Letters to the Editor
-
Proctology Worthy
Contrary to what you believe, Al Qaeda wants us out of Iraq and will celebrate our departure as a victory for them and for Islam. Whether that should have any effect on our course of action is another matter entirely and one I have not commented on, but to not understand that this is the case is the mark of a complete ignoramus.
-- Proximity Warning
So, you have really bought into the Islamic Boogey-Man meme, haven't you? Bushco finds suckers like you quite useful, obviously.
-
Awakening to New Dangers in Iraq
The following report details the continuing mess we are creating in Iraq by believing that we can “win” if we stay there long enough. By staying, we just keep making this tragedy more convoluted and dangerous. I urge you to read the full pdf doc if you want to understand more than the “W” and Petraeus propaganda, unless you trolls just refuse to try and learn anything that is counter to your core beliefs.
Sunni “Allies” Pose an Emerging Threat, By Brian Katulis, Peter Juul, Ian Moss, Center for American Progress, February 13, 2008
Unfortunately, what has been extolled as a central “success” of the surge has also exacerbated existing political divisions and fomented new political cleavages in an already fractured and fragile Iraqi body politic. Newly empowered sahwa leaders are challenging each other, traditional Sunni Arab political parties, and the Iraqi government.
Al Qaeda in Iraq and its remaining allies in the Sunni insurgency have also begun a bloody campaign against the sahwa movement—more sahwa members have been killed since December 2007 (100-plus) than American troops (79 as of February 12).
U.S. policymakers have not explained these new and dangerous political and military dynamics to the American people, choosing instead to focus on the important accomplishment of putting Al Qaeda in Iraq on the run. What’s worse, current U.S. policy in Iraq does not take into account how the sahwa movements have further fractured and fragmented Iraqi politics, making it more difficult to achieve progress in striking the power-sharing deals necessary to stabilize their country.
With intra-Sunni tensions and violence rising, continued sectarian divisions between Shi’a and Sunnis, and ethnic tensions between Kurds and Arabs plaguing Iraq, the country is no closer to a sustainable security framework than it was at the start of 2007. In many ways, the situation in Iraq is beginning to look increasingly like what has recently transpired in Lebanon, with the emergence and strengthening of smaller political factions, each with its own armed militia asserting its influence in different parts of the country.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/02/new_dangers.html
-
@ ondelette
It's also worth pointing out -- although not to PW -- that to date bin Laden's putative strategy has been more effective than General Petraeus'.
Bankrupt the U.S.? How silly, right? And yet...and yet....
It's a never-ending source of amazement to me, how stupid smart people can be, once they think they own all the toys.
-
They have paid the taxes...
Although it is being called a tax rebate in actuality it is more than that:
The Senate, voting 81 to 16, slightly expanded the House plan to include payments for some 20 million Social Security recipients and 250,000 disabled veterans who would not have qualified because they do not earn income. - NY Times
Additionally, some tax payers will be eligible to receive more money than they have actually paid in taxes.
Don't forget sales tax. They have paid the taxes and, one way or another.
-
re: The NIT would thus be a mirror image of the regular tax system.
You're too late to the party, that system has been in force for quite some time now. It's called the EITC. That coupled with child care credits (mo money) is a very effective safety net, no?
My point was that there was a high end cutoff at around $170,000 so the largest taxpayers get nothing, subsidizing the rest of the country. That is the definition of wealth redistribution.
The more interesting point is that Bush can literally give away money, and STILL no one will share the love. BDS seems to be incurable.
-
The lessons of history
And whatever happens, you, shooter, have got yours, have you not?
No?
Well, not to worry. You will.
-
"Another mature, articulate lefty"
Hey!
You quote Spiderman. I have to talk down to your level.
God! You're a fucking moron. Life as a simpleton is so... simple.
Anonymous,
Negative Income Tax or Guaranteed Minimum Income or BIG (Basic Income Guarantee) - if Uncle Milty toyed with it, he got the idea from Hayek who was the first to propose it in 1944.
A negative income tax, proposed by Milton Friedman, came close to implementation in the United States under Richard Nixon[citation needed]. Also, the USA has the Earned income tax credit for low-income taxpayers. The citizen's dividend is a similar concept, but the payment made to individuals is based upon the revenues that the government can collect from leasing and selling natural resources (such a dividend in fact exists in the state of Alaska).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guaranteed_minimum_income
Mainstream economists have also endorsed BIG (Hayek 1944; Friedman 1962; Friedman and Friedman 1980) because of its simplicity and its obvious advantages in simplifying government antipoverty efforts; however, radical neo-liberal economists and many neoclassical economists have rejected any form of redistribution as contrary to the “tough love” policy necessary to give the lazy an incentive to enter the labor force by denying them a social safety net. This opposition to BIG can be criticized both from inside and from outside the domain of so-called value-neutral neoclassical economics. From inside, one must recognize that “tough love” policies, which give workers greater incentive to work, also give employers less incentive to pay livable wages and therefore may not prove very loving toward those workers. Many Americans make the value judgment that poverty wages are too low. A value-neutral economist cannot question that value judgment, but should instead limit herself to addressing the following question: If voters and policymakers want to increase the incomes of low-wage workers, what is the most efficient way to do that? The answer is the basic income guarantee (see Bryan in this volume).
http://www.widerquist.com/karl/Symposium-introduction.pdf
-
The more interesting point is that Bush can literally give away money
Shooter once again proves the point of his critics.
Contrary to the caricature you maintain in your head, many people here are actually quite on board with the notion that the government should live within its means. That is why tax-cuts are only 1/2 the equation. Without commensurate spending cuts, the tax cuts mean nothing. The bill comes due.
The fact remains that GW Bush has been rather radical in his approach to spending, going litarally years before his first veto threat, and any self-respecting Conservative would have rupudiated him on that basis alone. As a matter of fact, many did.
This of course means, that the folks left defending him are not conservatives but instead are liars.
Anyone who speaks of small-government at this juncture is assuming that he has an audience of morons. He is frequently correct.