 1,453,062 1,560,512 -107,450
1995 1,351,830 1,515,729 -163,899
1994 1,265,000 1,467,000 -202,000
1993 1,153,535 1,408,205 -254,670
1992 1,090,453 1,380,856 -290,403
1991 1,054,272 1,323,793 -269,521
1990 1,031,308 1,251,703 -220,395
1989 990,691 1,144,069 -153,378
1988 908,954 1,064,051 -155,097
1987 854,143 1,003,830 -149,687
1986 769,091 990,258 -221,167
1985 734,057 946,316 -212,259
1984 666,457 851,781 -185,324
1983 600,562 808,327 -207,765
1982 617,766 745,706 -127,940
1981 599,272 678,209 -78,937
1980 517,112 590,920 -73,808
1979 463,302 503,464 -40,162
1978 399,561 458,729 -59,168
1977 355,559 409,203 -53,644
1976 298,060 371,779 -73,719
1975 279,090 332,332 -53,242
1974 263,224 269,359 -6,135
1973 230,799 245,707 -14,908
1972 207,309 230,681 -23,372
1971 187,139 210,172 -23,033
1970 192,807 195,649 -2,842
1969 186,882 183,640 3,242
1968 152,973 178,134 -25,161
1967 148,822 157,464 -8,642
1966 130,835 134,532 -3,697
1965 116,817 118,228 -1,411
1964 112,613 118,528 -5,915
1963 106,560 111,316 -4,756
1962 99,676 106,821 -7,145
1961 94,388 97,723 -3,335
1960 92,492 92,191 301
1959 79,249 92,098 -12,849
1958 79,636 82,405 -2,769
1957 79,990 76,578 3,412
1956 74,587 70,640 3,947
1955 65,451 68,444 -2,993
1954 69,701 70,855 -1,154
1953 69,608 76,101 -6,493
1952 66,167 67,686 -1,519
1951 51,616 45,514 6,102
1950 39,443 42,562 -3,119
1949 39,415 38,835 580
1948 41,560 29,764 11,796
1947 38,514 34,496 4,018
1946 39,296 55,232 -15,936
1945 45,159 92,712 -47,553
1944 43,747 91,304 -47,557
1943 24,001 78,555 -54,554
1942 14,634 35,137 -20,503
1941 8,712 13,653 -4,941
1940 6,548 9,468 -2,920
1939 6,295 9,141 -2,846
1938 6,751 6,840 -89
1937 5,387 7,580 -2,193
1936 3,923 8,228 -4,305
1935 3,609 6,412 -2,803
1934 2,955 6,541 -3,586
1933 1,997 4,598 -2,601
1932 1,924 4,659 -2,735
1931 3,116 3,577 -461
1930 4,058 3,320 738
1929 3,862 3,127 735
1928 3,900 2,961 939
1927 4,013 2,857 1,156
1926 3,795 2,930 865
1925 3,641 2,924 717
1924 3,871 2,908 963
1923 3,853 3,140 713
1922 4,026 3,289 737
1921 5,571 5,062 509
1920 6,649 6,358 291
1919 5,130 18,493 -13,363
1918 3,645 12,677 -9,032
1917 1,101 1,954 -853
1916 761 713 48
1915 683 746 -63
1914 725 726 -1
1913 714 715 -1
1912 693 690 3
1911 702 691 11
1910 676 694 -18
1909 604 694 -90
1908 602 659 -57
1907 666 579 87
1906 595 570 25
1905 544 567 -23
1904 541 584 -43
1903 562 517 45
1902 562 485 77
1901 588 525 63
Source: Historical Tables, 2000 President's Budget
** Estimate from Historical Tables, 2000 President's Budget, published by the Whitehouse

Institute for Better Education Through Resource Technology (IBERT)

PO Box 4753
Glendale, CA 91222
Tel: 800/FISCAL1
CIVIX@IBERT.ORG

[Keith_Hixson]

The Balance Budgets of Clinton were!

Produced by a Conservative Senate and Congress that said if it isn't Balanced we'll vetoe it.

The Same could be said of all budgets. Remember all budgets have to be approved by the Houses of Congress. They are as instrumental in the make up of the budget process as the Presidents themselves.

Your statics mean very little until analized by the make-up of congress at the time. Most Republican presidents served as minority presidents (the Senate and the House were Democrat) which means they often forced an unbalanced budget. So Clinton's balanced budgets were really Republican Budgets forced upon a minority President.

Keith:D

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by exlrrp
There certainly are some creative reads on history here.
there's lots to deal with up above here but lets start with the "Jimmy Carter gave away the Panama Canal" myth
it was actually a smart deal for the US and I hate to say it but the negotiations started in the Ford administration. getting rid of it should be a plus for the side that whines about paying too much taxes but nooooo, Whats really creative is how the dittoheaded right wing conspiracy uses it to make carter look bad. Did Rush say that?
What some less informed people never start to think is that the Panama Canal had become a White Elephant for the US with little strategical value.Huge maintenance, no income. yet you guys would rather keep vulnerable bases there than do what was the smartest thing--keep a 2 ocean Navy--even the govt did better than that.
The late 70s--early 80s found the US downsizing our military commitmenet--this was bipartisan, a goal thruout several administrations and I can't fault the idea--who needed it? Nowadays we use our naval forces to move around an be our vbases--better for us and safer for them out in the ocean JUUUST like we did in Afghanistan.
lets start with this fact--virtually none of our strategic material or military pass through the Panama Canal--not oil, for sure, nor containers nor bulk on anything but bananas. the greatest number of ships to pass through there were cruise ships last year. the income didn't cover them maintenance
if we REALLY needed to take it back, as in wartime, don't you think we would in a New York minute? of course we would but the panamanians would rather rent it to us anyway--there's about a third of them there who want us back. Let the Chinese run it--they like working for low wages.
If youre smart, write your congressman not to renege on carter's excellent deal!! or isn' it Jimmy carter's fault now

carter's doing a good thing in Cuba now, its good PR for boh sides. Its time we normalised relations with Cuba, we sure cozyed up to some regimes a lot more atrocious. All of his efforts are good, Ive worked for habitat For Humanity. its good to see exPresidents doing something good for humanity on their own time, instead of selling $2million dollar speeches like Ronald reagan before he lost it too much. Yes I know what Bill Clinton does--same as GHB, selling pardons and all

james You are right on the money James. Let someone else pay for the canal for awhile. It ain't goin' nowhere. We know how to find it and we can and will take it back if need be for National security Reasons. I Also agree with you about Cuba. I think the "Beard" probably agrees with you too. It is not hard too see that you are well read and keep abreast of world events........Deadmanwalking

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by exlrrp
Why did, Bush, Cheney, Schwartskpf, Powell not take baghdad when they were knocking on the door, the Iraqi forces defeated, the city wide open?
I know all about the "we didn't have a mandate" excuse but this was one of the most shortsighted decisions on Modern history--now we're going to have to do it all over again and oh, thats right, with the same people who made the shortsighted decision. The good news is theyre doing it with Clinton's Army so that turned out all right.
they totally negated their excellent victory. I thought the main lesson of Vietnam was not to go to war unless you were going to win it. Thats what I learned, anyway.

james Why? My ead about this is what we all know. War is a money maker. It was in "Nam" and it will be again in Iraq. You dasent eat a "good" pig all at once. Do that and you are likely to starve to death.......America is structured on a war based economy. Our wealth lies in our war powers. "The mix of politics and the military industrial complex is dangerous" Dwight D. Eisinhower 1961 (I Think)..........Deadmanwalking

[Andy]

With your erudite background I was sure it was not necessary to spell out my take on Desert Storm. Let me try again. Many Democrats were talking about all the body bags that would be filled as a result of an armed assault on Iraq?s ?fourth largest army in the world? and were wetting their pants because of the prophecy that it would be the ?mother of all battles?, our choppers would not work in the sand, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle was a piece of crap, etc. Being optimistic I was praying we would only loose a battalion worth of line troops. If we had lost a brigade or division due to regular combat or chemical weapons many people, especially on the left would have been calling for Bush?s head. Around here we had war protesters who turned out ever day in town commons, protesters making a human blockade in front of the main gate at Westover Air Force Base, people burning the American flag at least on weekends. Bush Sr. won the stated goals of the war, cool. You know what happens once the mission is changed after troops are committed, it usually turns into a cluster. I site Black Hawk Down, not to mention Vietnam as examples of the many times when the mission was changed after the troops were pulling the trigger.

James, you seem to have gotten me all wrong on our politics towards Cuba. That nation has self-imposed communism, let them wallow in it. The worst thing we could do is become active in trying to overthrow Castro using anything but words and images. Now we can point to Cuba, to the rest of the Western Hemisphere and say, sure things aren?t perfect but do you see any boat loads of people going THERE? It would be fine if Cuba remained communist for the next generation. We could turn it into sort of a zoo. People could go there on tours to see why capitalism is a good idea. Of course we have helped Cuba to be poor, that?s our job: to show the rest of the world democracy and capitalism works and other systems don?t work as well.

Malaise? Did you really use the word Malaise? Is there a better word to describe the failed policies of Jimmy Carter? Cuba is in a malaise alright. They have a leader who is Carter times 10 when it comes to running an economy. Castro is like the kid you never liked in high school. And when he was having a bad day and threatened to jump off a bridge you said, "go for it, who knows, you might fly".

Stay healthy,
Andy

[phuloi]

You talk sa if there were a naval blockade in place to starve Castro.He`s free to trade with any country in the world. When the USSR went kaput,along with it went any hope that Castro might have had of economic solvency.Socialist European countries won`t deal with him any more because he`s got a huge debt to them that he can`t,or won`t repay. As the noose tightens around the neck of one of the most repressive regimes in the world,we`ll see just how much the Cuban people love Castro and his cajones.Dubya said that until those people have free and fair elections,the embargo stays put,and I agree.Right now it would seem to me that Castro has but a few choices for survival, with the best case scenario being freeing his people,and the worst-aligning himself with the Chicoms.If Carter`s visit nudges ole Fidel toward a democratic government..GREAT! If not,then all he has done is to further the appearance of a weakened and divided America to our long,and growing daily,list of enemies.

[xgrunt]

The following is from the 'Dirty Digs" colomn of my small town paper. the article was written by Pete Cottle. "Six year old Drew, my oldest grandson had something he wanted to talk about. He had a world globe and, having seen the movie" Pearl Harbor" asked me to show him who was fighting who in WWII. You gotta understand that he is a bright and inquisitive kid who believes most of what his grandfather tells him. So we went over the globe pointing out the good guys and the bad guys in WWII. Had to be confusing to him to be told the Germans and Japenese are now are friends. then we took the history a little further, pointing out that Americans had fought in Korea, VietNam, the Middle East and now Afganistan. Then he looked at me with those sincere eyes and asked, with who knows what running thru his mind, asked a question that broke my heart: "You mean the war never ends?" What do you say to that , what do you say to a six year old? God, what a sad commentary on the human race.":(