Up Here, *Name Hidden*! You Wanted to Talk!

"As a result, I now have absolutely no reason to not vote for Bush" says *Name Hidden*.

All right, *Name Hidden*, I get the feeling you are calling me out, but I am sincere in saying that I don't actually have time to think about NAFTA and trade and outsourcing offshoring and etc right now. This is one reason I elect representatives: to think about this shit for me. Yay for them!

That having been said, if you truly see no reason to vote for Kerry over Bush, I have to say that you yourself need to do a bit of research. Quite a bit. Bush is the guy who started two wars, one of them pre-emptive and non-sensical in the extreme. He has driven us into enormous debt. He is a puppet of big industry, which has him easily shunting aside the health of every single one of us so that profits can be higher, endangering the ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET by doing so, and what's scary is that he is cynical and arrogant as he does it, possibly because he thinks he is doing us all a favor by bringing on the apocalypse within our lifetimes. Millions of people are out of work, the infrastructure of our country is cracking and breaking, our coffers have been looted, but hey, if you say so! Yeah! Go Bush!

Perhaps you are a one-issue voter, and offshoring is your issue. Okay, great. But saying that there are no other reasons not to vote for Bush seems to me to be intensely naive.

Comments

[*Name Hidden*]

Let me start off by saying nothing in here is personal. I have no malice or anger towards you and this is just a discussion of issues. If I come across as harsh, let me apologize in advance. Also, I am not trying to change your opinions or positions, just explaining mine.

First off, I do have time to think about NAFTA and such, and it affects who I elect for my representatives. Given that it affects each and every one of us, I suggest people make time to think about it.

Second, no, I am not intensely naive. I am well informed and I judge things as true or false not by how much I agree with them, but by the evidence presented. For you to insinuate that I am because I don't agree with you is intensely offensive... which happens to be one of the traits of those on the other side of the isle that first made me start questioning my leftist beliefs back in the late 80's. "Agree with us or you are stupid!" That attitude is extremely close minded and unenlightened for a group of people who claim to be the open minded and enlightened side.

Third, from my perspective, Bush did not start two wars. The war with Afganistan was started on Sept. 11th. They were harboring and funding the organization that perpetrated those attacks. The war in Iraq started back in 1991 when they attacked Kuwait. A term of the cease fire was submit to inspectors, have a no fly zone, etc. The CIA under the Clinton Administration (which had been gutted at that point by Torricelli and Kerry and company) thought that Saddam had WMDs. This was assumed to be more evident when he kicked out the weapons inspectors in 1998. At that point, the war should have resumed (as Congress voted for and Clinton endorsed at the time). However, since we were living in a pre-Sept 11th world, it wasn't seen as a priority. Iraq was funding its nuclear program through Lybia, which is why Kaddaffi (sp?) gave it up (it was staffed primarily by Iraqi scientists). Also, Sarin and Mustard Gas were found post invasion. Having talked to several family members over there, they say that Iraq isn't the quagmire that the US media is claiming it to be. I could go on and on, but I don't want to completely hijack your blog. ;)

Second, the debt you are speaking of is largely caused by entitlement programs enacted by Democrats back in the Johnson era and before. It was Johnson and a Democratic congress who moved the Social Security trust fund into the general fund so it could be spent. The "surplus" we had pre Y2K was largely projected, based on the current economic activity. Since businesses were no longer dumping money into Y2K, lots of tech lost their jobs and then cascaded through the rest of the economy. The economic downturn started in March of 2000. Also, the economy is cyclical. Pre-Y2K business spending suddenly being cut off greatly exaserbated the economic downturn. Then on top of that, Sept. 11th occured. This caused another downturn in economic activity, plus caused the need for increased military spending, having put us into a time of war. Saying Bush is solely responsible for the debt is in my view incorrect. The "tax cuts for the rich" which are also blamed for making the debt worse is a red herring, in my opinion. The top income bracket received the smallest percentage tax cut. But since they pay most of the taxes, the raw dollar amount was higher. Tax cuts are one way to stimulate the economy. The more times money changes hands, the more times it is taxed. So while less money is coming in to the government per transaction, the number of transactions increases.

By your statement, helping US businesses seems to be a bad thing. Like it our not, it is because of businesses that we have the great standard of life that we do. Businesses employ us and produce things for us. When you get right down to it, we are the businesses that the left seems to hate... well, those of us who work in the private sector. By punishing them, we are punishing ourselves. Also, it isn't the high up CEOs that are going to take the hit. It is the little guy. The ones who do the work. Short of a facist government takeover of all businesses in the country, nothing is going to change that.

I'm not sure what you mean about how they are destroying our health and bringing on the apocolypse. Capitalism is the only form of government that generates enough wealth to clean up after itself. I have been to the Soviet Union and I have seen what hell holes Russian steel towns are. When you look at the amount of polution produced as a function of economic output, the US is one of the LEAST poluting countries in the world, if not the least.

The Labor Statistics that the government produces reflect only big businesses that have been in business for 5 years, I believe. I don't remember the exact attributes of the survey. However, the Household Survey paints a quite different picture. Well over 2 million more people are going to work now than when Bush took office. Go figure.

Not sure what you mean about our infrastructure falling apart.

Finally, I'm not saying that Bush is perfect. Far from it. I think that the amnesty for illegal aliens is wrong, I think the support for offshoring is wrong, and I don't agree with the prescription drug program he offered. I think his administration is focused on quantity of economic activity rather that equality of opportunity (as opposed to the leftist view of equality of outcome). I just think he is a better man for the job than Kerry is... the very definition of the lesser of two evils.

[*Name Hidden*]

Oh, and I wasn't "calling you out". Just wanted to participate in the discussion. :)

[Jo]

I don't have time to make a subtle argument right now addressing all of your points, but I do appreciate your even tone and thoughtful reply, which seems so rare these days when anyone has a difference of opinion politically. Sorry I called you naive. It's hard to imagine that any "thinking" person could hold a different opinion, since we come to our points of view and find them terribly obvious when they occur. Anyway.

I'll write more in a bit. Have to go pick up Eliz from school.

[ricky]

First of all, the “agree with us or you are stupid” is not one of the traits of those on the other side of the aisle. I suggest you tune into Rush Limbaugh’s show on any given day and listen to him talk about liberals, or maybe pick up a copy of “Treason” or “Deliver Us From Evil”.

If that attitude made you question your leftist beliefs, you’re going to need a third party because Republicans have it in spades.

And, frankly, I’d rather be accused of being stupid than a traitor.

Secondly, Bush most certainly started the Iraq War. American troops have found traces of Sarin gas, which, by the way, has an expiration date, and the mustard gas I haven’t even heard about. Again, in the word’s of Bush’s own WMD inspector David Kaye, Iraq had NO WMDs. Nothing. But even if there was mustard gas, how much was there? When was it made? What was the delivery system?

If war was so necessary in this post 9/11 world, why wasn’t war declared against North Korea, which has nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them? Why isn’t war even being discussed against Iran which is developing nuclear weapons? In fact, the Bush administration says that diplomacy is the most effective means to deal with both North Korea, which pulled out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Iran. Hell, the Bush administration, which could not wait to start the Iraq war, which in fact ordered United Nations inspectors out of the country in order to start the war, says there’s no urgency in dealing with countries known to have weapons of mass destruction AND terrorist ties.

And Congress did not vote to resume the Iraq War in 1998. And Congress has never voted to resume the Iraq War.

As for whether the family members of servicemen feel Iraq is a quagmire or not, whatever. The Bush administration’s own intelligence estimate believes it’s a disaster, with a worst case scenario of civil war and a best case of YEARS of instability. And who knows what we’ll end up with if and when we even get stability.

And those years are costing American taxpayers nearly one hundred billion dollars a year. You want to pay for that for ten years or so? Be my guest. I don’t.

Finally, the debt we’ve ended up with is not due largely to Johnson’s programs. Go back and look at the deficits in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s. Then look at them under Reagan. Then look at them under Clinton. Then look at them under Bush. The entitlement programs of the Johnson administration require a lot of funding. But they don’t necessarily require debt.

It’s only been under irresponsible government which seems to think that you can cut taxes without cutting spending where our deficits or debt have grown. Gosh, the Clinton administration seemed to be able to pay for those entitlement programs while actually paying down the debt.

Beyond that, Bush’s debt hasn’t grown from entitlement spending. Under Bush and a completely Republican controlled Congress, discretionary spending—that doesn’t include one penny of entitlement spending—has grown 31%. Under Clinton, it grew at about 3%.

It isn’t entitlement programs which are driving our debt. It’s irresponsible government.

And even in the view of Nixon's old Secretary of Commerce, Pete Peterson, Bush is the most irresponsible President in the history of the United States.

[*Name Hidden*]

"First of all, the “agree with us or you are stupid” is not one of the traits of those on the other side of the aisle."
I completely disagree! I don't know what circles you run in, but I hear it all the time from the left. Might I paraphrase Kerry's wife: Those who disagree with my husband's healthcare plan are idiots.

"If that attitude made you question your leftist beliefs, you’re going to need a third party because Republicans have it in spades."
It got me started questioning, which lead to dropping the decision making solely by feeling and got me thinking, looking at all sides of the arguments. And I do want a third party. Unfortunately, we don't have a viable third party that reflects my beliefs at present.

Perhaps you never heard of the The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 signed into law by Clinton on October 31, 1998. It was approved, then nothing happened.

Bush resumed the war and was completely within his right to do so by the terms of the 1991 cease fire. The intelligence Bush had on Iraq's WMDs was the same intelligence Clinton had. Clinton was convinced he had WMDs. And mustard gas was found.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0%2C2763%2C1120720%2C00.html
Asking how much, who, when, why, how, and when did it expire doesn't change the fact that it was found. And if I remember correctly, David Kaye said they had YET to find WMDs. Here's a picture of a MiG burried in the Iraqi desert:
http://www.newsmax.com/images/headlines/mig25a.jpg
If it is easy to hide something that huge, it is easy to hide small canisters of chemical and biological weapons. Also, as I said before, Lybia's nuclear program was made up of mostly Iraqi scientists.

And of course it is going to take years to get Iraq under control, but we are not doing it alone. Iraqi forces are being trained and commissioned, plus we DO have international help. I really don't believe that Iraq is going to cost 100 billion a year for ten years. The cost will go down as the Iraqis take things more into their own hands and as our presence there is needed less and less.

As for North Korea, how did they become nuclear? I don't see what they did as "pulling out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty." I see it as them taking the nuclear technology we gave them, signing a worthless piece of paper, and then developing a nuclear program while Carter received the nobel peace prize. I wouldn't be surprised if something does happen with North Korea in the future. Right now, to do so would be over committing our military. Also, the anouncement that Iran was restarting its military program only came within the past day or so I believe. Oh, and North Korea claims to have nukes, but they have yet to test them, which makes me doubt as the whether or not they really have them. They may, but there hasn't been a test yet.

Looking at the deficits of the 60's and 70's doesn't show anything. Look instead at the growth of entitlement spending. We were able to pay for it in the 90's because of record economic growth, fueled largely by investments because we had a Republican congress that was willing to lower capital gains taxes, plus businesses were forced to invest in projects like web development and Y2K in order to stay competative. Spending was held down by deadlock. Deadlock is good, in my opinion. Remember, in Clinton's first term, he wanted a government takeover of the entire medical industry.

Yes there were deficits under Reagan. Federal tax revenues DOUBLED under Reagan. But spending went up $1.38 for every $1.00 that was brought in. Reagan had a primarily Democratic congress, and congress is the branch of government that decides how to spend money. BOTH parties are to blame for the debt we have now. And I completely agree that much of Bush's spending was irresponsible, like the prescription drug program.

Funding for domestic programs outside of military and homeland security grew only by 13.2%, not 31%. And that number doesn't take into account inflation and population increase. The 3% for Clinton also takes into account a dramatic decrease in military spending.

I haven't looked up that stuff in a long time. Thanks for the spirited debate. FUN!!!

[*Name Hidden*]

Oh, and Ricky, I thought I would point something out from your own blog:

"How funny is that? Bush’s base is so dumb, he can’t even talk to them honestly. It would just confuse them."

Followed by your post here:
"First of all, the “agree with us or you are stupid” is not one of the traits of those on the other side of the aisle."

Thanks for making my point for me.
*bows*

[Barak]

I'm just going to address the economics here.

What *Name Hidden* is describing is Keynsian economics -- what's known as the 'Laffer Curve'. The idea is that if you have no taxes, you have no government revenues, and if you have 100% taxes, you have no government revenues because there is no motivation to work. In between the amount of revenue as a function of percent taxation should be shaped like an upside down bowl. If you are on the upward slope of the bowl - in the low percentages - a small increase in taxes results in a small increase in revenue. On the downward slope, something odd happens. As you increase taxes, revenues go DOWN. It's quite a reasonable model. The question is, "where on the curve are we now?"

Back in the Carter and Reagan administrations, I strongly believed that we were on the downward slope. I favored tax cuts because it would increase government revenues, just as *Name Hidden* suggests. But I'm a scientist, and I believe in data acquired from experiments.

Fortunately, our government has been kind enough to do the experiments for (on) us. Reagan, a Keynsian, cut taxes and rapidly the deficit ballooned for the next few years. He yielded to the evidence despite his ideology and raised taxes and the deficit shrank.

Bush the Elder promised "no new taxes," revenues fell slightly and he too yielded his ideology to sneak in a few tax increases, but not enough.

Clinton came into office and taxes increased. The revenues boomed. The economy boomed. We had the longest sustained bull market in a century. For the first time in decades, we had a REAL budget surplus, not just projected.

Bush the younger came in on the first dip in the cycle - probably due to the end of the Y2K work as *Name Hidden* suggests. He immediately slashed taxes dramatically - the largest tax cuts in history. Our deficit has ballooned to record levels. The economy has stayed in a funk for the entire 4 years. Revenues have stayed low. I think it is obvious which side of the curve we are on.

As to the effect of 9/11 on the economy - it is heresy to say what I'm about to say, and I doubt anyone to the right of Dennis Kucinich would ever say it - it should have been great for the economy. Hurricane Andrew tore through Florida in 1992. After Andrew, the Florida economy experienced the longest boom in the century. There was a ton of construction work. I remember that it was hard to get a contractor in California because so many had moved to Florida.

The same can be true for war. WWII is how the US busted out of the great depression. Of course if the destruction is sufficiently widespread, then the downside can outweigh the upside, as in post war Europe.

The same should have happened in 9/11. Granted there were a bunch more extenuating circumstances - like the fact that it is a giant gravesite now - but "strong leadership" would have been to ram through a design and get building. Building something of that size is like building a small city. There should have been so much money changing hands so many times as the contractors were paid and paid for food, clothes, shelter and equipment and so on that NYC should be swimming in funds.

Instead, Bush and Giuliani espoused the 'hallowed ground' view stalling any progress for years.

Onward - about NAFTA: I was in favor of NAFTA in 1993, and as I recall, the Republicans were dead set against it. I strongly believed that long term, we couldn't afford to have a third world country as our southern neighbor. I felt free trade among the countries of North America was the best recipe for Mexico.

As it turned out, I was wrong. Again, we did the experiment - Let's look at the data. The primary effect of NAFTA was to create factories on the northern border of Mexico owned by large US or multinational corporations. Around these "maquiladora" huge slums have sprung up. As jobs flee the US to these maquiladora, poor Mexicans and Central Americans flood to the slums to work for pennies per hour and no benefits, no safety requirements, no limits to the number of hours, etc. It has done far more harm than good to both countries. But naturally, the community of large businesses loves NAFTA. They can have factories almost IN the US that don't have to meet any of the standards we have come to expect in the US, driving costs way down.

The correct answer is actually not that far from the spirit of NAFTA. What we should be doing is encouraging free trade with minimum standards - living wages, benefits, etc. The best way to do that is with bi-lateral trade agreements. I don't see either candidate doing this though.

Finally, it's interesting reading *Name Hidden*'s last paragraph. I too feel that the two candidates are almost the same. But the better man for the job is the smarter, less ideological, more experienced, more internationally liked man. If you look at Bush's history, he has never succeeded at anything. Any company he owned or ran became less successful under his guidance, as Governor of Texas, the state dropped precipitously in rank in education, economy, crime - almost any category you name. The only thing at which he succeeds is campaigning. By what critia can you can say he is the better man for the job of President?

[ricky]

Name Hidden,

You disagree! Big whoop. You "paraphrase" Kerry's wife. Again, listen to Limbaugh, read Coulter, read Hannity, listen to any of Tom DeLay's public statements.

You don't even have to paraphrase them--they say liberals are evil and decadent and stupid.

If you disagree, you just aren't being honest.

And, yeah, my page is hyperbolic. But, dude, I'm not the DNC. What do I care?

You're going to compare my statements to the "conscience of the Republican party"? To the voices of mainstream conservatism?

I'm just a guy with a blog for fun.

Coulter, and Hannity, and Limbaugh, and DeLay are the voice of the Republican party.

Puh-lease.

You're just being foolish, now.

If you like, I can provide you with about a thousand links to conservative blogs who say far, far worse things about liberals than I ever say about conservatives. It'll take me about two seconds to find them, but I'd be happy to indulge you.

As for the spending under Reagan, yeah, I blame Democrats for knuckling under to Reagan. But every budget Reagan proposed to the Democratic Congress was more than the Democratic Congress proposed.

Democrats ultimately passed it. But it was more than they wanted to spend.

And neither the Iraq Liberation Act nor the Congressional Resolution of 2002 was a congressional approval for war. We can argue this all you like. But, frankly, I regard both to be unconstitutional delegation of Congress's war power.

And, again, Kaye said no weapons had been found yet? Again, no weapons have been found to date. Nothing. Zip. Iraq had less deadly weapons than Costa Rico.

What? Do we have to wait until the end of time to end this debate? If Iraq was such a threat, I'm pretty sure we could have found the hundreds of sites Donald Rumsfeld told Congress the administration knew for a fact contained WMDs.

Hundreds.

Over five hundred.

And discretionary spending increased 31.5%. And percentages are not affected by inflation.

And, finally, under Bush, in three years, the Republican Congress has raised the debt level three times in three years for his economic policies. He has spent in record deficits. Fine, if you want to say there were extenuating circumstances, then why did he push through incredibly irresponsible and gigantic tax cuts at a time when the federal government was facing increased costs?

That's just pandering to your base. It's just irresponsible. And you and I will both have to poney up in the very near future to pay this incredible amount of money back.

Plus interest.

[ricky]

Name Hidden,

You disagree! Big whoop. You "paraphrase" Kerry's wife. Again, listen to Limbaugh, read Coulter, read Hannity, listen to any of Tom DeLay's public statements.

You don't even have to paraphrase them--they say liberals are evil and decadent and stupid.

If you disagree, you just aren't being honest.

And, yeah, my page is hyperbolic. But, dude, I'm not the DNC. What do I care?

You're going to compare my statements to the "conscience of the Republican party"? To the voices of mainstream conservatism?

I'm just a guy with a blog for fun.

Coulter, and Hannity, and Limbaugh, and DeLay are the voice of the Republican party.

Puh-lease.

You're just being foolish, now.

If you like, I can provide you with about a thousand links to conservative blogs who say far, far worse things about liberals than I ever say about conservatives. It'll take me about two seconds to find them, but I'd be happy to indulge you.

As for the spending under Reagan, yeah, I blame Democrats for knuckling under to Reagan. But every budget Reagan proposed to the Democratic Congress was more than the Democratic Congress proposed.

Democrats ultimately passed it. But it was more than they wanted to spend.

And neither the Iraq Liberation Act nor the Congressional Resolution of 2002 was a congressional approval for war. We can argue this all you like. But, frankly, I regard both to be unconstitutional delegation of Congress's war power.

And, again, Kaye said no weapons had been found yet? Again, no weapons have been found to date. Nothing. Zip. Iraq had less deadly weapons than Costa Rico.

What? Do we have to wait until the end of time to end this debate? If Iraq was such a threat, I'm pretty sure we could have found the hundreds of sites Donald Rumsfeld told Congress the administration knew for a fact contained WMDs.

Hundreds.

Over five hundred.

And discretionary spending increased 31.5%. And percentages are not affected by inflation.

And, finally, under Bush, in three years, the Republican Congress has raised the debt level three times in three years for his economic policies. He has spent in record deficits. Fine, if you want to say there were extenuating circumstances, then why did he push through incredibly irresponsible and gigantic tax cuts at a time when the federal government was facing increased costs?

That's just pandering to your base. It's just irresponsible. And you and I will both have to poney up in the very near future to pay this incredible amount of money back.

Plus interest.

[ricky]

Oh, and also:

"How funny is that? Bush’s base is so dumb, he can’t even talk to them honestly. It would just confuse them."

Followed by your post here:
"First of all, the “agree with us or you are stupid” is not one of the traits of those on the other side of the aisle."

>strong>Thanks for making my point for me.
*bows*

You can save the bows. Because if you read the post, the point is that Bush is distorting his own position to Republicans.

And, unless you've been living under a rock for the last year and a half, you know that's true.

So that's not me saying Republicans are stupid for not agreeing with me. That's me saying you're being stupid if you believe what Bush is telling you, which is objectively not true.

*bows*

Whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.

[Rox]

Wow. I love it when Ricky and Jo get angry. Well, Ricky's always angry.

No, I am not "Name Hidden" even though I agree with some of the things that were posted. Not overtly political, but do believe we all have a civic duty.

One thing that I find interesting is that we both look at the same issues\problems in this country and see two totally different things. I feel exactly what you feel when I hear the left speak, so go figure!

Anyway, I do like the site and I love cats ( have 4 myself) so I can related to all of yours!

[Dave]

I swear I put all that in the last post

[pam the econ student]

Barak: "As to the effect of 9/11 on the economy - it is heresy to say what I'm about to say, and I doubt anyone to the right of Dennis Kucinich would ever say it - it should have been great for the economy."

Me: It may look like it was great, but not when you consider the opportunity costs of the firefighters, work crews, etc. They missed (paid) work, in your area and others, by volunteering to help at Ground Zero. Materials that could have built homes elsewhere had to go to replace lost houses in Florida.

The flurry of work after disasters is just a blip on the economic radar. The real stuff at stake are the actual costs of lost buildings and human resources, plus the implied costs of missed work by volunteers and paid helpers.

[*Name Hidden*]

Okay, lots to reply to here. Apologies for it taking so long, but I work two jobs and have a family, and debating is just a fun side thing I do in order to see others' perspectives.

Okay, Barak's post...

I'm not sure which taxes you are speaking about when you say Reagan yeilded to the evidence and raised taxes. During his term, he lowered the top marginal tax rate to 28%, I believe. That is where it stayed until Clinton raised it to 39% in 1993. At which point, the economy, while previously at 5% annual grown, basically ground to a halt. It wasn't until capital gains taxes were cut in 1995 that the economic boom of the late 90's occured. I don't think you are looking at the entire picture when you speak of the 90's boom. Having in the past been employed with the predictive sciences, one of the rules we lived by was correllation usually does not equal causation. Clinton's budget surplus was caused by the gridlock of having a Republican congress keeping spending down, the "peace dividend" on cutting military spending with the fall of the Soviet Union and virtually ignoring the terrorist attacks of radical Islam, and economic growth fueled by investments in technology. It was already on a downward spin by the time Bush took office. Bush's tax cuts were far from the largest in history. The top marginal rate went from 39% to 36.5%. Still much higher a rate than Reagan had at the end of his term when the revenues to the federal government doubled.

As to what you said about 9/11, it was NOT good for the economy. People were unsure of the future, so they stopped spending. Over one million jobs were lost in the next 90 days. A hurricane doesn't produce the same kind of psychological effect than a terrorist attack on a society that has grown used to a life of safety.

I think you are right on the money there in your NAFTA analysis.

I disagree about your analysis of Texas. If I'm wrong, please point me to some statistics. I lived there during the Bush years as governer and there was huge growth. I don't think it was his doing, but the best thing a government can do is keep its hands off of private industry (unless they are doing something that hurts society, such as major polluting or offshoring, but that is another debate). As to Bush being a complete failure, he was successful with the Texas Rangers from what I hear. He was also successful as Governor of Texas. I think Kerry, while smarter, even though Bush by far is no intellectual midget, is out of touch. I don't think he understands cause and effect. I think he is more idealogical than Bush, having been rated as the #1 liberal senator. As for being more internationally liked, I don't really care about that. In a time of war, we need a leader, not a relator who is going to pander rather than act. I like Bush for President because, while not perfect, his economic plan is better and more realistic, he is a leader and not affraid to do something unpopular with some of the world if it is going to protect us, and I don't see him as nearly as arrogant as Kerry.

Ricky, I don't ever remember hearing them say liberals are stupid. The only one I heard say that is Michael Savage, and I personally think he's a completely negative nut.

And you may consider me dishonest or foolish, or accuse me of living under a rock because I don't agree with you, I don't really care, but with every post, you go further to prove my point. I listen to talk radio and conservatives a lot. I occasionally hear a conservative say liberals are stupid, and if I'm there, I challenge them on it. But I hear it FAR more from people on the left.

As for your comments on Reagan proposing more than Democrats: References, please.

And for reasons for not outright declaring war, there are plenty. For example, a lot of union contracts have a "war clause" in them. Found that out discussing politics with an American Airline union worker. Basically if war was formally declared, the contract was null and void. If it is unconstitutional like you say then it needs to go in front of the Surpreme Court.

"Iraq had less deadly weapons than Costa Rico." Dismissed as emotional supposition.

Anyway, WMDs were just used as a tool to sell it to the public. According to the intelligence we had going all the way back to Clinton, they did have them. Clinton himself said so, as did Kerry. If the intelligence was wrong, it was wrong. That doesn't equal "Bush lied". I believe there were plenty of other reasons to go to war with them other than just WMDs. Such as stopping Iraq's nuclear program in Lybia, which we did.

Again, all but 13.2% of the increases were due to a need for a military buildup. Tax cuts incresae economic activity, and increased economic activity increases revenue to the federal government. As long as we don't continue to bleed jobs to other country without replacing them, the resulting economic growth we will see will put us into a surplus again.

[Barak]

If all you're going to look at is the top marginal rate of income tax on the richest people, you don't get the whole picture. For example the biggest part of Bush's tax givaway to the rich is the reduction of Capital gains. I don't have time for this. You should be looking this up yourself:

Tax increases that Reagan signed into law.

1982: Tax Equity ad Fiscal Responsibiliy Act (TEFRA) increased taxes $37.5 Billion increase.
1982: Highway revenue act $3.3B

1983: Social Security Automatic tax increase every year. Still in place.

1984: Defecit reduction act $18B/Year

1985: Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

1986: Tax Reform Act

1987: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act

The total of the tax increases and cuts in the Reagan years was a $164B increase or 2.6% of GDP (which translates to about twice that in today's dollars).

If Kerry is an ideologue and the most liberal member of Congress, how can he possibly be a flip-flopper?!? Calling Kerry more ideological than Bush is ridiculous on the face of it. Kerry was the second most conservative of 11 candidates for the Democratic nomination. I can't think of a single elected official to the right of Bush - though I'm sure there are some. Gingrich was in the same league.

[*Name Hidden*]

Don't have time for it? Then don't say it. You are the one who stated it, therefore the burden of proof is on you.

I wasn't looking only at the top marginal rate. Income tax rates were cut across the board.
I don't remember if it was you, but someone said that Reagan submitted budgets that were higher than what the Democrats wanted. This is incorrect.
http://www.presidentreagan.info/reagan_budgets.cfm

I looked up the laws you posted (which I'm guess you got from a Washington Times article, or at least it was parrotted there among other web sites almost word for word). It looks to me like TERFA closed a lot of tax loopholes, but to be honest, I didn't see anything about a tax increase. May have been, but I didn't find it. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 looks to have increased revenue by dealing with the clasification of Partnerships vs Corporations. The info I found on the Highway Revenue Act was about determining whether a vehicle is a truck or a highway tractor. The 1983 SS bill made 50% of OASDI payments taxible income. Deficit Reduction Act: http://www.osec.doc.gov/ofm/credit/pl98-369.html. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) dealt with healthcare when one loses employer paid health insurance. I didn't see anywhere where it raised taxes. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 CUT marginal tax rates from 50% to 28%. http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/dye4/medialib/docs/tax1986.htm

Also, I said the #1 most liberal Senator, not congressman. There are plenty in the house more liberal than Kerry. His voting record is more liberal than anyone elses, from what I've read. He's a flip-flopper because he said he was for the war, then against it. Now he's anti-war, yet he voted for it. He says he's against the Patriot act, yet he voted for it. THAT is why he is a flip-flopper.