Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Those Damned Democrat's -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (981)	4/10/2003 5:02:23 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Respond to of 1604

Even though Tom Daschle and John Kerry have about as much credibility as Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf regarding the conduct of U.S. foreign policy these days, both men get to vote in the world's greatest deliberative body. And guess what? A week ago, they voted to keep more of your tax money. Forever. Some $350 billion of it. They had a little help, of course. A couple of "Republicans" went along with the scam, notably George Voinovich, a senator from my home state of Ohio. I'm ashamed that he is from Ohio. I don't mind saying that, and I don't care if I ever sell another record. It's hard not to be a little suspicious of the timing of that Senate vote. The senators made sure to gut President Bush's tax cut the moment the "establishment media" said the war had "stalled." Remember that? It lasted only about five minutes, but a legislative body that has blocked judicial nominees for years managed to shuffle out of its lethargy within seconds of hearing that the war might last longer than the Iowa caucuses. Here's the real premise behind the move: If the American taxpayers are willing to pay for a war once, why not make them pay for it forever? Now, no senator worth his or her graft is going to fail to propose budget-busting bills for consideration in their term. It is part of the political process, after all. But a measure of the sincerity of the loyal opposition in their concern for the budget can be found in a study by the National Taxpayers Union. It turns out that senate opponents of the tax grab have currently proposed programs that would, on average, increase spending by $20 billion a year. That's shocking, until you compare it with what the people who want to gut the president's tax cut are proposing. On average, those august legislators want to increase federal spending by $90 billion a year. Now, it would be fine if those folks had the guts to come out and say that. But instead they choose to cloak their votes in the guise of being "responsible" and paying for the war. Personally, I can't understand why we aren't using the same financing system for this war that was used 60 years ago. I'm thinking about a whole new issue of war bonds. We could call them Nebuchadnezzar Notes. I can see it now: a big poster of some Marine handing a little Iraqi kid some candy bars bearing the slogan "Buy Baghdad Bonds" underneath it. It'd be great. Everybody could get a piece of the action. Wall Street underwriters could lead private placements. Foreign governments that actually want Saddam ousted could participate in the effort (Helloooo, Riyadh). And those idiot entertainers from Pearl Jam and the Dixie Chicks might be able to redeem themselves with their fans by hawking a few notes at every concert. They'd make a hell of a lot better souvenir than some overpriced T-shirt or bomber jacket. Plus, there's never been a better time to borrow money. So why not do what every sensible U.S. homeowner does. Want to go to Baghdad? Charge it! And leave my tax cut alone, thank you very much. cbs.marketwatch.com{F4AF406E-113E-4616-8A6E-6DA12516E261}&siteid=mktw&dist=&archive=true

To: calgal who wrote (981)	4/16/2003 11:44:16 AM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Respond to of 1604

"the Clinton presidency have coincided with the most massive breach of military security in American history." This is from Salon...surprisingly enough! salon.com The Manchurian presidency The worst national security disaster in history came about because President Clinton had loyalties not to foreign communists, but to the Chinese funders who got him elected. - - - - - - - - - - - - By David Horowitz June 21, 1999 \| Thanks to the Cox Report, we now know that the seven years of the Clinton presidency have coincided with the most massive breach of military security in American history. As a result of the calculated degrading of security controls at America's nuclear laboratories, the Chinese communists have been able to steal the designs of our arsenal of nuclear weapons, including our most advanced warheads. As a result of the 1993 Clinton decision to terminate the COCOM security controls that denied sensitive technologies to nuclear proliferators and potential adversary powers, the Chinese communists have been given the secrets of our intercontinental ballistic missile systems, along with previously restricted computer hardware. This allows them for the first time to target cities in the United States. In the past few years, therefore, the Chinese communist dictatorship has been able to close a huge technology gap, and to destroy a security buffer that had kept America safe from foreign attacks on its territorial mainland for more than a century. Throughout its entire history until 1957, the United States was protected from such attacks by the natural barrier of the oceans surrounding this continent. In 1957, the Soviet Union acquired an intercontinental missile technology that threatened to close that gap. Since then, the only real protection the United States has enjoyed has been its technological edge in developing more sophisticated warheads and more accurate missiles than its potential opponents. The edge provided a possibility that America might prevail in a nuclear war, and discouraged preemptive strikes. The catastrophe that has occurred on the Clinton watch is summed up in the fact that this edge has now vanished, probably never to be regained. America's new vulnerability to nuclear attack is a reality now not merely in respect to China, because of the absence of an anti-ballistic missile defense system. This, the Clinton administration has steadfastly refused to develop, despite the emergence of rogue states armed by China or Russia. These two are the chief distributors of nuclear, missile and satellite technologies to other governments. The governments that have benefitted are notorious stockpilers of biological and chemical weapons and among the most dangerous and dedicated enemies of the United States: Libya, North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Syria. Yet, the attitude of the Clinton administration to all this has been one of hear-no-evil, see-no-evil. The official line, ritually repeated by the Democratic leadership in the sickeningly familiar refrain from the Monica Lewinsky scandal, is thateverybody does it and it's no big deal. Far from acknowledging the catastrophe that has occurred or recognizing the dangers it creates, the Clinton White House has hurried to resume export sales of the same previously restricted technologies and to reassert the "strategic partnership" it promoted with the very dictatorship that has declared America its "No. 1 adversary" and has stripped us of our military shield. Next page \| Gang of thieves salon.com salon.com salon.com Message 18846408

To: calgal who wrote (981)	4/24/2003 1:50:05 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Respond to of 1604

Gephardt's health care proposal would cost upward of $200 billion a year. washingtonpost.com A weak and feckless Democratic Party failed last year to forcefully challenge President Bush's domestic and foreign policy agenda, and, in the view of many, Democrats paid a heavy price for it, reversing historical trends and losing ground in November's midterm election. In one of the boldest strokes yet in the fledgling Democratic presidential nominating campaign, former House Democratic leader Rep. Richard Gephardt (Mo.) today called not only for a complete repeal of the Bush 2001 tax cut, but for a near-universal health care program. Gephardt's health care proposal -- a new business tax credit to help employers purchase insurance for their employees -- would cost upward of $200 billion a year. And to pay for it, Gephardt would not only cancel the portions of Bush's $1.35 billion tax that have not yet kicked in, but the parts that have already been established.