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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (625568)	9/15/2004 4:04:46 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"Those don't match well, do they?" LA Times shows Kentucky listed as a 'swing state'... they are CRAZY. [Just considering the half that is left after you take out all the 'defense' stuff... Bush is STILL spending like a drunken sailor, at a rate of increase GREATER then Clinton's.] "Oh, BTW, a large part of the projected deficits come from increasing federal health coverage- -something liberals are gung ho for and Bush was trying to cut them off at the pass. Not that he should have, but seniors vote." Yeah, so what? Washington is full of deficit spenders. (Just goes to show that Bush is no fiscal conservative. His discresionary spending increases --- after all defense costs are taken out --- are 50% higher then Clinton's.) Anyway, no one disputes that the tax code changes account for the largest chunk of the projected increases in the deficits... even when factoring in 'dynamic scoring'. Cutting rates is GOOD, but failing to reduce spending and forgone revenues (by eliminating tax loopholes, subsidies, 'special tax preference items', etc.) MORE then destroys the budgetary benefits --- as both CBO & OMB analysis show. (Also the same thing is predicted by the private econometrics firm the WH hired to use 'dynamic scoring' in the run-up to Bush's state-of-the-union speech. They CAN'T claim they weren't warned!) [Are you a 'conservative' or a 'liberal' if you stand up for the American Constitution?] "A company manufactures drugs and sells them to companies in its state ONLY. Should it be subject to FDA regulation? It itself engages ONLY in intra-state commerce." If it's not involved in inter-state commerce then the Feds have no authority under the inner-state commerce clause of the Constitution. This is exactly the same un-constitutional massive expansion of federal power that they are trying in two other areas: medical marijuana in states where it is legal (but which is not 'sold' --- thus no 'commerce' --- and which never crosses a state line... and with Oregon's assisted suicide law --- where the feds are trying to regulate what physicians can and cannot do....) If they have legal authority in ALL of these areas, then they have controlling authority in everything... and the States might as well disband their governments, because the feds can claim authority over all economic and non-economic actions. [Now try to get Cy to take this test.] "AFTER you teach him to read and write. :-) He uses a different Constitution than I. His is disposable at will." --- Funny. Also, seemingly supported by the evidence.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (625568)	9/15/2004 5:15:27 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

Scandal over Bush's military records teaches foreign policy lesson, Libertarians say: WASHINGTON -- Here's the lesson that Americans should learn as a result of the controversy over George Bush's service in the National Guard, Libertarians say: When governments wage futile, unnecessary wars -- such as Vietnam and Iraq -- young Americans will try to avoid them. "The scandal isn't that so many Americans tried to avoid going to Vietnam; it's that their government tried to send them there in the first place," said Michael Dixon, Libertarian Party national chair. "The fact that Bush is sending troops to Iraq proves he hasn't learned that lesson." While Democrats and Republicans spar over Bush's service in the Guard, the Libertarian candidate says Bush's service as president is a far more important issue. "We may never know whether Bush entered the National Guard to avoid service in Vietnam," Dixon said. "But we do know that thousands of men his age did so, or sought college deferments, or even fled to Canada, to avoid getting killed or maimed. And who can blame them? More than 58,000 Americans who fought in this mindless military misadventure never came back. "The tragedy isn't that Bush, the Guardsman, may have avoided Vietnam. The tragedy is that Bush, the president, has sent more than 1,000 Americans to their deaths in Iraq." Dixon pointed to several similarities between Vietnam and Iraq: Neither was a defensive war; both were justified based on false claims; and both became increasingly unpopular with the American people as the truth became known. "Contrast Vietnam and Iraq with World War II," he said. "After the attack on Pearl Harbor, American teen-agers weren't lying to get out of the war; they were lying about their ages to get in. "In Vietnam, politicians instituted the draft because too few Americans were volunteering to senselessly sacrifice their lives. In Iraq, Bush has already instituted a 'backdoor draft' by extending deployments, and there's little doubt that a formal draft would be just as widely evaded as it was in Vietnam." The point is that the American people know which wars are essential to national security and which are not, regardless of what the president says, Libertarians say. "Fortunately, there's a way for Bush to salvage something positive from the controversy, while ensuring that no American is ever again accused of 'hiding out' in the Guard," Dixon says. "Quit waging wars that have nothing whatsoever to do with national security, and start by pulling our troops out of Iraq."