Off topic, but for you Missouri residents, here

[billiken_roy]

very good post. i have said time and time again that iraq wasnt about 9/11. it was about a tyrant that should have been disposed in the last two administrations. imo we are lucky that president bush (current, not daddy) had the cahones to stand up and say this goes no further. while obviously at the time, bin laden and 9/11 were the focus of all our action, president bush clearly stated that everything that would happen was a war on terrorism, not only bin laden. he warned all it would be a long and difficult process that would at times seem futile. but if these pockets of terrorists are ever going to be contained, someone had to step up and do something.

afghanastan and iraq are/were very visible targets and places to start to "send a message". granted it is a shame we have lost service men and women in these battles, but anyone that has signed up to be active or reserve duty in the military knew what they were getting into when they signed up as well. i am just glad that there hasnt been additional "hits" against the american public like occurred 9/11. in my mind, i believe it is not a coincidence that the terrorists have since left america more or less alone on the homefront. president bush has sent a message it will no longer be tolerated and our stepups both home and abroad are likely the reason we remain as safe as we have. will it continue? god only hopes and knows. but still, the long difficult task at hand continues and i applaud the president for making the needed but difficult decision he has to make us safer than we were 3 years ago.

[MUTGR]

Speaking of Albright's hypocrisy, I love this quote:

* One of the lessons of history, Albright continued, is that "if you don't stop a horrific dictator before he gets started too far--that he can do untold damage." "If the world had been firmer with Hitler earlier," said Albright, "then chances are that we might not have needed to send Americans to Europe during the Second World War."

Now every other week I see her on Chris Matthews or Tim Russert's show talking about how there was no justification for going to war against Saddam Hussein.

Unforunately, because she is preaching to the anti-war, anti-Bush mainstream media, no one will ask her how her position on Hussein changed literally 180% in such a short time.

No, my liberal friends, it's not unpatriotic to oppose the war--that's not the point. The point is it is highly questionable to change positions so drastically just because a republican is in the white house.

[SLU8592]

Your post is a breath of fresh air. The general population is more short sighted than I would have thought possible, particularly after the terrorist activity that took place here. Bush had a no win situation. If he failed to take out Hussein and something would have come from the Soviet intelligence, he would be even more criticized than he is now.

Why is it that Bush's morally conservative policies are those for which he is most criticized (particularly here on a discussion board where many subscribe to the Roman Catholic tenants)? I understand why he is hated by Hollywood, but why by Roman Catholics?

[SluSignGuy]

I understand Clinton's position on the Iraq situation, but he believes that the diplomatic steps taken in getting to the war were poor choices. He believes, and states, that Bush should have let the weapons inspectors fully complete their jobs amongst other things (I cannot state off the top of my head). That isn't exactly what was done.

I believe that Bush jumped to using force too quickly. The war would have been more justified if we would have excercised all possibilities through the UN and the Diplomatic Process. But it seems as Bush was eager to go to war with Iraq, and I think he should have excercised more diplomatic options and gotten the support of the UN (as Father Bush did) before going in.

My views are not completely in agreement with President Clintons, as slufanskip's views are not in complete agreement with Bush's in terms of spending, and I doubt your views agree completely with President Bush's.

I don't see the right that America had to take over another country and impose our views on them. I think this part of my previous post covers that well.

---------

As for the Middle East/Democracy, I personally believe that a Democratic Republic is the best system of government. But I don't think it is America's job to forcibly say that it is. It is one thing when a country maybe comes and asks for our help, but it is another to take the initiative on our own. What gives us the right to always say that it should be only our way? And that is the beef that I have with the Iraq situation. Not the theories of Michael Moore, or the oil, or whatnot. But I do not like how we forcibly took over a sovereign nation to impose our views.

---------

Hopefully that makes sense,

Steve

[Tonka]

What in the hell are you all talking about?!?! I haven't seen this kind of passion on the board since cheesy defended MU on all their actions. I love it! Put em in a ring! Violence solves everything! Hence, that is why I support the War in Iraq! If we can't get along with Saddam, we just take him out! If we feel he's a threat, we should take him out! Why we want to have the guy tried in court is beyond me - behead him!

For you Liberals who think we should stayed out of Iraq, let me make you realize a few points! It was Saddam who is responsible for Tommy Liddell not making grades and having to go the prep route! It was Saddam who owned the referee in the Marquette game and made the terrible call this past season in the last few seconds! It was Saddam who makes Bob Ramsey objective about his reviews of the Billikens despite being paid by them. Saddam used his connections with Al Qeada to highjack the SLU busses and render them useless in getting students to the game. The letter written to the Post Dispatch about obnoxious fans and band members dissing the other team during introductions was written by Saddam and signed with the false name of Barbara Banger! Saddam has known links to the marketing department of the Athletic Department and controls how much resources they have to use to promote the Billikens. Are you Liberals too blind to see this! You wonder why I advocate the throwing of Nachos at games - I've been influenced by Saddam. Get a grip! You think Kerry is going to handle these things any better? Kerry is one of those guys who believes the baskets should be raised and dunking should be outlawed! Kerry thinks no steps should be taken when driving the lane. Kerry is okay with the Iraqi presence in the NCAA. Get a grip, Liberals!

So, how are you guys all doing? I see I've missed a lot!

By the way, I was in Vegas this past week and I wore my Billikens.com t-shirt to the shirt to the gym to work out and I met 2 Billiken grads and pointed them to this site. I was also stopped and asked what Tonka meant! Gotta love the exposure!

[AlumniFan]

Finally, a voice of reason!!! (-:

[aj_arete]

is that Democrats are the big spenders. Both the Reagan and Bush administrations lead by a far margin when it comes to deficit spending.

[Alonzo P Hawk]

well, with all due respect, aj_arete, you must remember your basic economic principles. sometimes the goal of a government is not to have a balanced budget. if you recall the employment act of 1946, the federal government has a responsiblity to help create an environment that lets us have a strong economy. with its three objectives: 1)full employment, 2)stable prices, 3)full production and economic growth, there are also three opposites than can occur: 1)involuntary unemployment, 2)inflation, and 3)economic stagnation and decline. of course, in consideration of unemployment, currently, we have pressure coming from the sellers' side of the market: known as "cost-push inflation", i'm sure you know. the increases in their businesses' costs cause them to increase their prices, driving down the purchasing power of the dollar. this can be caused by many things, including a shortage of key inputs, bargaining power by input suppliers, and even profit seeking. this can cause numerous problems: for instance, 1)eroding the purchasing power of income, eroding economic security, 2)it hurts lenders, plain and simple--if they can't earn a return on what they've loaned out, then they won't be as generous or forgiving, and 3)this affects holders & buyers, as previously stated (this can be tracked on any number of scales, including the consumer price index, producer price index, and the gross domestic product price index). now the in order to reach full production (doing well now) and economic growth (doing better in the future), we have to 1)get more resources, 2)incur a technological change. we need to find alternative resources (even though we are being charged an arm and a leg for those resources from "third world" countries). anyway, back to the economic side of things, we have to use the gdp to measure the production level of the entire economy, and through this we see that total spending is the main driving force in the economy (total spending on goods/services produced in the economy by households, businesses, government units, and foreign buyers). anyway, to cut things short, you have to follow your five economic propositions and discover how to make equal your fiscal policies to solve the economic problem that faces the country. now i won't go into injections and leakages, into and out of the spending stream, respectively, in detail, because i'm sure you're already familiar with these concepts. so, what is the goal of our nation, economically? to operate at a "non-inflationary, full-employment level of output." and since we have involuntary unemployment at this time, occuring because total spending is below total output, the output goes down and people lose jobs. what do we need to do? fix the imbalance between spending and output, increasing total spending. how? increasing injections and/or decreasing leakages. we must increase government expenditures and/or increase transfer payments to businesses and household, and/or lower taxes to businesses and households. basically, this should lead to an increase in total spending. all in all, the government (much like tom petty) can't back down when "cost-push inflation" is around (typically occuring at higher levels of unemployment). this all comes down to the fact that we DON'T WANT TO HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET neccesarily, because if we're in a recession with unvoluntary unemployment, we want to increase total spending to get out of it, thus by running a deficit budget. on the other hand, if demand-push inflation were occuring (often seen as too much money chasing not enough goods), we would want to get out of it by decreasing spending and running a surplus budget, but in order to do that, as a president, you really wouldn't want to put too much hope on getting re-elected, because of the likely-hood that you would have to raise taxes, and decrease payments to businesses and households, which don't happen to be very popular with the general public.

on a separate note, but related note, welcome to the world. of RealPolitik. I've said for years that there are no real conservatives in washington, d.c. a true conservative could never get elected. can you imagine Americans electing someone who said, "I will eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, Department of Education, & all those entitlement programs that send you a check every month." on the recent pharmacy bill. liberal democrats (who wanted $60 Billion bill) say that "Conservatives", in Congress, are mean & rotten for "only" spending $40 Billion. from my viewpoint, Nixon was no conservative, Reagan was no conservative. They were only less liberal than the others.

i am against deficits and wasteful spending. but it is so funny to see the liberals join that bandwagon. For years liberals have been telling me that a large deficit is good for the economy. they bitterly complain now that Bush has one. they have been for more spending programs for years. the only reason they are yelping now is that that is about the only thing they have to attack Bush. just watch what they will say when Bush starts to cut spending, as I hope he does soon. Dean, Kerry et al criticize Bush as an overspender. then they enumerate all the new federal programs they will have. if you think that any current candidate will underspend Bush, listen to their speeches.

that brings me to the main point. Bush may not be as conservative or budget cutting as I wish but he beats all those in second place. it is true that that Kerry, Kucinich, & Clark are "nominally" Catholic. ONLY one candidate IS against abortion (Bush). incidentally, in my Roman Catholic opinion, that last statement is the reason that Bush must win the presidency. it makes very little difference to me as far as most arguments. in fact, i have much more fun when a Democrat is a president. then I get to belittle, pick at, and blame all the world's problem on a democrat. what, then, is the main reason this presidential race is so important?

real politicians know: the next president may get to name, perhaps, 2 OR 3 Supreme Court Justices. maybe then you'll see some real conservatives.

[Tonka]

nice post!

Alonzo, will you run my campaign?

[billiken_roy]

i believe that we are still paying for some of lyndon johnson's giveaways.

[SluSignGuy]

AJ. I completely mistyped, I meant that Republicans are the big spenders of the day (as was implied by my post about Bush not vetoing anything). Sorry bout this, should of read it over before I posted. My mistake.

Steve

[SluSignGuy]

>i am against deficits and wasteful spending. but it is so

>funny to see the liberals join that bandwagon. For years

>liberals have been telling me that a large deficit is good

>for the economy. they bitterly complain now that Bush has

>one. they have been for more spending programs for years.

>the only reason they are yelping now is that that is about

>the only thing they have to attack Bush. just watch what

>they will say when Bush starts to cut spending, as I hope he

>Dean, Kerry et al criticize Bush as an

>overspender. then they enumerate all the new federal

>programs they will have. if you think that any current

>candidate will underspend Bush, listen to their speeches.

How can you claim that the Dems will NOT underspend President Bush. President Bush did pass the largest health care initiative since the Great Society. He has yet to veto a spending bill. And to top all of that there were the tax cuts...He is a no-tax and spend Republican...That formula cannot last forever.

Not all democrats are Big Spenders, as in all republicans are part of the Bible Belt. I am a Democrat who considers himself Fiscally Conservative. And if you look at what happened in the Primaries, John Kerry is probably the most (possibly second to Lieberman) fiscally conservative Democrat from the Primaries. That has to say something, maybe things are somewhat shifting. Not dramatically, but somewhat.

Steve

[Schasz]

Tonka,

LMAO...you have been hiding on us...good to have you back.

[billiken_roy]

"i voted for that before i voted against that".

[SLUDrew]

Amen, brother. Since when has it become Anti-American to protest? Isn't it our duty to question our leadership? If the Republicans can go head-hunting over some sexual misconduct, then we CERTAINLY are allowed to question our "leadership" over a war that is questionable at best. To me that's not Anti-American, that is American.

As far as the article goes, I do not think that a Professor should force feed his political views to his students. The again, look at the source of this article, and take everything that is written with a grain of salt.

[SLU8592]

Excellent synopsis of the economics. I certainly hope that AJ and others can successfully recover from whatever brain cramp they encounter from digesting your post.

As a fiscal AND moral conservative, I have to say that I am somewhat saddened by those who hold to the liberal cloak from the moral side rather than the fiscal side. I can understand a policy of big government to support expanded social programs for the needy (however I don't necessarily agree that this is the right way to take care of the needy and I don't like bigger government). I can in no way fathom a tenable argument for moral liberalism, particularly when the proponent of such actually understands the religious and social arguments against such. I've never considered myself a bible thumping right winger, but the sands of social attitude have almost shifted to make several of us one time moderates now almost radicals. Hollywood and the general media have dragged mainstream society into their own delusion of reality and normal behavior. Why would anyone want to emulate the disfunctional lifestyles pushed on mainstream media? I just don't get it.

[SLU8592]

I, too, applaud your response.

Hollywood and its progeny of moral liberals are working feverishly to replace Bush with someone who is willing to waive a magic wand and move reality one step closer to the warped fiction in which these people live. Imaginative gender- no problem. Is Barbara Streisand really concerned about the poor? I don't see her using her wealth to house and feed the needy.

By the way, USA Today article on economic corporate growth

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2004-06-28-signs_x.htm

[MUTGR]

Ronald Reagen helped spur an amazing economic recovery with his tax cuts and with his deregulation. So even though he cut marginal tax rates, tax revenues actually increased dramatically over his 8 years in office. Unfortunately, spending far outpaced even the increased tax revenues. While Reagan can't escape all blame for that, I will remind you that the democrats controlled congress, and congress, not the president, ultimately controls the purse strings. Reagan, with Paul Volker, also helped usher in an age of growth with low inflation, that has allowed interest rates to drop from the ridiculously high levels under Jimmy Carter to historically low levels. I would suggest that the combination of Reagan's tax cuts and deregulation, coupled with low inflation and correspondingly low interest rates, have helped fuel the relative wealth our country has experienced throughout the last two plus decades. Of course, Clintonites want to credit his increases in the marginal tax rates, but I don't think economics, or history, supports that.

It's of course underreported because its not on message with electing Kerry and defeating Bush, but we are again seeing the economy rebound nicely in response to Bush's tax cuts. In fact, there was a funny article in the post a month or so ago. Bob Holden couldn't understand (or wouldn't admit) why the state's budget picture was so much better than he forecast. What he couldn't grasp, or wouldn't admit, was Missouri's economy is improving, just as the national economy is, largely on the strength of Bush's cuts in the marginal tax rates.

A cut in marginal rates equals more economic activity, more economic activity ultimately equals increased tax revenues.

[Alonzo P Hawk]

well done. it has always been my belief that the economy takes a while to catch up with the principles set in place. clinton took in reagan's deserved praise and now president bush catches heat because of clinton's mess. i'd really like bush to get re-elected if only to see the praise he receives from an improving economy.

[SLU8592]

The US economy is more akin to an ocean liner than a speed boat. It takes time for whatever is implemented to come to light. This is precisely what we saw with Reagan, as you've noted. We will also see this with the current president. Actually, I am surprised at how well the domestic economy has held up given the attitudes that have been rampant since the Sept. 11 attacks. We have calls from people to retrench and be isolationists, and others who constantly cry that we are hated by everyone. Nevertheless, our economy continues to grow and consumer confidence is also growing. US companies will get another boon if Daschle will appoint conferees to the joint committee of taxation so that the Homeland Investment Act ("HIA") can be put into place. The HIA allows companies a one time repatriation of offshore cash that is otherwise considered permanently invested offshore (permantly offshore due to US tax rules detrimental to US companies-- thank you JFK and Democratic Congress). In any event, Daschle is dragging his feet so that the benefit from the repatriation won't be attributed to Bush (at least before the election). What will companies do with all of this cash? Both the House and Senate bills stipulate some type of US investment.

What is it that Kerry is going to do for us?

[Alonzo P Hawk]

very interesting indeed.

boy, i think this thread wore itself thin. i just don't know if i have enough energy to write anything else about the subject.

(well, at least not until someone fires me up again, that is.)

[billiken_roy]

alonzo said, "it has always been my belief that the economy takes a while to catch up with the principles set in place."

it is my belief that more than just the economy has a "catch up" period. think about all the base closings, and cuts in defense and intelligence that clinton spearheaded. it is no coincidence that we were caught with our pants down on 9/11. on a previous instance, reagan spent most of his two terms increasing defense and intelligence. then when first president bush commanded desert storm, was it any wonder it was the military show of a lifetime.

[MUTGR]

That's a good point. Yes spending increased under Reagan for defense, but that's because defense was sorely neglected under Carter. Ditto for Bush. CLinton takes credit for shrinking the federal government, but where did most if not all of the cuts come from? Defense.

That's where democrats always look to cut first, and it always causes us problems down the road.

[SluSignGuy]

Do you really want me to reply with Bush quotes....There are books of them....LITERALLY

http://slate.msn.com/id/76886/

Steve

[SLU8592]

I don't think you'll get much argument that Bush isn't the greatest orator we've seen. At the same time, you'll note how the press and media types have a field day with conservatives who slip up in speaking or spelling for that matter (Quayle). I find it somewhat hard to believe that the Republicans are the only ones who sometimes find shoe leather in their mouths.