LMAO, you guys are really getting funny now. The Senate, controlled by Democrats last October, voted 77 to 23 to give President Bush the authority to use force. The debate in the Senate has already occurred, and a fair vote was taken. Senator Byrd fought to defeat the measure, but lost. This "historical" speech should be called the "Sour Grapes Address".
batman...come on, man. you're much more intellectually honest than that. the accusations you make at Bush above about his past lead him to being a screwup....the membership of Byrd goes toward him being a hate-monger. A freaking member of the KKK? Can you imagine if Bush were a former member of the KKK? Would you give him even one shred of credibility? I know I wouldn't. So why make exceptions for Fossil Byrd?
Do you even know what "pre-emptive" means? Bush is wanting to attack a sovereign country that HAS NOT attacked us first. That is pre-emptive. Period. End of sentence. For you to try to say otherwise, is flat out partisan or ignorant...considering the tenor of your posts in this thread, I'll have to say it is partisan. If the "world" told him to disarm, why is the "world" not convinced that Iraq needs to be invaded? Because it is not necessary at this time...and for our leaders to decide that we can just invade a soveriegn country without the support of the rest of the world(or even our own allies for Christ's sake) is a dangerous and immoral direction for the supposed "Leader of the Free World" to take us. and before you start accusing me of partisan posting...know this. I am not a Democrat, I am not a Republican...I am what the majority of people are in this country..I am a middle of the road moderate.(if you insist on pidgeon-holing me) I will easily support a war if we need to defend ourselves(see Afganistan)...but so far, I have not seen any reputable evidence that says we should just invade without going thru the existing channels that have been setup for the resolution of this type of problem(Iraq).. Diplomacy is the answer in most cases...calling our allies and other countries names just because they don't agree to be bullied by a bellicose administration is not the answer. Byrd is saying alot of things about the supposed war that require guts to say in today's political environment..and for that...I applaud him.
ok...so did you support clinton in 1998 when he acted unilaterally and hit iraq with cruise missiles for the same reasons bush is talking about doing so today? only then, we had less evidence of non-compliance with UN mandates than we do now. remember, clinton said, "the fight is different now. we can't win this fight unless we strike out first." he tied saddam and terrorism together back then. so how did you feel about it when clinton did it?
No Max. I did not. Very few things Clinton did got my support. Giddyup, they had attacked our allies..and were actively involved in attacking out allies. It was a World War...remember? comeon man, I expect better out of you than comparing apples to pineapples.
you're right..he didn't...i just wanted to make sure. i didn't love bill clinton...but i said even then i agreed entirely with his position on this.
Also, you are correct that the SS "trust" fund did not exist. What you miss is that the surplus and the SS "trust" fund were products of the exact same accounting games played on us by Congress, the GOP, and the DNC. The surplus, and the trust fund, are the exact same funds that actually go into a general fund for government outlays. You're right that the surplus and "trust fund" go into a general fund used for government spending (the trust fund is accounted for differently, but it's used the same). What exactly is your point? By definition, the surplus is the excess money not used in government outlays. The surplus was real -- the government took in more money than it used those years. How else do you explain that the total outstanding debt of the US Federal Government dropped during that period? Did we use imaginary money to pay off those bonds? Bottom line: In about 5 years, we went from a record ~$150B (I'm not sure the exact number) surplus to what is projected to be a record $300B deficit <I>even projecting solid growth</I>. It has very little to do with the war on terrorism, and very little to do with the recession, and nothing to do with SS trust fund accounting -- all the budget surplus / deficits have used the same accounting system. It has to do with the financial mismanagement of this administration. In 1994, the Republican Party had it right. The Contract with America was one of the best things the party ever did and that's what got them in power in the first place. In it, they stood for a Balanced Budget Amendment - they thought the most important thing we could do was run a consistently balanced budget. Amazing how 8 years later, that core philosophy of fiscal responsibility has been scrapped. Now, Bush wants to run $300B deficits in times of prosperity - it's not even recession-type spending.
Didn't we fight the Nazis without Germany attacking us first? You realize Germany declared war on us before we attacked them, right?
Surplus Silliness Robert B. Reich The Wall Street Journal The Congressional Budget Office, in a report released yesterday, says the government will be forced to take $9 billion from the so-called Social Security surplus in fiscal year 2001 to make ends meet. BTW, JohnHeath, since you apparently may have had trouble understanding the article you posted, here's what Reich said: SS Surplus / Deficit = Imaginary Budget Surplus / Deficit = Real Situation #1: General Revenues: $100 Billion SS Revenues: $10 Billion General Expenses: $105 Billion SS Expenses: $5 Billion SS Surplus: $5 B (imaginary) Budget Surplus: $0 (real) In the late 90's, the situation was like this: General Revenues: $100 Billion SS Revenues: $10 Billion General Expenses: $90 Billion SS Expenses: $5 Billion SS Surplus: $5 B (imaginary) Budget Surplus: $15 B (real) Today, it's like this: General Revenues: $100 Billion SS Revenues: $10 Billion General Expenses: $120 Billion SS Expenses: $5 Billion SS Surplus: $5 B (imaginary) Budget Deficit: $15B (real) He's talking about this surplus in incoming SS funds that is used to raise or lower the deficit/surplus. However, since they are in reality all general funds -- always have been treated that way -- the only thing that matters is the real Budget Deficit / Surplus. Right now, because of the population structure of the country, we run SS Surpluses every year .. In the future as the retired population booms, we will be running SS Deficits which will put an even bigger strain on funds. That's yet another reason it's a dumb idea to be racking up debt now when you know the problem is going to get worse in 10 years.
Yes, I do. You could have saved yourself some time too, if you would have comprehended my post. The current problem with Iraq is an extension of the 1991 Gulf War that has not concluded because Saddam won't comply with the terms of surrender. How do you pre-emptively attack an enemy that you have been fighting on and off for 12 years? What do you call U.S. jets bombing radar installations every week for years? Was D-Day a pre-emptive attack against the Nazis? My complaint about this carefully selected language by Byrd is that he purposely paints Bush as the aggressor, not Saddam. Guess what? I don't know if you realize this, but Saddam can end this madness today by fully cooperating with the UN.
Isn't the point of the inspections to verify whether or not he is abiding by the terms of the surrender?
Finally, a Democrat who isn't afraid to speak up! Notice how all the Dems who are considering running for the Presidency are barely even criticizing Bush. Did Byrd give an alternative solution to the problem with Iraq? I didn't see one.
Major, I agree with most of what you post, but I think you are missing my point. At the time of the Presidential election, the entire budget surplus was the social security trust fund budget. The projected surplus from other areas of government was not supposed to exist until 2005 I believe.
At the time of the Presidential election, the entire budget surplus was the social security trust fund budget. The projected surplus from other areas of government was not supposed to exist until 2005 I believe. Fair enough. However, then you have to say the same about our budget deficits - they are actually underrepresented because they include a social security surplus as well. If we have a $150B SS "surplus", then the projected $300B deficit in 2004 (?) is actually $450B. Bottom line is that we will be having shortfalls of $450B more than we were a few years ago. Whether you want to look at it as $0 vs -$450 or +$150 vs -$300 is up to you, I guess. Either way, its irresponsible finance.
absolutely...and the word from Blix is "uncooperative." we have found that they are in violation. unaccounted for chemical weapons...banned missile systems. how much more do you want?
