Four Freedoms

[Plane]

<<So when our economy is weaker it needs more taxation ?>>

No, when your treasury is approaching the "empty" mark it needs more money.

<<That seems like prescribeing leeches for anemia.>>

It's more like prescribing a transfusion to a guy who's lost 50% of his blood.

The economy is not the government.

[BT]

The U.S. was in much better shape then than it is now.  Balance of payments and trade, relative lack of foreign competition.

No there was a recession in 58-59 then again in 60-61.

The economy had a cold it couldn't shake.

And an unemployed steelworker during a recession could give a damn about balance of trade and payments.

He wants food on the table

[Michael Tee]

<<No there was a recession in 58-59 then again in 60-61.>>

The analysis is pathetically thin on facts.  The fundamentals of the economy would include such things as the productive capabilities of America's manufacturing plant, relative to those of the rest of the world, which is basically the ability of America to satisfy world markets, the relative abilities of America's former competitors (the U.K., Japan, the member countries of what later became the E.U.) to satisfy world markets and the ability of the U.S. to compete with other industrialized nations for the raw materials of the Third World, among other things.  Foreign currency reserves, the strength of the dollar, dollar reserves and other factors. 

All those factors and probably others that I overlooked would constitute the fundamentals of the American economy.  I am not an economist but I'd bet that the fundamentals of the U.S. economy were a lot stronger in 1961 when JFK took office than they are now.  The factors that might be favourable to a tax cut in 1961 are NOT the factors that you would find in today's U.S. economy. 

However, Obama is not proposing an across-the-board tax hike anyway, only a hike for those who earn over $250K per year - - a very SMALL portion of the American people.

<<And an unemployed steelworker during a recession could give a damn about balance of trade and payments.

<<He wants food on the table>>

Geeze.  Maybe I missed something here.  Is Obama now proposing a tax hike for unemployed steelworkers?  Or maybe unemployed steelworkers earn more that I thought they earned - - something like $250K per year?

Back in the real world, the unemployed steelworker has about as much to complain about from Obama's tax hikes as Joe the Plumber - - which is to say, zero, zip, nada.  And with the tax on the rich that Obama is proposing, there should be enough to buy burgers and chips for the unemployed steelworkers AND fish on Fridays.

[BT]

The analysis is pathetically thin on facts.

Take that up with those that declare recessions.

And who cares what Obama does if elected.

Whatever he does he will be held accountable for the results.

He'll be in the center ring. No Bush to run against. Vagueness and bumperstickers just won't do.

And if he screws up the pendulum will swing back again.

Obla di Obla da

[Michael Tee]

<<He'll be in the center ring. No Bush to run against. Vagueness and bumperstickers just won't do. >>

ROTFLMFAO - - THIS from a supporter of the guy who blames Clinton for an attack which took place wholly on HIS watch.

[BT]

ROTFLMFAO - - THIS from a supporter of the guy who blames Clinton for an attack which took place wholly on HIS watch.

Whne did Bush blame Clunton?

And the attack didn't take place wholly on his watch, planning, training, entry into the country all took place prior to Bush taking office.

[Michael Tee]

<<Whne did Bush blame Clunton?>>

You're probably right, so I'll amend that:  whose supporters blame it on Clinton.  As evidenced by the following remark.

<<And the attack didn't take place wholly on his watch, planning, training, entry into the country all took place prior to Bush taking office.>>

By any standard of reasoning the attack took place on September 11, 2001, somewhere between Bush's inauguration and the last day of his first term.  On his watch.  When he and he alone could easily have prevented it.  But did not.

[BT]

By any standard of reasoning the attack took place on September 11, 2001, somewhere between Bush's inauguration and the last day of his first term.  On his watch.  When he and he alone could easily have prevented it.  But did not.

I suggest you amend your tactics now. That mindset will no be useful to you if Obama wins and you are tasked with defending the indefensible.

9-11 was not a static event. It was the accumulation of all the events that occurred prior to its successful implementation.

You argument is the equivalent of saying Nixon should get all the credit for landing a man on the moon. Because it happened on his watch.

[Xavier_Onassis]

9-11 was not a static event. It was the accumulation of all the events that occurred prior to its successful implementation.

You argument is the equivalent of saying Nixon should get all the credit for landing a man on the moon. Because it happened on his watch.


=======================================================
Landing on the moon is not really the same as catching Al Qaeda before the attack. The moon landing was an entirely plannable event. Preventing an Al Qaeda attack would have required planning for various unknown contingencies. Plannng to DO something is not the same as planning to AVOID something.

Clinton was seriously distracted during mos of his presidency by those bogus impeachment hearings and all the other vile manipulations by DeLay, Gingrich, Armey and others, who only wanted him to fail.

Delay caused a near-total shutdown of the government over the rather useless Teri Shiver incident. I think that President Obama will be faced with similar blockages. With luck, Mitch McConnell will lose. He's a major threat to any positive action, but they will find others.

[BT]

The moon landing was an entirely plannable event.

So was 9-11.

[Xavier_Onassis]

So was 9-11.


Planning it was done by Al Qaeda, just like the moon landing was planned by NASA.

Planning to prevent it, when the time, place and method were unknown, is a much more difficult thing to do. That was my point. It would have taken Juniorbush no longer and no more talent than it would have taken Clinton. As the 9-11 commission report said, the administration was warned, and ignored the warnings.

It was reasonable to expect that the WTC would be a target. It was also reasonable to expect terrorists to use commercial passenger aircraft. It was reasonable to assume that there were Saudis in the US overstaying their visas. It was reasonable to assume that some Saudis were fanatics. There were precedents for all of this. But the missing elements were how and when, and despite the warnings, not enough.

Clinton could have had a plan in place, and Bush's people could have ignored it.

Bush's people could have figured it out, but did not.

[Michael Tee]

The only validity in the case that BT is attempting to make is that both Clinton and Bush were equally culpable in failing to prevent the attacks.

However, Bush was the incumbent and just as he would have taken the credit for foiling an attack, even if the preparatory intelligence work had been done during Clinton's administration, so must he take the blame for the attack which occurred on his watch.

He was the man in charge, he is to blame for the disaster.  Otherwise, you could trace the beginnings of this all the way back to Cain and Abel.

[Xavier_Onassis]

You can't really argue with that.

Didn't Reagan get credit for the Iran hostages returning about ten seconds after he took the oath of orifice?

[Plane]

You can't really argue with that.

Didn't Reagan get credit for the Iran hostages returning about ten seconds after he took the oath of orifice?

Not from Reagan , The new President made certain that the outgoing President was there to greet the returning hostages.

The Iranians probly did consider the effect on American unity in releaseing them after Carters retirement , but they probly did not expect it to be strengthened.