SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: i-node who wrote (203934)9/25/2004 7:11:36 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1575427
 
re: If there is ANY question that he MAY have been funding terrorism, he should NOT be admitted to our country.

I think YOU MAY have been funding terrorism. What to do?



To: i-node who wrote (203934)9/26/2004 3:54:40 PM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575427
 
>>>>So "MAY" is good enough for you. That's what I was afraid of.

Absolutely. If there is ANY question that he MAY have been funding terrorism, he should NOT be admitted to our country.

I think that ought to be pretty obvious to everyone.
<<<<

Since my SI 'holiday', I have tried very hard to turn over a new leaf on this thread; to stop the constant carping at each other, but instead try to talk reasonably and constructively.

However, there are times when you test my new resolve. You are so blinded by your zeal and ideology that you would willingly and helpfully throw out the baby with the wash. The war on terrorism is important but nothing, absolutely nothing is worth the loss of our ideals, freedoms and respect for the law.

**********************************************************

Sep. 26, 2004. 01:00 AM


America must respect law at home, abroad

HAROON SIDDIQUI

George W. Bush. John Kerry.

Yaser Hamdi. Yusuf Islam, a.k.a. Cat Stevens.

The last two may affect the political fortunes of the first two.

The British singer was turned back from the United States because "his activities could be potentially linked to terrorism."

So vague was the charge against the peace activist who condemned 9/11 that the British foreign secretary filed a complaint with Colin Powell.

In 2000, Islam was barred from Israel for a 1988 donation to a clinic run by Hamas, since declared a terrorist group. By that measure, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin et al can be refused entry to America because they once permitted such funding.

Islam has been a frequent visitor to America, the last time in spring. Welcomed in May, deemed dangerous in September!


If his saga illustrates the Orwellian nature of George W. Bush's America, Hamdi's shows how autocratic it has become.

Born in America to Saudi parents, Hamdi was caught in Afghanistan, declared an "enemy combatant" and held incommunicado in America for two years.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that he and others had a right to a hearing. Instead, the administration struck a deal to let him go off to Saudi Arabia.

One moment, he's so dangerous his lawyer can't be told his crimes. The next, he's benign enough to be freed.

The Hamdi-Islam stories were overshadowed in a week that saw Kerry's definitive critiquing of Iraq; Bush going before the United Nations; the Iraqi prime minister popping up as his campaign prop; and Paul Martin and other world leaders at the UN. General Assembly session urging urgent action on Darfur.

Our PM said what needed to be, and what Bush, to his credit, has often: that 50,000 people are dead and 1 million displaced, yet the world has been arguing over whether or not the tragedy constitutes genocide.

Martin reiterated the Canadian idea , that, in a humanitarian crisis, international intervention trumps state sovereignty.

Yet the proposal fell flat, for two disparate reasons.

Bush was invoking his right of intervention, in Iraq, in the name of "security."

The case against Sudan, taken up mostly by the West, suffers from selectivity, given the deafening silence on the Russian massacre of twice or thrice that many Chechens.

Yet, in his talk to the U.N, Bush offered succour to Russian President Vladimir Putin's threatened pre-emptive wars, which, like his own, can only make matters worse.

On Iraq, the president confirmed Kerry's diagnosis that he is dangerously in denial.

Bush trotted out his Iraqi puppet, Iyad Allawi, to echo his macho talk that all is well, even while Iraq is burning.

Americans and, more so, Iraqis are dying in record numbers. Foreigners are being kidnapped and beheaded. Oil pipelines are being blown up. The American plan to regain control of one-third of Iraq after the Nov. 2 election can only stoke more terrorism in the interim.

Notwithstanding the Bush-Allawi duet, the world is demonstrably not safer without Saddam Hussein. Iraqi insurgent attacks are not linked to the January elections, because terrorists don't care.

Allawi, a bully and a CIA agent ruling Iraq from an American bunker in Baghdad, is not a harbinger of democracy.

It seems Kerry has, at last, grasped the extent of this tragedy. But he does not yet have an exit strategy from this Vietnam.

Allies may give money and troops if he were president. But their problems with America run deeper than Sheriff Bush.

The illegal occupation must end sooner than Kerry's four-year timetable. America must be a more neutral player in the Arab-Israeli conflict. It must get out of the business of maintaining client states in oil lands.

American soldiers in Iraq cannot be safe so long as America is hated. Americans at home will not feel safe in a Fortress America where the rule of law is ignored.

Which takes us back to Hamdi, Yusuf and others.

Earlier, a Geneva-based Islamic scholar, Tariq Ramadan, had his U.S. visa revoked. No explanation was offered as to why he couldn't teach at the University of Notre Dame.

There were innuendos about his "terrorist" thinking but little light on his challenge to Muslims to come to peaceful terms with modernity and the West.

Barring him . was "a major step backward in intellectual exchange between the Islamic world and the West," wrote John Esposito, professor of religion and world affairs at Georgetown University.

"Worse, it is contrary to America's national interest. It is a significant defeat for America in the war on terrorism."

Meanwhile, Hamdi's is not the only terrorism-related case to have fallen apart or into legal disrepute. The trend in case after case is the same: grandstanding by Attorney-General John Ashcroft based on flimsy evidence, which does not stand up in court — if it ever gets there.

As for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, more are being quietly let go in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. So, why were they there in the first place, and for so long?

This is as shameful as Abu Ghraib and other transgressions of the law under America's watch, as Kofi Annan, secretary-general of the U.N. said:

"No one is above the law.

"Every nation that proclaims the rule of law at home must respect it abroad, and every nation that insists on it abroad must enforce it at home."

Such words should be coming from Kerry, loud and clear.

He will not so much be defending the much-maligned Muslims and Arabs, something he has been reluctant to do, but standing up for bedrock American values.

He may be pleasantly surprised to find how many Americans would rally to the cause.

thestar.com



To: i-node who wrote (203934)9/26/2004 4:28:45 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1575427
 
ECONOMIC VIEW

Whoever Wins, More Taxes May Be the Only Way Out

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

Published: September 26, 2004







IT'S often forgotten that President Ronald Reagan signed a bill to raise taxes in the early 1980's after first cutting them. President George H. W. Bush abandoned his "read my lips" pledge and raised taxes in 1990. Could Republicans soon be in a similar position again?

It would hardly seem so after their victory in Congress last week, when they extended a big part of President Bush's tax cuts worth about $146 billion over 10 years. Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has pushed through tax cuts valued at about $1.9 trillion.

But it is worth asking where things go from here.
If President Bush is re-elected, he and the Republicans face a big agenda, including an unfinished war in Iraq, and virtually all of his tax cuts will be financed with borrowed money. Unless the government defaults on its debt, that money will eventually have to be repaid.

Faster economic growth will not do the trick. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office already assumes that the economy will grow at a solid pace in the years ahead and that tax revenues will climb even if President Bush's tax cuts are made permanent.

But if military spending in Iraq continues, even at lower levels, and President Bush prevents the alternative minimum tax from raising taxes on some 30 million families, the budget office estimated that federal deficits from now through 2014 would total $3.5 trillion.


Federal interest payments alone - the "debt tax," as Democrats are fond of saying - would climb to $402 billion in 2014 and amount to 2.2 percent of the gross domestic product. Measured against the size of the economy, those deficits and interest burdens would be smaller that those of the 1980's and early 1990's. But they would be occurring just when Social Security and Medicare entitlements are expected to soar as a result of baby boomers' retirement.

Stuart Butler, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group, contends that political leaders will have no choice but to raise taxes if they do not cut back on trillions of dollars in unfunded commitments - most of them associated with Medicare, which President Bush and Congress expanded greatly with last year's prescription drug program.

The pressure to raise taxes is likely to increase for whoever wins the next election. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, has yet to reconcile his own tax and spending plans.

Administration officials remind audiences constantly that the federal deficits are largely a result of economic shocks: the collapse of the stock market bubble, which wiped out trillions in stock market value; the recession of 2001; and the plunge in business investment that lasted until this year.

But those problems have almost nothing to do with the budget challenges ahead. The Congressional Budget Office estimated this month that cyclical economic problems contributed only $47 billion of this year's anticipated deficit of $422 billion. Next year, cyclical economic problems are expected to have almost no impact on the budget, but the deficit is expected to be $348 billion.

Going forward, virtually the entire federal deficit will be a result of structural causes - tax and spending policies set down by the president and Congress.

President Bush has called for freezing the level of nondefense discretionary spending over the next few years, which would result in real cuts for many programs, like housing assistance, after adjusting for inflation. But those cuts affect less than one-fifth of the federal budget and would barely nick future deficits. The rest of the budget - Social Security, Medicare, military spending, domestic security and interest on the debt - would continue to grow smartly.

Federal revenues, meanwhile, are expected to climb only modestly. Federal tax revenues, which go up and down in response to policy changes and to the economy, have averaged about 18.6 percent of gross domestic product since the 1970's. That share plunged after 2000, initially because of the stock market crash and the recession but increasingly because of tax cuts.

TAX REVENUES in 2004 are expected to make up only 16.2 percent of gross domestic product, the lowest share in more than four decades. Although the share is expected to climb to 17.6 percent over the next decade, it would still be lower than it was in the 1960's.

To be sure, the federal government could keep borrowing more. But higher debt means higher interest costs. That would itself amount to a tax imposed every time a person borrowed money.

Absent cuts in spending far more draconian than anything President Bush has yet proposed, only one other option remains: higher taxes.

nytimes.com