Would Someone Please Tell Me

[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