http://www.slate.com/id/2116858/ -- Federal deficit in 2001 = 0 Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion Federal deficit in 2005 = 427 Billion and climbing
Ace wrote in news:d41n6c014eh@news3.newsguy.com:>
"Bryan S. Slick" <onyx_hokie@yahoo.com> wrote in message> news:MPG.1cce273f73e891cd98cc31@news-40.giganews.com...> > [Ace (ace@earthlink.net)]> > [Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:00:18 -0700]> >
Federal deficit in 2001 = 0> > > Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion> > > Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion> > > Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion> > > Federal deficit in 2005 = 427 Billion and climbing> >
Gee, imagine how bad it'd be if there'd been a war or something..> >
Oh, wait..> >
Or tax cuts for the wealthy during a war..
The tax cuts were for the people who were being overtaxed. It's not a coincidence that those were the ones being taxed the most.
"JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:KxZ8e.5026$gV.1250@lakeread02...> Ace wrote in news:d41n6c014eh@news3.newsguy.com:>>
"Bryan S. Slick" <onyx_hokie@yahoo.com> wrote in message>> news:MPG.1cce273f73e891cd98cc31@news-40.giganews.com...>> > [Ace (ace@earthlink.net)]>> > [Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:00:18 -0700]>> >
Federal deficit in 2001 = 0>> > > Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion>> > > Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion>> > > Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion>> > > Federal deficit in 2005 = 427 Billion and climbing>> >
Gee, imagine how bad it'd be if there'd been a war or something..>> >
Oh, wait..>> >
Or tax cuts for the wealthy during a war..>
The tax cuts were for the people who were being overtaxed. It's not a > coincidence that those were the ones being taxed the most.>
Get off your high horse.
You are a clueless moron, and this is a baseball group two reasons to end this now.
We had a long off topic thread on that - with numerous posters saying that things looked good, and the insurgency under control. Now it's well over 1000 American dead later (and far more Iraqi dead). And apparently, according to Slick, $1.3 trillion in debt thanks to the war.
: :"JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in message :news:KxZ8e.5026$gV.1250@lakeread02... :> Ace wrote in news:d41n6c014eh@news3.newsguy.com: :>> :>> "Bryan S. Slick" <onyx_hokie@yahoo.com> wrote in message :>> news:MPG.1cce273f73e891cd98cc31@news-40.giganews.com... :>> > [Ace (ace@earthlink.net)] :>> > [Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:00:18 -0700] :>> > :>> > > Federal deficit in 2001 = 0 :>> > > Federal deficit in 2002 = 154 Billion :>> > > Federal deficit in 2003 = 374 Billion :>> > > Federal deficit in 2004 = 412 Billion :>> > > Federal deficit in 2005 = 427 Billion and climbing :>> > :>> > Gee, imagine how bad it'd be if there'd been a war or something.. :>> > :>> > Oh, wait.. :>> > :>> Or tax cuts for the wealthy during a war.. :> :> The tax cuts were for the people who were being overtaxed. It's not a :> coincidence that those were the ones being taxed the most. :> :> Get off your high horse. :You are a clueless moron, and this is a baseball group two reasons to end :this now. : :Bye...
In other words, you started it, had it finished for you twice, and are now taking your ball and running home to mommy.
Suits me fine.
-- Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
"There ain't nothing wrong a few cold beers can't iron out in fact, you tell me just when and where, and I'll buy the first round"
:"JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote in message> > news:KxZ8e.5026$gV.1250@lakeread02...> > > Ace wrote in news:d41n6c014eh@news3.newsguy.com:> > > >
jhb@socrates.Berkeley.EDU wrote in news:d421vh$l6p$1@agate.berkeley.edu:>
JPM III <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote:>
1000 American dead>
1500 American dead, so far. 1560, actually. Seems very likely to> rise to 2000 or more.>
is a small price to pay>
And that's not the only price; there's the cost in dollars, which is> of course large; there are almost 12,000 wounded (again, so far);> there's the strategic cost of keeping >100K troops over there for> however long it's going to last; there's the cost in allied> casualties (just under 200 killed, not counting thousands of Iraqi> allies killed); and a variety of reputation costs.>
That's a pretty steep price -- although "high cost" is not enough to> show that it's a bad policy.
I think that's a very LOW cost, considering the mission. And I don't care at all about my reputation if I know I'm doing the right thing, and apparently the country as a whole agrees: the potential damage to our reputation is worth the cause.
for the long-term benefits that> > are to follow.>
Such as?
People shutting up about it. I'm still waiting on that one.
[snipped stuff I didn't feel like reading because this is a dead issue and I don't see why people keep talking about it so much.]
I think that's a very LOW cost, considering the mission. And I don't care at >all about my reputation if I know I'm doing the right thing, and apparently >the country as a whole agrees: the potential damage to our reputation is >worth the cause.
A nation's reputation is not something for the populace to feel good or bad about. A nations's reputation is a tool of diplomacy.
People shutting up about it. I'm still waiting on that one.>
[snipped stuff I didn't feel like reading because this is a dead issue and I >don't see why people keep talking about it so much.]
Didn't you just give Slick a smiley when he slammed someone else for saying the same thing?
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:24:27 -0700, Ima Pseudonym <akrasian@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
Our having gone to war for false and foolish reasons is senseless and>pointless to talk about?>
If it doesn't get discussed, it will happen again.
I don't know how heavily you should lean on this point. It's well-known and regularly discussed that the Spanish-American War was fought for false and foolish reasons, yet it still happens all the time.
In article <1U19e.7711$gV.2703@lakeread02>, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote:
That's a pretty steep price -- although "high cost" is not enough to> > show that it's a bad policy.>
I think that's a very LOW cost, considering the mission. And I don't care at > all about my reputation if I know I'm doing the right thing, and apparently > the country as a whole agrees: the potential damage to our reputation is > worth the cause.>
The country as a whole agrees? The latest Gallup Poll has 54% disapproving of the way Bush is handling Iraq. With a couple of exceptions, more than half have disapproved for more than a year.
Has anyone figured out what the mission is? It seems to keep changing. It's impossible to determine whether the cost is worth it when we don't even know what we're paying for.
In article <IW19e.7719$gV.3741@lakeread02>, "JPM III" <jpmccord@hotmail.com> wrote:
People are too convinced that the resumption of active conflict in 2003 was > a new war -- it wasn't. But this is a dead issue. It was dead 2+ years ago > when it started. Once the troops are over there, it's senseless to accuse > the cause they believe in of being a faulty one. Hope they get their job > done and get home safely. The end.
It's hardly a pointless issue as long as we have people over there is harm's way. There's always the question of how to resolve things for the best interests of the country and the men and women we've sent over there.
This is a pointless topic.
Yeah, I'd bail out too, if my arguments were as empty as yours.
But you know what does win arguments? Agreeing to disagree, tolerating nonintrusive opposition, and moving on with our own lives instead of trying to force our beliefs and values on others.
I think that's a very LOW cost, considering the mission. And I> > don't care at all about my reputation if I know I'm doing the right> > thing, and apparently the country as a whole agrees: the potential> > damage to our reputation is worth the cause.>
A nation's reputation is not something for the populace to feel good> or bad about. A nations's reputation is a tool of diplomacy.>
People shutting up about it. I'm still waiting on that one.> >
[snipped stuff I didn't feel like reading because this is a dead> > issue and I don't see why people keep talking about it so much.]>
Didn't you just give Slick a smiley when he slammed someone else for> saying the same thing?
Bob Roman wrote in news:sf5a611he5i82j7plt2lp51hf9iqf2ii6v@4ax.com:>
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 07:24:27 -0700, Ima Pseudonym> <akrasian@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:>
Our having gone to war for false and foolish reasons is senseless> > and pointless to talk about?> >
If it doesn't get discussed, it will happen again.>
I don't know how heavily you should lean on this point. It's> well-known and regularly discussed that the Spanish-American War was> fought for false and foolish reasons, yet it still happens all the> time.
The Spanish-American war still happens all the time?
Paul G. Wenthold 20 April 2005 17:00:15 [ permanent link ]
JPM III wrote:
Copying and pasting doesn't win arguments.>
But you know what does win arguments? Agreeing to disagree, tolerating > nonintrusive opposition, and moving on with our own lives instead of trying > to force our beliefs and values on others.>
