« Human rights in Cuba | Main | Drugs help many »

February 13, 2008

Administration fails at peace

Administration failures

Can I believe my eyes? The Star reports President Bush is concerned that the election of a Democrat in November could harm our “peace and prosperity.”

Is the president now so totally removed from reality that he is unaware we are currently at war, with troops in the field, in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Does he now know his administration seems hell-bent on provoking another war with Iran?

Is he unable to understand the financial reports that demonstrate he has doubled our national debt during his administration?

Does he not know his administration has been responsible for lackluster job creation, a sub-prime mortgage crisis affecting homeowners nationwide, and an economy slipping into a recession?

Our nation will only have to suffer under his incompetent ignorance for less than a year now, but perhaps it is not too late to impeach this fool, remove him from office, and subject him to full punishment for the laws he has broken.

Robert Lewis
Independence

War on terror

Vladimir Lenin once said, “The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize.” Look at what it has done to us: We have wire-tapped our citizens, barricaded our borders and impeded our travel if we have fingernail clippers, breast milk or a Bic. And who knew shoes were so deadly?

We have kidnapped uncharged persons and “renditioned” them to secret prisons for torture. We have failed others in Gitmo, calling them “enemy combatants,” which somehow magically strips them of the barest of human rights.

We waterboard, but it is not torture, because the administration says it’s not.

And none of this is our business because disclosing these facts “would endanger national security.”

All this in the name of “keeping America safe.”

Safe?

This is the land of the terrified.

If the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize, it seems we are not winning the “war on terror.”

Joseph H. Moore
Kansas City

Comments

Engineer

Interface
Please describe the "handouts to Big Oil". Just what are they? So far as I know they are simply rules on the way in which taxes are assessed. If you raise the taxes on a business you are increasing the costs of production and the business must pass those taxes on to its customers. The oil company profits, while large in amount, are modest in percent. They are around 10% which is pretty much par for US Industry. Your link to Hillary's speech indicated some general statements about conservation and the need to do something. It also seemed to reveal a lack on her part of any technical knowledge about ethanol. Corn is relatively high in sugar. However there are indications that to deliver a gallon of corn ethanol to an automobile may consume more energy than it will provide. As the alternative sources suggested are all lower in sugar content than corn it seems questionable that they will be or any great benefit.

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

Sure he has some great wall trophies and is a strong paper tiger. I still fail to see how someone that has never lived paycheck to paycheck can understand or combat poverty. How does one combat poverty by teaching socila dependency and racial victimization.
Fancy resumes and slick articulation does not make a great leader but a great bullsh**ter,

CRD

After graduating from Columbia University, Obama was the director of a community activist organization combating neighborhood poverty before going to Harvard Law School.

After law school, he was employed as a civil rights lawyer, representing community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases.

Then in 1996, he was elected to the Illinois legislature, where he served for eight years, until he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004.

He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1993 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004.

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

Of course we can count on Obama's extensive combat and experience in military matters as a lawyer having nothing more than a community activist job and being of course a scumbag lawyer. Eventually we need to leave Iraq, we can not just up and trot. We have to bring our troops home in a steady manner, we should be able to get them out within 18 months. Any longer is simply a ploy to stay. We are not even benefiting with lower oil prices while the Iraqis get to live on our dime and continue to act like they can not hold thier own.
Our business is our country not theirs. Concerned about terorism? Just inform every raghead country that when their nutcases cause any harm on our soil or to our citizens abroad we will simply remind them of what happened to Japan in WWI. next time around cut to the chase and just make a big hole in there country and that will end that. Has japan postured to us at all since WWII? No.

Jim

"Get out of Iraq - how and at what consequence?"

I notice neandercons who want us to stay in Iraq for 100 to 10,000 years will never answer those same questions: how and at what consequence?

We have no mission, no real progress from Iraq's government (the reason for the "surge"), rampant corruption and waste, a military that is stretched to the breaking point, an occupation that is feeding the insurgency that our men and women are dying while fighting against, and no end in sight.

Look, Iraq isn't ours. We don't own it. The burden of proof for justifying any action in Iraq lies first with the people who want to stay in this unsustainable situation, not with the people who want to go.

So I'm asking again: Given the record of how things have gone for nearly five years over there, how can you justify staying? And at what cost?

As far as Obama goes, he has been specific about what he wants to do about Iraq. He's also been consistent in saying that the facts on the ground should dictate how fast or slow it goes. He has a goal of 16 months and has said it may be up to two years, depending on the situation. I'm not going to spell all the details out on here, but if you're truly interested, they're here:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

Yes it SOUNDS as is in "I can name that tune in 1 note".

CRD

Who determines the handout for big oil? Govt? Who in Govt? Who determines what is "fair" handout?

Sound socialist?

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

So Jim who sets the cap on profits for business? Govt? Who in govt? Who determines what is "fair" profit?
Sounds a bit socialist to me fuhrer.

CRD

A better view of the context of Clinton's proposal to remove tax breaks for oil companies and institute a tax on excess oil profits that would fund alternative energy research.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301968.html

The proposal simply doesn't sound that impractical to me. Oil is only going to get more scarce and more expensive. We all agree that it's in our national security interest to reduce dependency on oil.

NoMoreMrNiceGuy

EITC is socialism and not administered fairly. Single mothers get to receive tax free limitless child support AND get the EITC plus the CTCC. Meanwhile the NCP generally only keeps 25-30% of their gross pay and get ZERO tax benefit.
Less taxation, period. Flat tax, only way to make it fair and take incentive out of divorce and poverty. Better schools will not change thug mentality and culture, look at Mike Vick, college educated, 10's of millions of dollars.......still an idiot. All you will get are well educated, well financed thugs. It seems the liberals claim more money is the answer but yet want the wage earners to keep less of what they earn and allow government to TCB (right).
As for unions, you can not force a business private or public to pay what is demanded. negotiating isa one thing but demanding is another. Sorry you do not base wages in comparables to profits. Free market variables take care of wages and skill set values. YOu think the dish washer at the restaurant should make the same as the restaurant owner?

jack

kowabunga provides one sentence out of what I would presume to have been at least a full paragraph. Got a link to the entire statement?

Let's get it straight here. Anything positive that happens, or can be claimed as a possible positive, is to the credit of Bush and the neo-cons. Anything negative, or that can be claimed as a possible negative, is the fault of Democrats. Especially those who have been dead for 30 or more years.

Anyone who says different is a socialist, who hates God, wants the troops to suffer and the United States to be destroyed.

Got it?

BTW: Bush trotting back out the "vote the way I say or die" pitch is getting kinda old. The problem with crying "wolf" is eventually people quit paying attention. I note that there hasn't been a "terrorist alert" since the day Bush got reelected. I wonder if they have some more phony "terrorist threats" planned for this election.

Engineer

Jim
In the long verbose post quoting Reich, the salient point seemed to be that "middle class" and "low salary workers" should be paid more. Naturally "middle class" is not defined so you can feel that it includes you but not that guy who undeservedly is making more than you. Reich knows that if you raise wages the price of goods must go up accordingly. So he gets around this by saying increase EITC to provide the increased incomes. To do this you would have to increase taxes on the "upper incomes"- aha, we'll get the evil rich! As the EITC is direct income redistribution it is, on my opinion, actually unconstitutional. At least I see no authorization in the Constitution to tax people for the express purpose of giving the proceeds to others. For an economy to grow there must be investment capital. The funds spent on consumption cannot be used to increase the instruments of production. Reich makes no provision for, and does not even to consider the capital growth, growth in the means of production, that is necessary if the economy is to grow. On another point, he shows his bias by wanting to replace elections with secret ballots on the question of forming unions with a system that would allow unionists to personally coerce individuals to sign a card. Any one who has had any actual experience with unions knows the type of pressure and tactics that this system would bring about.

Rogue

Jim you make all these ridiculous claims in defense of your people and you do not know enough to pour pee out of a boot with the directions written on the heel. Here is exactly what she said:
http://www.kowabunga.org/2007/02/hillary_wants_to_seize_oil_com.html

Try and be a little less condescending partiuclarly when you have to little to condescend about.....

CRD

From today's Star:

"Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser said today that a recession is coming and the city council should brace for “gruesome budget choices.”"

http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/489938.html

Casady

Jim/Interface:

You're certainly not going to take the opinions of anti-American socialists like Bernanke and Greenspan over the well balanced facts of Mark Robertson, are you?

Jim

Funny how stating the facts of a situation and then talking about how to deal with them simply makes you a "doom and gloomer."

Hey Buddy, here's an idea: why not refute what Reich says with your own point of view, and include some actual facts to back it up?

Nah, that'd be too tough for ole' Buddy. He's got a lot of radio shows to listen to, so to save time he'll just dismiss it off hand and move on.


"Hillary never said that would do away with business, but she did brag that she would cofiscate the profits of those "evil oil companies". Now that it is a little scary."

Untrue. What she and many people have said is that, if oil companies are going to keep the prices high and continue to rake in tens of billions of dollars in profits, then they don't need to be subsidized by the American taxpayer. That's not confiscating profits, it's putting an end to a waste of taxpayer dollars.

And here I thought you were against welfare programs.

CRD

Greenspan also seems to counter "Mark Robertson's" rosy view:

"The former Fed chief put the chances of a US recession at 50 percent" in an article published two weeks ago.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j0OgenH_mfiBmi3nxIuaU0_-Lc-w

Kansasdog

"As reported today, jobless claims were down last week in the U.S. Yes, there are some problems in the economy, but the media is in campaign mode and are trying to convince us that we are heading towards a recession under this Republican Administration. Sadly many are falling for it." - Mark R.

It appears that Fed Chairman Bernake is falling for this as well.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress Thursday the economy is deteriorating and signaled a readiness to keep on lowering a key interest rate to shore things up.

Bernanke also told the Senate Banking Committee that the one-two punch of housing and credit crises has greatly strained the economy. And he forecast sluggish growth in the near term. Bernanke also noted that hiring has slowed and that people are likely to tighten their belts further because of high energy prices and plummeting home values.

"The outlook for the economy has worsened in recent months, and the downside risks to growth have increased," Bernanke said. "To date, the largest economic effects of the financial turmoil appear to have been on the housing market, which, as you know, has deteriorated significantly over the past two years or so."

Rogue

I see Reich is still a gloom and doomer, a leopard never changes his spots does he?

BTW Jim, NMMNG is not the only one who goes off on inane rants, he just does it with a little more flair than you.

Hillary never said that would do away with business, but she did brag that she would cofiscate the profits of those "evil oil companies". Now that it is a little scary.

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright