Verona:

I agree in part with what you are saying. My original reply was to your remark that Bush should try to achieve a balanced budget. That in my opinion would be disastrous to the economy and that he should pump more money into the economy through fiscal policy in general. Yes that could include government spending but it could also include tax cuts which DO in a way pump more money into the economy. Economically speaking, a tax cut will increase consumer and business spending which is what our economy needs. One of the reasons government spending was so successful during the depression was because the unemployment rate was so high. The massive new deal programs created a ton of jobs that stimulated the economy, which was exactly what the economy needed back then. However, our current economy is not facing massive unemployment, and we don't NEED huge government spending to create new jobs. If Bush started a massive government spending program to say ... build 50 new highways at a time when the budget is already overbudgeted, the economy is still doing poorly, and we're faced with significant cost overruns from an impeding war, people would be screaming for his head. What we DO need is to stimulate consumer confidence, consumer spending, and business capital. Tax cuts are one approach to that. I never said it should be the only approach to that. Government spending should occur as well. But don't be so critical of tax cuts as a viable fiscal policy.

I also agree that something should be done about the national debt, I'm merely saying that now is not really the time to do it. Efforts to reduce it SHOULD have been done at the start of Clinton's term when the economy was booming. I find it inexcuseable that he only achieved a budget surplus towards the very end of his Presidency at the peak of the boom.

quote:

Originally posted by Time2Burn To dispell some of these senseless arguements and name calling lets start talking some TRUTH here. Mr Az you are right! Suddam and Iraq do not have ties with Al Qaeda! Never have and never will. Once people stop believing all the rhetoric that comes out the president's mouth we could actually start understanding stuff. And this one is easy: Who are Al Qaeda? A group of Islamic Fundamentalists against all who do not follow their interpretation of the Koran (sp?). I know I'm simplifying their philisophical structure but generally I am correct. They are agianst those who do not follow their ideals. And as a result are prepared to fight. Iraq is country that is on the complete opposite end of Al Qaeda's Ideological Spectrum. It is a country based on secular ideals. They have short hair and do not wear the religous clothing like they do in lets say Iran. As a result countries like Iraq are ememies of the Al Qaeda as they are not devoted Muslims in their opinion. Iraq themselves have had to deal with the problems of Islamic Fundamentalism/Militarism. It sucks that GW can speak so much misinformation and because he is the prez people hold "his" "thoughts" in high regard. Please people take information with a grain of salt.

It's spelt "Qur'an". "Koran" is just the US English spelling of the same word. Kind of like the differences between "colour" in International/UK English and "color" in US English. Use "Qur'an" as the spelling, as that's the way they pronounce it (like 2 syllables, kur-AHn). Arabic romanisation uses a "q" for the beginning of that word.

quote:

Originally posted by guetag Read This Smart guy U.N. Security Council Resolution 688 (5 April 1991) condemned Saddam Hussein’s repression of the Iraqi civilian population. The resolution also requires Saddam Hussein to end his repression of the Iraqi people and to allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to help those in need of assistance. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated these provisions and has expanded his violence against women and children, continued his horrific torture and execution of innocent Iraqis. Saddam has continued to violate the basic human rights of the Iraqi people and has continued to control all sources of information (including the killing of over 500 journalists in the past decade). Saddam has also harassed humanitarian aid workers, expanded his crimes against Muslims, has withheld food from families that offer their children to his regime and has continued to subject Iraqis to unfair imprisonment. The government of Iraq uses military force to repress civilian populations throughout the county, resulting in the deaths of thousands and the destruction of entire villages. Iraq has refused to allow the U.N.’s special Rapporteur for human rights to return to Iraq since his first visit in 1992. It has also refused to allow the stationing of human rights monitors as required by the U.N. resolution. In September 2001, the Iraqi government expelled six U.N. humanitarian relief workers, who until 1992 ensured the delivery of humanitarian relief services, without providing an explanation. Iraqi authorities routinely practice extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions throughout the country. The total number of prisoners that have been executed in the past five years runs into thousands, including hundreds of arbitrary executions in the last months of 1998 at Abu Gharib and Radwaniyah prisons near Baghdad. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, the Iraqi regime destroyed over 300 Kurdish villages. The destruction of Kurdish and Turkomen homes is still going on in Iraqi-controlled areas of northern Iraq. In northern Iraq the government is continuing its campaign of forcibly deporting Kurdish and Turkomen families to southern governments. As a result, approximately 900,000 citizens are internally displaced throughout Iraq. Human rights organizations and opposition groups continue to receive reports of women who suffered from severe psychological trauma after being raped by Iraqi personnel while in custody. These personnel also videotape the rape of female relatives of suspected oppositionists and used the videotapes for blackmail purposes to ensure their future cooperation. Iraqi security agents reportedly decapitated numerous women and men in front of their family members. According to Amnesty International, the victims’ heads were displayed in front of their homes for several days. Iraq’s 1988-1989 Anfal campaign subjected the Kurdish people in northern Iraq to the most widespread attack of chemical weapons ever used against a civilian population. In the town of Halabja alone, an estimated 5,000 civilians were killed and over 10,000 were injured. In March 1999, the regime shot and killed grand Ayatollah al Sayid Muhammad SADIG AL Sadr, the most senior Shi’a religious leader in Iraq. Since 1991, dozens of senior Shi’a clerics and hundreds of their followers have been murdered or arrested, and their whereabouts remain unknown. In 2000, the Iraqi authorities reportedly introduced tongue amputations as a form of punishment for persons who criticize Saddam Hussein or his family. The Iraqi security services routinely torture detainees. According to former detainees, torture techniques include branding, electric shocks to the genitals, beating, burning with hot irons, suspension from rotating ceiling fans, dripping acid on the skin, rape, breaking of limbs, denial of food and water, and threats to rape or otherwise harm relatives. There are widespread reports that food and medicine that could have been made available to the general public, including children, have been stockpiled in warehouses or diverted for the personal use of government officials. Amnesty International reported that Iraq has the world’s worst record for numbers of persons who have disappeared or remain unaccounted for. Saddam Hussein does not permit freedom of speech or of the press and does not tolerate political dissent in areas under his control. In November 2000, the U.N. General Assembly criticized Saddam Hussein’s “suppression of freedom of thought, expression, information, association, and assembly”. The Special Rapporteur stated in October 1999, that citizens lived “in a climate of fear”, risking arrest and interrogation by the police or military intelligence. He noted that “the mere suggestion that someone is not a supporter of the president carries the prospect of the death penalty”.

Where's your source for all this?

quote:

Originally posted by Az thats exactly what I'm saying, it's not rocket science. You shouldn't have double standards for people who aren't receptive to western influences, and people that are...... then again North Korea also break as many (if not more) UN resolutions, they actually have nuclear weapons, and actively attack south korea regularly, yet nothing of note is happening to counteract the threat they pose to all human life on this planet....... with any luck 12 cents is all you'll need to get the clue, and realise the war with Hussein is for nothing as noble as the Iraqi people, because when Hussein is toppled, the majority of people in Iraq still won't be represented, a member of the same clan as Hussein will be appointed, only he'll be more receptive to the west, and there big fat petrol guzzling SUV's. Is that it? I fucking hope so.......

Saddam's his surname (family name). I just wanted to bring that up for those who think that the whole world uses the same personal naming convention. I capitolise the surname when the full naem is given to indicate the surname, as follows: George WASHINGTON
SADDAM Hussein
Fidel CASTRO Ruz

quote:

That in my opinion would be disastrous to the economy and that he should pump more money into the economy through fiscal policy in general. Yes that could include government spending but it could also include tax cuts which DO in a way pump more money into the economy. Economically speaking, a tax cut will increase consumer and business spending which is what our economy needs. One of the reasons government spending was so successful during the depression was because the unemployment rate was so high. The massive new deal programs created a ton of jobs that stimulated the economy, which was exactly what the economy needed back then.

It amazes me how people cant see the obvious. The most critical thing for the american government to do is make sure that investor confidence is restored. Tax cuts do not help this, geopolitical stability, corporate governance and social justice for the poor will.

To be blunt economic issues are far more important than Al-queda and Iraq, north Korea, Israel, the Palestinians- put together. The economy must go on irrespective of what happens in third world countries.

I have most of my money invested in the stock market and I will not invest in the United States. Comparing now to the Great Depression is fundamentally flawed because in the 1920's and 1930's capital was largely static whereas now it is globalized. Here are some of the reasons I wont invest in the USA.

1) the US dollar has lost its safe haven status amongst investors, meaning it has fallen and in the long term will continue to fall meaning the real value of american assets has fallen.

2) the US equity market is still overpriced. It will take a long time to wrinkle out the excesses of the 90's. The so-called boom economy of the 90's was largely an illusion funded by debt and short-term greedy management practices.

3) the spiralling US debt. Who do you think buys the federal bonds that pay for the debt. Foreigners do. You cant keep buying Stealth Bombers on the global credit card.

4) so with a falling US dollar how are you going to keep those foreigners buying federal bonds. There is only one way. Put up interest rates. This will be dire for the US economy which is already saddled by very large debt.

5) going into debt during a downturn may be of some help, but you cant get out of a rut just by fiscal policy, the system has to iron out the wrinkles that occured in the boom time, this takes time. So it would be sensible to go into debt to build bridges, spend money on research and development, hospitals because these things are investments. The golden rules of capitalism are "you have to spend money in order to make money", and "never throw good money after bad". But no what does the USA spend its money on? worthless weapons programs like missile defence shields, Israel, wars on Iraq.

6) And now the war. Markets crave one thing, not tax cuts, not regime change. One simple word - STABILITY. If you want economic growth, create stability not uncertainty. Otherwise the money you cut in taxes is just going down the drain, all the rich people who will be the main beneficiaries will just spend it somewhere other than america or they wont spend it at all.

7) The oil price. This I admit is speculation, but it is a fairly safe bet. The war will force the oil price sky high and this will negatively impact on the economy INFINITELY more than tax cuts will. In the long run this war will be an utter disaster for the USA with higher oil prices, an arms race in the middle east and the astronomical cost of the occupation of a hostile country. Uncles Sam will be bogged down in the Middle East for years costing billions upon billions which could be spent on the economy. Meanwhile all americas rivals, EU, China, Japan, who admittedly have economic problems of their own are able to focus on their economies, they will come out of the current economic downturn in better shape than the USA.

8) its time americans realise the world doesnt revolve around them. The USA is in serious trouble. It is the worlds largest debtor, has spiralling local government debt, runs the largest trade deficits, has declining (in real terms) expenditures on welfare, education and health care, an enormous gap between the rich and poor, and from recollection the largest per capita prison population in the world.

All I can say is americans have nothing to be smug about and the amazing thing is the people who run the country are making things worse.

Of course I am sure, that this will be dismissed as just the ravings of another anti-american propagandist. Fair enough. I make no apologies. I utterly HATE everything that the United States, its born to rule leadership and its foreign policy stand for.

But when conservate newspapers like the Australian Financial Review (Australias equivalent of the Wall Street Journal) and former senior politicians on the Australian conservative side of politics express their utter dismay at the insanity of american economic and foreign policy then all the right wingers who post here should think very long and hard about where your country is headed.

Well if you read all of what I wrote, I did say one of the main things we needed to do was stimulate consumer confidence. And having more money in my pocket makes me more confident to buy things.

are all of you poli-sci majors or are all of your statements coming from what you read on CNN and what you learn in history class. A lot of you sound like you know all the answers.

___________________
When you start to criticize the times you live in, your time is over. ~Karl Lagerfeld

quote:

Originally posted by Busy Child are all of you poli-sci majors or are all of your statements coming from what you read on CNN and what you learn in history class. A lot of you sound like you know all the answers.

Close ... Economics and BA major. Would have been a history major cept I came to the realization that I would be poor and unable to support my beer habit ... took a lot of classes and read a lot of books though.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well if you read all of what I wrote, I did say one of the main things we needed to do was stimulate consumer confidence. And having more money in my pocket makes me more confident to buy things.

I understand where you're saying man, but is another $600 check really going to make you more confident? I just don't see the logic behind another seemingly useless tax-cut (hey I didn't get any money back from the last one!) while the government massively cuts back on social programs and continues to excessively spend on the military as if it were supporting a coke habit.

oh if you (or anyone else) have the chance could you briefly summarize Reaganomics and the US economic policies of the 80's for me. Did it really turn the US from a creditor into a debtor? With my VERY limited background in economics, continually lowering taxes while increasing defense budget at the same time just does not seem like a very sound fiscal policy.

time out
here. have a laugh

http://idleworm.wolffelaar.nl/nws/2002/11/swf/iraq2.swf

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeJulez I understand where you're saying man, but is another $600 check really going to make you more confident? I just don't see the logic behind another seemingly useless tax-cut (hey I didn't get any money back from the last one!) while the government massively cuts back on social programs and continues to excessively spend on the military as if it were supporting a coke habit. oh if you (or anyone else) have the chance could you briefly summarize Reaganomics and the US economic policies of the 80's for me. Did it really turn the US from a creditor into a debtor? With my VERY limited background in economics, continually lowering taxes while increasing defense budget at the same time just does not seem like a very sound fiscal policy.

It's deceptive to think that another $600 is not going to make any kind of impact on the economy at all. But what you're missing is the big picture. If every person in America gets $600 back in extra taxes and lets say spends $400 of that, multiply that number by 250 MILLION and that's how much new money you have circulating around in the economy. It's difficult to predict what kind of effect this will have on the economy as a whole but economic theory stipulates that it is one way to help stimulate it. Of course there are a number of factors that influence how much a person actually spends but if I got a half grand back that I wasn't expecting before, I know that I'm gonna go out and buy that audigy 2 sound card I've had my eye on and a bunch of other stuff. Again, I'm not claiming that it will have significant success, I'm just saying you can't rule out tax cuts as being completely unaffective. So would social programs have more of an impact? Possibly ... but like I said I thinnk that the problem resides in consumer and business confidence. Tax cuts among corporations and businesses might actually be more effective if that sets off demand for capital. Of course, supply side economics has been tried before without much resounding success. At any rate gotta get my oil change ... I'll fill you in on reagonomics when I get back!

quote:

Originally posted by SNAFU_man time out here. have a laugh http://idleworm.wolffelaar.nl/nws/2002/11/swf/iraq2.swf

LOL! Hilarious! Thanks for the great link.

Though it's funny, it also has a strong and valid message.