Democrats & Liberals: Archives

When you think you see a contradiction, Ayn Rand says, check your premises. In this case, check the Bush administration’s premises.

The premise that they have (and that you don’t, I surmise) is that democracy is inherently good. They really do believe the theory that democracies never fight each other. They really do believe that, given the choice, citizens of any country will elect reasonably decent men.

So far, they haven’t been proven wrong. The new leadership in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine has been reasonable and moderate and has not acted irrationally (yet). Ditto for Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. Correspondingly, the countries that have been causing trouble are those (like Russia) that are sliding away from democracy.

Bush has only been watching the world for 3.5 years, and until he sees evidence that his theories about democracy don’t work he’s going to keep using them. He’s pragmatic, in that sense, as we saw with his 2001 about-face on foreign relations. Mohammed Atta convinced him that benign neglect wasn’t working, so he flip-flopped enormously, and hasn’t been displeased with the results.

Rhetorical dissonance from the press secretary? Perhaps. But so far, Bush’s actions and results in Palestine have been in harmony.

ah, chops. starting off with ayn rand! like a good evangelical…

yes, i was trying (maybe i failed) to insinuate that their premises are flawed.

The new leadership in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine has been reasonable and moderate and has not acted irrationally (yet). Ditto for Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan.

Afghanistan hasn’t been unreasonable because they can’t afford to be. Let’s see what happens when we don’t forge a strategic partnership with them like Karzai wants (and like Rumsfeld deftly avoided committing to). Iraq? The government isn’t even permanent yet. Palestine? I think we both know the possibilities here.

But Georgia? Do some checking into its handling of the South Ossetia province. Not very democratic, I’d say. Ukraine and Kyrgyztan are too early to call.

Rhetorical dissonance from the press secretary?

yes, it’s rhetorical dissonance, but if there’s one thing we’ve learned about this WH it’s that they don’t volunteer policy changes very often. dragging a straight answer out of mclellan (or fleischer) is about as easy as…well, fill in something very difficult here.

the point is that Bush’s premises in this instance are going to continually remain in disharmony, especially in the Middle East. this is one of the first times that they’ve admitted as much, and done some reposturing. a year ago, they NEVER would’ve taken this position; it sounds suspiciously to me like the arguments of the anti-patriotic middle east studies professors we’ve all heard so much about.

Chops,

“The new leadership in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine has been reasonable and moderate and has not acted irrationally (yet). Ditto for Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. Correspondingly, the countries that have been causing trouble are those (like Russia) that are sliding away from democracy.”

It should be noted that Afghanistan, Iraq, and all those other democracies you mentioned do not exactly have the power to cause much trouble. Russia, regardless of whether it is a democracy or not, has the ability to be a significant problem because of its size and power.

I’ll say as I’ve said before, I believe democracy is greatly overrated and should be far less romantacized than it is.

They really do believe the theory that democracies never fight each other.

Too bad this “theory” has already been proven false (or, at least, irrelevant — see here for supporting arguments).

Re Consistency

You recall Emerson.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.”

Re Democracy

It is better than the alternatives and worth the trouble. But the definition of democracy has evolved. When Victor Davis Hanson (in one of Rob’s links) talks about Athenian democracy, he is pointing out the classic contradiction of democracy. There can be too much of it, i.e. democracy without moderating instituions is like breathing pure oxygen. It makes you feel drunk and happy, but it is harmful.

Athenian democracy lacked checks and balances. Fortunately, the U.S. doesn’t have a “real” democracy, like Athens.

Democracy in today’s world also requires relatively free markets, protection of minority rights and stabilizing institutions. (By the way, the Clinton Administration also promoted democracy with the same characteristics as the Bush Administration. All American Administrations believe in free markets, protection of minority rights and stabilizing institutions.)

So democracy, in the sense of the consent of the governed, is essential. It may not always be enough to ensure peace and stability, but without it there can be no lasting peace or stability.

Excellent article, schtaple. The Bush administration is clearly helping Islamic fundamentalists take over the Middle East. Bin Laden approves.

jack,

You recall Emerson.

ralph waldo or fittipaldi?

All American Administrations believe in free markets, protection of minority rights and stabilizing institutions.

i’m not arguing that bush shouldn’t be fighting for democracy, or freedom, or the ideas therein. i hope that’s understood. what i’m arguing is that his administration’s understanding of these concepts, and its corresponding principles in the war on terror, are flawed, and when worked out to their logical ends are contradictory.

i’m not even arguing that consistency should be the goal of foreign policy. of course that’s not the goal. but an administration should examine its policy for such contradictions before beginning social experiments. what bush et al. have proven is that their modus operandi (two latin phrases in one sentence?!) is ready, fire, aim.

Yes. And France and Gr. Britain have done so well.
They created the problems in the Middle East.
They started the country known as Iraq.
Where is France now?
Saying the U.S. doesn’t know what they are doing and watching from the sidelines? Nice.
Keep blaming Bush and the United States for causing all the problems in the Middle East and give France another free ride.
And what about Asia?
They ALL left the Middle East to fend for themselves and look what we ALL got.
At least Bush is trying to do something. France just wants to sell more military equipment to keep up their exports.
Whose weapons are our service men and women fighting against? The countries that didn’t join the coalition?

It would be nice if some Bush haters (and those who dislike our foreign policies) would throw in a few complaints about what other nations have done wrong too.

Bin Laden hates more countries than just the US of A. Stop pretending that we are the only ones he is trying to destroy.

Schtaple

I don’t know a fittipaldi.

The best policies are rooted in good principles in planning, but are then opportunistic in execution. This goes for foreign, personal, business and academic policies. The practical world never fits into the preordained patterns. Without principles and planning, you just get lost. Interpret your plans too strictly and you get killed.

The example you call flinching is a good example of taking advantage of the opportunity as it is offered. It was a very good principle to refuse to negotiate that old terrorist Arafat and President Bush stuck to that one, despite criticism, because no good could come from changing it. His death created an opening that may have changed the situation. We have to explore it.

bug,

Yes. And France and Gr. Britain have done so well.

i’m confused. you’re being sarcastic? they’re doing fairly well, last i checked. sure, some problems with the welfare system and xenophobia, but ok nonetheless. and the UK has been the only significant ally in iraq, right? but you’re right in that

They created the problems in the Middle East. They started the country known as Iraq. Where is France now?

seriously, i’m not following you. sarcasm again? france is where it has been for the last 80 years, trying to be the bastion of secular liberalism.

Saying the U.S. doesn’t know what they are doing and watching from the sidelines? Nice.

UK has been on the sidelines? and france put up a pretty good fight before the invasion.

Keep blaming Bush and the United States for causing all the problems in the Middle East and give France another free ride.

i’m discussing US foreign policy and its limitations. i was just as critical of clinton’s FP—i just didn’t blog then. and i’m not understanding the ‘giving france a free ride’ stuff. should we have forced france to join the coalition? how does that work? what ride are they on?

And what about Asia?

such a good question.

At least Bush is trying to do something. France just wants to sell more military equipment to keep up their exports. Whose weapons are our service men and women fighting against? The countries that didn’t join the coalition?

actually those weapons are mostly recycled soviet arms, left over from hussein’s republican guard. blaming the insurgency on france is laughable.

It would be nice if some Bush haters (and those who dislike our foreign policies) would throw in a few complaints about what other nations have done wrong too.

i do that, but this was a fairly straightforward post about US foreign policy. i’m not as invested in the FP of other countries. but maybe i’ll try to whip up a post about how the Netherlands really screwed up the trade routes of the South Pacific…

Bin Laden hates more countries than just the US of A. Stop pretending that we are the only ones he is trying to destroy.

sure, he hates lots of people. but take a look at those transcripts—his hatred list is pretty clear. he never once refers to Chirac’s re-election campaign.

jack,

I don?t know a fittipaldi.

sorry, just being goofy. check here.

The example you call flinching is a good example of taking advantage of the opportunity as it is offered.

although this instance is more of a justification of events rather than actual movement, your point is right on. i have apparently failed in my attempt to be subtle, or i’ve been waaay too subtle.

this post was prompted by mccarthy’s NR article, lamenting the fact that bush seems to be wavering. the NR rarely calls out the Bush Administration; and in this case, mccarthy’s fury is because bush changed his mind.

that’s the problem; in mccarthy’s words, “The rationale for the Bush presidency, the bedrock basis for reelection, is that the President has been clear-eyed and unflinching”. this stance, which has made bush popular amongst his constituency, is not reconcilable with the type of foreign policy issues he’s trying to deal with. it’s just not.

my point, then, is that this is a rare example where they recognize as much, and admit as much—only to be called out by the pundits who normally support them so strongly.

They created the problems in the Middle East… Where is France now?

As I never tire of pointing out, France offered to send troops and significant capacity building support to Iraq after the invasion as part of a UN administration like they’re doing in Afghanistan. Bush turned ‘em down cold.

France was also working with the Pentagon to integrate an armored division, hundreds of aircraft, and a carrier group into the Iraq invasion force - until the IAEA and UNMOVIC pretty much concluded Saddam didn’t have any WMD.

Those guys may be schmoes, but you can’t say they didn’t offer.

Schtaple said:

They created the problems in the Middle East. They started the country known as Iraq. Where is France now?

seriously, i’m not following you. sarcasm again? france is where it has been for the last 80 years, trying to be the bastion of secular liberalism.

For the last 80 years? So that was a ‘bastion of secular liberalism’ slaughtering Algerians and Vietnamese, resisting decolonization in Africa, helping the Rwandese genociders in the name of le francophonie, invading Egypt in 1956 and setting up Lebanon for its untenable existence?

Obviously, France has relatively little to do with Iraq (except some oil-for-food hankypanky), because they did not colonize it. However, they are directly responsible for the mess in Lebanon, and I know you know that.

I think you misunderstood bugcrazy’s arguments (which is understandable given his lack of Subject-Verb-Object sentances), but I doubt that he was implying that France & England have poor welfare systems or that France is selling arms to Iraqi guerrillas. Rather, as you know, France and England screwed up the Middle East as mandatory powers, and then left it to fester. And France has only recently modified its arms-sales-to-China offer in the face of massive criticism from neocons and human rights advocates alike.

chops,

So that was a ‘bastion of secular liberalism’ slaughtering Algerians and Vietnamese, resisting decolonization in Africa, helping the Rwandese genociders in the name of le francophonie, invading Egypt in 1956 and setting up Lebanon for its untenable existence?

you’re right, i’m with you. i just should’ve bolded the part about how they are

trying to be the bastion of secular liberalism.

i was going to insert something about how they’ve usually failed, but i figured that was understood. i need to stop assuming. it’s making an ass out of you and ming.

i’ve ranted so many times about the mandate system that it pains me to do so again. maybe i should have some pre-prepared paragraphs that i can cut and paste as needed.

I actually enjoyed the sarcasm, schtaple. “france is where it has been” Heh.

Watch where you point the ass though. We critique the message, not the messenger.

Watch where you point the ass though. We critique the message, not the messenger.

duly chastised. as chops can attest, my “sense of humor” can at times be “caustic.” it’s generally accompanied by a smile, which makes me seem like less of an asshole, but smiles don’t translate well in html…

Thanks Chops. (“Subject-Verb-Object sentances”???)

My point is:
You have to consider what OTHER countries have and have not done when you discuss OUR foreign policy. I don’t know the exact number of times the U.S. has had to come to the ‘rescue’ of failed foreign policies of other nations. We aren’t perfect and neither are they.
France HELPED create Iraq. The State. They slapped different groups of people together and told them to start a country. They did not ‘nurture’. They were not ‘hands on’ in the new Middle East that they helped to create.
Now they are among a group who think they know what is best. If they knew best the problems would not have been there festering to begin with.
They should have been more than willing to help stop the problems and fix the Middle East. Including being part of the invasion of Iraq.
I used France because most of us Chirac haters prefer to bash France over the rest of those that did not help with the invasion.
The Soviet Union is a different story. Putin has become a power hungry psycho. He will have to be dealt with also. Hopefully he will be voted out before he turns Russia back into it’s ‘old self’.

Just don’t forget to mention why certain policy decisions are made and don’t forget to mention ALL the countries involved.
The U.S. may be the only ‘superpower’ but what we do has to do with what everyone else does. It is NOT a ‘go it alone’ world.
The chaotic history of the Middle East did NOT begin with the U.S..
In order to fully understand OUR FP you have to consider the FP’s of other Nations.

BTW… France tried to bargain it’s way in to helping in Iraq. Their ‘offer’, as you put it, included their #1 priority of making money off of it.
When is the last time you ‘offered’ to help someone only if you got something in return?

bug,

You have to consider what OTHER countries have and have not done when you discuss OUR foreign policy.

valid argument; you’re right that such considerations should inform my opinion of US FP, and they do. it’s just not practical to dicuss them all in a 500-word post.

Great article schtaple.

This may seem slightly off topic, but since you did begin your post with that reference to Bush’s “paradox of non-contradiction” regarding a US attack on Iran, I thought maybe you guys would want to read this rather explosive article a friend recently directed me to:
Scott Ritter Says U.S. Plans June Attack On Iran

For anyone who doesn’t who know Scott Ritter is, he’s the Republican, firefighter, ex-marine, and ex UNSCOM weapons inspector for Iraq who has been dead right on every single one of his predictions on the war and about the administrations disasterous pre-conceived notions for waging it both before shock and awe and afterward. This article discusses his opinion on the likelihood of our going to Iran sometime in June — backing up Seymour Hersh’s January New Yorker article entitled “The Coming Wars” which claimed:
“Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran.”
“Strategists at the headquarters of the U.S. Central Command, in Tampa, Florida, have been asked to revise the military�s war plan, providing for a maximum ground and air invasion of Iran”.
“The hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans� negotiated approach [to Iran] cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration will act.”

More flinching, indeed. And more incompetent flailing, no doubt.

Jack,
“[Democracy] is better than the alternatives and worth the trouble.”

I’m guessing you’re not a minority. After all, as long as you’re in the majority, democracy works absolutely great. Minorities such as myself find it harder to accept the idea of being subjugated to the will of the majority. I can think of one obvious alternative that is better than democracy, a constitution-based federal republic. At least in republics mob rule doesn’t dictate the course of your life.

Now they are among a group who think they know what is best.

Like the Bush administration?

They [France] should have been more than willing to help stop the problems and fix the Middle East.

But I just pointed out that they were…

BTW… France tried to bargain it’s way in to helping in Iraq. Their ‘offer’, as you put it, included their #1 priority of making money off of it.

Ohh… Offers of help don’t count if they involve quid pro quo. No back scratching allowed?

Actually, You’re wrong about the motivation. A really good book on the subject is, “Allies at War”. Another interesting insight is this post-mortem of pre-invasion diplomacy, “Stumbling Into War”.

When is the last time you ‘offered’ to help someone only if you got something in return?

I was a consultant for several years. It’s actually quite satisfying to help someone for an extravegant fee. Win-win. ;)

The fact is, France offered to send troops and other resources as part of a UN mandate. Bush turned ‘em down. The question is, was a UN mandate in Iraq too high a price to pay for international assistance?

Zeek

Please reread my post re democracy above, where I write, “Athenian democracy lacked checks and balances. Fortunately, the U.S. doesn’t have a “real” democracy, like Athens.

“Democracy in today’s world also requires relatively free markets, protection of minority rights and stabilizing institutions.”

And I agree that the system we have in the U.S. is better than pure “democracy”.

Interesting how the discussion of “conflict” in the part of the world has again become a philisophical discussion upon the various “forms” of government.

The issue has become the “spread of democracy” in the world. The change of how government operates in these portions of the world being the focus of argument. Yet, in the entire discussion thread I could not really discern in anybody’s arguement the real validation of any government - The people.

Whether it is Monarchy or Dictatorship; Tyranny or Oligarchy; Democracy or Republic the people validate the government. Thus, ultimately, the people will decide. It would do one credit to observe not just the “conflict,” yet also the people who represent those conflicts. Most importantly, the type(s) of government these areas of the world have experienced throughout their histories.

The “policies” that are being implemented have all been tried before and for the same reasons. Will they succeed this time? Time will tell. The reason they’ve failed in the past is because nobody wants to be ruled from outside. What is the likelihood that the cycle is being repeated?

War does not determine who is right … war determines who is left.

If the original culture survives, then this effort will likely fail. Now major change or elimination of this culture would ensure what? Success? Depends on your definition.

The cycles of thw world continue. In the future it will be your Prodigy who will be forced to change … and on and on the world spins at 90 miles per second … its a great time to witness the events unfold so quickly in front of our eyes … never so quickly in human history … and humans now demand that the “solutions” come on a daily basis … simply wonderful to not only study ancient history, yet also witness history unfold in real time ;-)

Which form of government will accomplish the goals of the various forces at work? The one which gets the people to get up everyday and go earn their keep and feed their families.

The word “stan” is very important in this reagion of the world. “Stan” means land. Plain and simple. The peoples who populate these stans have lived their lives a specific way for their entire history.

Look toward those who have been successful in living side-by-side with the people of these stans - Persia. Why have the Persians had such success in living with all of the various people of these lands?

The Persianns have not shrunk and faded from histories pages. They are not an oppressed people. They have more influence in these areas than any other. They live within and control major areas in various nation states. They are a closed people who understand the value of culture as opposed to imaginary boundaries called borders. Their potential enemies all understand and respect this way of life.

The only political solutions to our “problem” is to deal with people on their own terms or destroy their way of life. The argument to change the form of government for these people is an argument for genocide of cultures. Some say this is the real war.

U.S. Constitutional doctrine is based upon self-government and self-actualization of that government. Forcing another country to adopt a form of government is quite condtraditory to that premise.

The only successes of Republicanism (as opposed to true democracy) have been by example. DeToqueville held the United States up as an example for the rest of the world and the republican form of government spread.

Admittingly, the only consistent fact in everything I’ve said is this … the world spins at 90 miles a second … whether we’re on it or not … the rest has been my personal thoughts … i hope it gives pause for thought when compiling your next policy theory … thank you for your time.

The Bush Policy of Deception continues…

GOODBY PATTERNS OF GLOBAL TERRORISM?
by Larry C. Johnson

Just when you thought the Department of State could not top last year’s debacle in failing accurately to count the number of international terrorist incidents, it appears that the State Department is going one step better—they reportedly have decided to not issue a report to the public. This move has been prompted by the Department’s discovery that the new methodology used by the recently formed National Counter Terrorism Center has produced statistics that shows an enormous jump in the number of international terrorist attacks.

[…….]

For Secretary of State Rice these numbers are a disaster. It is tough to argue we are winning the war on terrorism when the numbers in the official Government report will show the largest number of incidents ever recorded since the State Department started reporting on terrorist incidents. …

Good catch Aldous. That is so typical of the Bush administration. It reminds me of how they’re hiding stats on inflation by removing unessentials from the index - like gasoline and food. Or how they’ve stopped reporting labor statistics for women. Or how they tried to reclassify flipping burgers as a manufacturing job. ;/

id like to see actual proof of the so called deceptions that always talk about, and i dont mean some random internet site from an unkown source actual documented proof, wont happen of course

hum,

“id like to see actual proof of the so called deceptions that always talk about, and i dont mean some random internet site from an unkown source actual documented proof, wont happen of course [sic]”

Hm, WMD’s in Iraq? Subliminally linking Saddam to 9/11? Any of these deceptions ringing a bell? Or, if you want to take a different route, how about Bush’s tax cuts which “clearly favor the low-income tax bracket?” I would say that constitutes as a deception. I eagerly await your response.

everyone including you dems thought they had weapons and still show me proof of how they favor them instead of just saying it and tell me how youd change it instead of whining

everyone including you dems thought they had weapons

Um… Nope. Not true.

And here’s a CBO report that says the tax cuts favor the wealthy. Here’s an analysis, in case you don’t want to crunch the raw data,

By 2010, when (and if) the Bush tax reductions are fully in place, an astonishing 52 percent of the total tax cuts will go to the richest one percent - whose average 2010 income will be $1.5 million.

hum,

“everyone including you dems thought they had weapons and still show me proof of how they favor them instead of just saying it and tell me how youd change it instead of whining”

Not exactly sure what your message is here… your grammar is horrible… but this is what I can glean from the mess:

1) All Americans thought Iraq had WMDs
2) Tell how taxes favor the rich
3) Explain how I’d change those taxes

Ok, not all Americans thought Iraq had WMDs (me being a case-in-point). Though many Americans were suspicious and wouldn’t have said no to an investigation, only the Republicans supported an all out invasion of Iraq.

As to how taxes favor the rich, well, they cut the capital gain tax for those over the 15% profit bracket to a 15% rate of taxation. Additionally, Bush’s tax cut gives people making over $297,350 a year a 16% tax cut (of what they actually pay). In contrast, people making $27,050-$136,750 recieve only a 10% tax cut.

(Note: all the above figures are for single, unmarried citizens)

How would I change that? By putting us back at the tax rate we had before and increasing the capital gains tax to what Clinton cut it to (and that was a substantial cut in and of itself).

appreciate the link but still looks like everyone gets a tax cut to me and even tho the wealthy according to the chart get more of a cut they still are paying more taxes than the lower class ppl just cause of how much they make. Why make them pay more than anyone just because they worked and make more money

The overwhelming majority of federal income taxes are paid by the very highest income earners. The top 1% of income earners pay about 32% of all income taxes. The top 5% pays 51.4%. The top 10% of high income earners, pay 63.5%. The top 20% of income earners pays 78% of all federal income taxes. The top 20%.

Now, if you’re going to have a tax cut that is broad-based and reaches 78% of the people, I’m sorry, you’re going to be cutting taxes on the top 20%. It’s unavoidable……heres a link

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5746&type=1

WTF? Hum, you completely skewed the logic.

“The top 20% of income earners pays 78% of all federal income taxes. The top 20%.

Now, if you’re going to have a tax cut that is broad-based and reaches 78% of the people, I’m sorry, you’re going to be cutting taxes on the top 20%.”

What you really ment here is that if you’re going to cut 78% of the tax revenue it will be on the top 20% of tax payers. If you want to give tax cuts to the broad base of tax-payers you would not be giving it to the top 20%… that just doesn’t make sense.

“Why make them pay more than anyone just because they worked and make more money”

I often hear the “why punish the rich” argument when I stand behind the progressive tax. Quite frankly, I don’t believe we’re punishing the rich. Even if you tax the wealthier people more, they still make more than the poor do. Now, I’m not saying we should tax them to the point where they ARE poor, but I am saying that there is much more room to tax the wealthy than the poor.

heres what i really meant as i sad

People with the bottom fifth of income, averaging earnings of $16,000 a year saw their effective tax rate drop to 5.2% from 6.7%. Yet because lower and many middle-income families have been paying very little federal income tax in the first place, those in that bottom fifth of earnings received an average tax cut of only $250.”

So? They’re not paying any taxes. They’re paying a very small portion of the federal income tax burden in the first place

The tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 reduced tax rates for people in all income brackets but they had a disproportionate effect on people at the very highest levels because they had already been paying a disproportionate share of total federal taxes and in part because stock dividends get a special lower rate

The bottom four-fifths, 80% - the bottom 80% of income earners pay just 20%, 22% of the federal income tax burden. The bottom 80% pay only 20% of the burden. Now, how in the world can anybody with a brain come forth and say, “I am against tax cuts for the rich. I’m only going to have a tax cut for the middle class.” If you give a tax cut to people in the bottom 20%, you’re not going to stimulate anything. They’re not paying any taxes anyway

And on the only republicans supported all out war, thats because we understand that to keep attacks from happening you cant just have investigations and talks, that will never stop the problem. You have to cut the problems off at the head before they strike again, or they will keep striking over and over with no reprocussions as history up until now has shown

hum, first of all, thank you for not continuing to insist that the tax cuts don’t favor the wealthy.

If you want the middle class - the 80% of people who make 20% of the revenue - shoulder 80% of the country’s tax burden, well, fair enough. But I think that’s a bad idea, if not completely impossible.

we understand that to keep attacks from happening…

WOW!!! That’s shocking news, hum! If you have evidence that Iraq was going to attack us, you should turn it over to the government right away!

Ok so even if Sadam wasnt going to attack us with his specific country, he was helping terrorists and was a threat anyway. You think its wrong to free millions of peope from a guy that tortured, killed, raped blah blah all the time. There is something seriously wrong there and that is why its a good thing he is gone

I also have more on taxes but I have to work, but fun debate.

Here it is real fast to show with more proof that the upper class not middle or lower pay more taxes

The IRS has released the FY 2000 data for individual income tax returns. The numbers illustrate a truth that will startle you: that half of Americans with the highest incomes pays 96.09% of all income tax. This nukes the liberal lie that the rich don’t pay taxes. The top 1%, who earn 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax, are paying 37.42% of the federal tax bite.

Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:

Top 5% - 56.47% of all income taxes; Top 10% - 67.33% of all income taxes; Top 25% - 84.01% of all income taxes. Top 50% - 96.09% of all income taxes. The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.91% of all income taxes. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 1%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 20.81% of all income. The top 5% earns 35.30% of the pie. The top 10% earns 46.01%; the top 25% earns 67.15%, and the top 50% earns 87.01% of all the income.

So it’s not really true that the middle class pay most of the tax burden either

hum,

“Ok so even if Sadam wasnt going to attack us with his specific country, he was helping terrorists and was a threat anyway.”

So is Kim Jong-Il, except moreso.

“You think its wrong to free millions of peope from a guy that tortured, killed, raped blah blah all the time.”

Hm, there are countless examples of human rights violations on the part of Saddam’s regime, but there are no accurate or consistent numbers regarding how many people Saddam has killed. Not quite sure why you used the term “millions.”

“There is something seriously wrong there and that is why its a good thing he is gone”

You really think the Bush administration cares? Why, of all places on this earth, would they have chosen Iraq as an invasion place? They are not the greatest threat, they were not the most oppressive regime, and they certainly weren’t related to 9/11 (which Bush likes to imply). All this balogna about how we are “spreading democracy” in Iraq and “liberating its people” is a naive misunderstanding of the situation. They had oil, we went to secure it, and threw up a cover story.

“The top 1% earns 20.81% of all income. The top 5% earns 35.30% of the pie. The top 10% earns 46.01%; the top 25% earns 67.15%, and the top 50% earns 87.01% of all the income.”

And this justifies giving the rich tax cuts how? The way you explained it means that by giving the rich the largest tax cuts you are doing the MOST damage to the government’s revenue. That’s why things such as public education and Medicare are going to shit.

the oil story is the biggest scam of all time by democrats show me proof thats why they went, and after you dont ill show you proof its not

and the way i explained the tax cuts merely means that the richer are still paying the highest amount of taxes even if they are getting more of a break

hum,

“the way i explained the tax cuts merely means that the richer are still paying the highest amount of taxes even if they are getting more of a break”

YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT!! The rich could pay less as a percentage than do the poor and still contribute more to the IRS, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea! Someone has to fund our social programs (like public education) and as you have pointed out, that is going to have to be the rich. You see, you’re looking at the wrong side of this; you’re asking how much they are paying when you should be asking how much the government needs. As of now the government is getting less than it needs. So tell me, who does it make sense to raise taxes on to remedy this? The rich, or the poor (or middle-class)?

“the oil story is the biggest scam of all time by democrats show me proof thats why they went”

OK then, explain to me why the US would invade a country that we (by “we” I mean the government) KNEW had no implications to 9/11, that we KNEW had no WMD’s, and that we KNEW couldn’t attack any of its border countries much less US.

the oil story is the biggest scam of all time by democrats show me proof thats why they went

hum, there were many reasons the administration invaded Iraq. As Wolfowitz once said, they only pushed the WMD angle for bureaucratic reasons.

The fact that Saddam was sitting on top of the world’s second largest oil reserves AND was a loose cannon in a region that is a major strategic resource for us was definitely part of the decision.

BTW, Democrat’s never opposed regime change in Iraq. As you guys like to point out, it was a Clinton policy anyhow.

And unless you’re constantly urging your representatives to put troops on the ground in Darfur, don’t spout the humanitarian BS. It’s cynical.

Oh, and ditto Zeek on the taxes. Go back and read the responses. Nobody is disputing that the rich pay more money in taxes. They make more money. Duh. If you want to argue they shouldn’t pay a larger percentage, go ahead. But I think you’re wrong for the reason Zeek points out, and more.

Oh, hey hum. Iran just recruited 400 more suicide bombers. Now that Iraq is going to have a government just like Iran, how ya going to feel when they start sponsoring terrorism?