 |
|
Zylka
|
|
Fur coats and Jewlery AAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Stuie

|
 |
Have a beer!
Sep 2001 time: 00:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by rah
More like
Someone tell the anecdote again about how many educated Americans will vote for Bush again because they are much better off economically than they were 4 years ago and are now being taxed less on top of it. 
Thanks GB.
Better investment income.
Better work income.
More job security.
Less taxes. |
What country are you living in?
Since GW came to office:
Investment income has been down, or flat at best. The total stock market is still down about 2.5% since he came to office, even though the gains last year were impressive. Dividends have been lower than in the 90s.
Work income has been flat - most companies have stopped giving any sort of raises, claiming poverty. Personally, I was getting raises near 10% of my salary before Bush came to power. Now I'm lucky if my raise matches the cost-of-living.
Job security? The unemployment rate was close to 4% when Clinton left office. It is currently at 5.9% (as of Nov 2003). Sounds higher to me. From personal experience, I know several people who have lost jobs in the last three years and either continue to be unemployed or have been forced to take lower paying jobs. These are skilled people, too, that should command decent wages.
As for less taxes, yes, on a Federal level. Meanwhile state and local taxes are being increased to compensate for less Federal funding of local programs. Great - give with one hand and take with the other.
Wow, thanks GW. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Stuie

|
 |
Have a beer!
Sep 2001 time: 00:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by rah
You still can't comprehend. I didn't find the silver lining, I found those items I listed for myself. God, are you dense. |
Gee, thanks Rah. First time I've been tossed a personal insult by a moderator.
Now let's see what I posted....
quote: Investment income has been down, or flat at best. The total stock market is still down about 2.5% since he came to office, even though the gains last year were impressive. Dividends have been lower than in the 90s. |
Ok, nothing "personal" there, but my investment portfolio has not increased all that much in the past four years other than additional input on my part.
quote: Work income has been flat - most companies have stopped giving any sort of raises, claiming poverty. Personally, I was getting raises near 10% of my salary before Bush came to power. Now I'm lucky if my raise matches the cost-of-living. |
Oh, personal experience.
quote: Job security? The unemployment rate was close to 4% when Clinton left office. It is currently at 5.9% (as of Nov 2003). Sounds higher to me. From personal experience, I know several people who have lost jobs in the last three years and either continue to be unemployed or have been forced to take lower paying jobs. These are skilled people, too, that should command decent wages. |

quote: As for less taxes, yes, on a Federal level. Meanwhile state and local taxes are being increased to compensate for less Federal funding of local programs. Great - give with one hand and take with the other. |
Once again, I didn't say it was personal experience, but it is. My local and state taxes have both increased. Am I paying less overall? Yes, but that's because I keep having children at an alarming rate, so I'm adding more deductions. 
Have a nice day. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:33
|
|
Well, Che and Ramo, that is what you say now. But consider this:
Gulf I was about Kuwait, not WMD. He had used them against the Iranians and Kurds, but not against us during the war. One could reasonably conclude that he would not use them against us based on this. Besides, Saddam's WMD at that time was thought only to be capable of battlefied use.
When al Qa'ida attacked us on 9/11, it became clear that terrorists were willing and capable of conducting truly massive attacks on the US. (In retrospect, we should have been more concerned about the '93 attack on the WTC.) But the threat that Saddam forshadowed was the following anthrax attack. In '98, when the inspectors left, Saddam had not accounted for tons of anthrax materials, IIRC.
Now, you would argue that even if Saddam had anthrax, that the war against Iraq was not justified because there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam. However, even if Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were natural enemies, it does not mean that they could not unite against a common enemy, the United States, just as United States allied with communist Russia to defeat Nazi Germany. Moreover, Saddam was known to support terrorism abroad and was known to permit terrorist training camps inside Iraq. It does not require a complete absence of intelligence to believe that Saddam could be covertly supporting Osama bin Laden. In fact, with no evidence to the contrary, only a blithering idiot would deny the likelihood of such a covert connection.
So we combine a source of anthrax with a terrorist organization that has shown a willingness and ability to deliver massive attacks on United States, and the calculus on removing Saddam Hussein changes.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33. Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|