Reply By: Dan Greene

Ok, I was curious.  It is your summation of the events.  Not a bad one.  Thanks for the explanation.

The rebuttals do not change the fact that Bush said one thing and the Treasury Reports say another. Bush Lied pure and simple!

We, on the otherhand...believe that YOU LIE, PURE AND SIMPLE!

drmiler

You are not calling me a liar but the Treasury of the U.S.

IslandDog

Since Bush and Cheney knew Saddam has no nuclear weapons they LIED when they warned of Mushroom Clouds if he was not removed from power. Bush did not listed to those with far more experience when they told him the likely outcome of our invading Iraq. Guess what they were correct and Bush was WRONG!

drmiler You are not calling me a liar but the Treasury of the U.S.

No, I'm calling YOU a liar in the "way" you pick and choose your info and then when you present it.

drmiler

I copied the data directly from the Treasury site. I did not pick and choose. I posted the list of data that the Treasury posted. YOU ARE FULL OF BS!

IslandDog

Now the claim is that the threat of nuclear attack by Bush and Cheney was as you put it was, “BARELY USED” Another BS artist! Using that one time when you knew it was NOT true is a LIE! Ignoring the fact that Saddam had no military capability and saying he was a danger was a LIE!

Well it's nothing new to hear somebody bitching about "mortgaging our children future" paying for this or paying for that. But Brad is right when he says if the government would just stop increasing spending or slow that increase income would exceed expenses.

I really don't see how we are wisely spending the money either. I mean the failed war in Iraq, according to the GAO there is something like $10 billion that has just fallen between the seat cushions in Iraq, and I know in the age of trillion dollar GDP's that's not really all that major, but we are talking billions of dollars that if accounted for, could have been spend on other things. How many billions of dollars would it cost to put an extra cop on duty in every city? How many billions of dollars to rebuild some homes in storm destroyed areas of the south from Katrina?

I'm not saying lets all jump on the socialist bandwagon buying people more stuff and sticking the bill with taxpayers, but lets sure as hell as keep track of the money we do pay in and spend on stuff, account of those who do spend and raise taxes to pay for losing money is ridiculous. This entire war in Iraq is going to cost half a trillion dollars and what did that get us? Lots of dead Iraqis and Americans, and the assuredness that Saddam Hussein wasn't going to be able to build WMD ever again. I'm not sure if that value both in money or in lives really is/was worth it.

Trying to predict economic values beyond 10 years, inside of 10% is inaccurate anyway. Thats always been the situation with the social security issue, and that issue is no longer an economic one but a political one, dredged every time there is an election to move the senior vote to the polls.

Another thing on the national debt. Part of the bill for the national debt is interest, and this remains about 10-15% of the total expenses of that debt. Of course it would be great to have less debt, but we would also have serious opportunity costs in having to make that sacrifice. Those would include cuts to lots of different programs that make up big chunks of the spending. Or ending the pork barrel spending, when pigs fly right?

Managing that debt at a level of between 10-15% allows the nation to carry a manageable debt, and limit spending, while also providing for programs deemed necessary for the well being of a nation.

Though Brad would like to see lots of these socialist programs eliminated if not all, and economically this would be great benefit to the economy, it would cause many other problems both foreseen and unforeseen. It is precisely why we don't have a purely capitalistic system, because having a dash of scoop of socialist value in the economy reduces the risks to society's most impoverished as well as reduces the severity of the boom and bust cycle of more pure capitalistic systems.

lulapilgrim wrote:

Terpfan1980, many thanks for writing this article. I am a parent of an 18 year old who is considering signing himself into the National Guard. We've already had a couple meetings with the local recruiter, who seems to be a very pleasant and knowledgable person. Quite honestly, I am still quite unsettled on this topic. I want to advise for the best and am wondering what you, Hadeon, ParaTed2k and Dan Greene would tell a parent like me about the National Guard and whether or not it's a good thing to consider----given the times, the political climate, etc.?

If you don't mind, I'll answer that in a new article shortly.