Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

I wonder how much Halburton gets from the $87 Bilion? How much are the US controlled Iraqi oil contracts worth?

Did you know that is more money that was spent on public education in the US this year.

Dustin,

In reference to “But consistency has never been the strong mark of some Democrats. Their stances shift like the political wind, changing when it is more advantageous to do so.”, I would suggest both parties are equal in this regard.

The President’s campaign rhetoric on smaller government and lower government spending seems not to be in the President’s reortoire of acts and actions as President, in light of growing federal beauracracy and vastly increased government spending, deficits and debt.

And what of the rhetoric of “compassionate conservativism” which stands in stark contrast to the facts of increased unemployment, increased poverty, diminishment of overall middle class job compensation, higher Rx and health care costs, and an alienation of senior citizens regarding their concerns?

Cuts both ways, it seems to me, with neither party having a corner on the market of truth in advertising when it comes to campaign promises and in-office actions.

I will concede, however, that the Republican rhetoric does not change much despite facts contradicting the rhetoric, while differing democratic candidates are adapting their rhetoric to changing conditions. Unclear yet, which is worse, if either is.

Seems to me that the Bush Administration has changed it’s rhetoric whenever it feels the need. We are told it’s terrorism, it’s WMD, it’s Iraqi Freedom, it’s the agreements made at the end of Gulf War 1.

Every explanation concedes something, WMD basically conceded terrorism. Iraqi freedom conceded WMD. So on, so forth.

If there is anyone who is unwilling to own up to the costs of the war, It is the Bush Administration.

A guy working for me gives me back money, saying his finances are such that he can do so. Then he turns around and says I’m going to have to cut out these features and these requests because he doesn’t have the money. Then he turns around and tells me that he’s run a huge debt in my name, an oh, would I please take out a loan to cover his debt? If somebody did this for real, I’d can their rears and kick them out.

Bush has told us we could painlessly accept a tax-cut. Then the economy craters, the last thing you want to happen in a tax-cut if you take supply side economics seriously. Revenues fall through the floor. Then some starve-the-beast people come along and say, “oh we can’t afford all these programs” Time to slap your forehead in exasperation. Then Bush and his people start not one, but two wars, and create an entirely new cabinet department, then they commit us to rehabilitating an entire nation.

And again, they lowball us, trying to get cheap on things, not just expecting the best case scenario to play out, betting our nation’s resources and reputation that this will be the case.

It seems like the Bush Administration is continually doing things halfway, and not admitting to the inadequacy of their finance or policies. If you set out to do something for this country, be kind enough to ask for the money to do it right, the first time around. We should finance Iraqi reconstruction to the hilt, but then we should hold Bush accountable for the debt he’s put us in.

David, that’s why I put “some Democrats.” Using a blanket statement such as “all Democrats” wouldn’t be fair, and that’s why I stayed away from it.

Steve, I’m not speaking for the Bush administration, only for myself. The liberation argument should have been used way earlier in the debate but, sadly, it was not. Furthermore, don’t mislead readers by stating the tax cut caused a recession; the recession started while Clinton was still in office, making it impossible for the tax cut to be solely responsible. You may argue it assisted the recession, but I would disagree, stating it staved off a deeper one.

Jake, I’d much rather see a nice French company get the contracts to rebuild Iraq- being as they have been right there on the front end with troops, $, Moral support. I’m just addressing the single point- the Haliburton issue, and the fact that the U.S economy can reclaim some part of the cost of the war by seeing that our businesses are utilized for the post war work. And the larger point of naming a specific company as form of indictment of the Bush Admin.? C’mon, you have to know both political parties have done this stuff all along. Clinton’s cronies in Worldcom et al were some of the biggest scoundrels in business, so lets be clear that its biz as usual. Didnt say I’m happy about it, just tired of so bloody much partisanship

Dustin, you reply to David above is a point well made.

The problem is, Bush always plans for the best case scenarios. His tax cuts were marketed on the basis of the continued growth of the economy at 2000 levels. His deregulation efforts, by their very nature, anticipate the best possible behavior out of those being deregulated. His Iraqi war scenarios were formulated on the idea that they would find WMD, that the Iraqi people would rise up and throw off their oppressors, and that the Iraqi Army would stick around and help rebuild.

They keep on having to redefine their terms of victory, keep on having to rationalize away legitimate gripes, and keep on trying to paint opposition as subversion.

My problem with Bush is that he’s cheap. Not only that, he buys too much on credit, stuff we will literally be paying back with interest. You know that trillion dollar tax cut? Well, Bush just raised taxes a few years down the line by keeping it in a time of reduced revenues. He just made sure that more of your tax dollars will have to go to fund these programs, the new department, and the Iraqi war when everything is said and done. He also has made sure that sometime in the near future, you will have to pay more for any kind of loan you try and take out.

Let us pay now what it will cost to do things right, and remove the expense that comes from paying for things on credit, and not paying for the right kind of things when we need them. Let him honestly give us the bill for services rendered, and honestly ask us to pay for it when it costs us the least, even if we have to sacrifice. If isn’t willing to ask us to sacrifice for the right thing, to potentially sacrifice his own electability to balance the budget, then he is no leader. Leaders are willing to do what’s right for the country and not just what’s popular.

I love the argument that Haliburton is walking away with the house. 2 no competitive bid contracts here given, one to Haliburton, being the only company in the world with any experience and the equipment in region to handle this. The other to the company owned by Diane Feinstein’s husband, whose’s company is also uniquely able to handle it’s particular role in the process.