Thoughts?

[ladiesbballcoach]

In that case we will continue to pay interest on the money. Still not a good thing.

I would agree with that. I was one of the grandchildren that would have to foot the bill from 20 years ago and that really hasn't happened and now I am hearing that my grandchildren would have to foot the bill that I was supposed to have come due.

 

I agree the interest in not a good thing and the debt is not a good thing. But I think it is more of political issue anymore rather than an actual economic issue.

[Trinity alum]

Really? In what way?

In several ways. First, we a creating more terrorists than we are killing and giving the jihadists a cause. Second, it has limited our options in dealing with Iran and North Korea. Third, the lesson learned by Iran and North Korea is that if you are a member of the axis of evil and you DON'T have weapons of mass destruction you will be attacked. If you do have weapons we will shake our finger at you. Fourth, ultimately our military might is dependant on our economic might. Spending on the Iraq war is helping to generate huge deficits that sap our long term economic health.

[Hatz]

Really? In what way?

I'll be glad to answer part of that if I may.

 

We have stretched our military beyond what we should have and my concern is the future of our military. When Reservist and Guard units are doing multiple tours of duty in a frontline situation of a "Reconstruction Event" there is a problem of overtaxing out military capability. While they are "policing" Iraq, what happens if another part of the world becomes a "hot spot?" (Korea, Iran, someone else?) This side of conscription there are few prospects of our military growing in the near future. (This is particularly true when some feel that they have been used as fodder despite the advice of military leaders)

 

I'm not looking to get into a "bash Bush" mode but I think that the one glowing problem with Iraq has been the question "Is the price we are paying in spending our military and money in these 3 years worth the return?" Just my question, and my concern. :thumb:

[75center]

The tax cuts did exactly what they were meant to do. The problem is that neither side will step back from the trough.

[Trinity alum]

I would agree with that. I was one of the grandchildren that would have to foot the bill from 20 years ago and that really hasn't happened and now I am hearing that my grandchildren would have to foot the bill that I was supposed to have come due.

 

I agree the interest in not a good thing and the debt is not a good thing. But I think it is more of political issue anymore rather than an actual economic issue.

When I have a little time I'll look up what we are spending on interest now. It may shock you. We are paying that every year and the bill is going up. The national debt is, I believe, about 8 TRILLION dollars. At 3 percent interest that is about 240 billion dollars a year. If my numbers are off, I'm sure someone will correct me.

[Rickyp]

In several ways. First, we a creating more terrorists than we are killing and giving the jihadists a cause.

 

The jihadists obviously had a cause prior to the war in Iraq.

[ladiesbballcoach]

In several ways. First, we a creating more terrorists than we are killing and giving the jihadists a cause. Second, it has limited our options in dealing with Iran and North Korea. Third, the lesson learned by Iran and North Korea is that if you are a member of the axis of evil and you DON'T have weapons of mass destruction you will be attacked. If you do have weapons we will shake our finger at you. Fourth, ultimately our military might is dependant on our economic might. Spending on the Iraq war is helping to generate huge deficits that sap our long term economic health.

I believe they had a cause before our actions in Iraq or we would not have seen all the bombings in the 90's. The WTC both times, the Kole, the US embassies.

 

The terrorists were a problem and an issue and had a cause LONG before Iraq. As those on one side point out that Iraq was not tied to 9/11, so can that side not claim that Iraq is the terroristic issue.

[Frances Bavier]

... The problem is that neither side will step back from the trough.

Exactly.

 

To Scooterbob (well, for all, actually) -

Did you see this article (from The Drudge Report)?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/14/AR2006101401051_pf.html

 

Oddly, I have to say that at this point in time, I don't have a real strong feeling that Nancy Pelosi will be anything more than she is today. That is to say, I don't know that I honestly believe that the Democrats can overtake either side of Congress - much less both.

 

I ask Scooterbob, because even though he and I don't often agree (in most areas), I do respect his grasp of government and politics. To be totally honest, I find it rather odd that Scooter sees a gloomy day ahead. I hope that he is right, but I fear that he is not.

 

So, my bottom line for Scooterbob is - after you get a chance to read the Drudge article, let me know what you think of it.

 

 

Frances

[HHSDad]

Makes you want to empty the halls of congress and start over. No previous employees need apply.

[Frances Bavier]

The jihadists obviously had a cause prior to the war in Iraq.

They had a cause before our invasion of Iraq. What they now have is more recruits than they could have ever dreamed of, prior to Iraq.

 

 

Frances

[Frances Bavier]

Makes you want to empty the halls of congress and start over. No previous employees need apply.

 

Be still, my beating heart....

 

 

Frances

[Trinity alum]

The jihadists obviously had a cause prior to the war in Iraq.

Yes they did, but I think that misses the point. Divide the Muslims into several groups. First you have the confirmed jihadists. There is no solution to them except to hunt them down and kill or arrest them. Second, you have the strong sympathisers. They won't fight but they will provide aid and comfort. Third you have mild sympathisers. They won't turn in the jihadists but they won't go out of their way to help them either. Fourth you have the people that don't like the jihadists, but they just want to be left alone, so they sit it out. Fifth group is the people that are stronger in their beliefs and will turn in the jihadists if they can do so without too much danger. Finally there are those that will fight the jihadists. The real question in Iraq is, how many people are being pushed into the first three groups? Giving them a cause is helping to push sympathies toward the first three groups. Saying that there were already some in the first group before Iraq, so Iraq can't be making it worse ignores reality.

[75center]

Has this thread taken a turn or what????

[Trinity alum]

Makes you want to empty the halls of congress and start over. No previous employees need apply.

That's fine with me, but I'll settle for a big sign out front that says "Open under new management".

[ladiesbballcoach]

That's fine with me, but I'll settle for a big sign out front that says "Open under new management".

Technically, it wouldn't be new management. It would be the return of "old management that helped lead to the first deficit/debt growth and let social programs grow amok."

 

They both have their issues and their problems. And when we as voters stick to worrying more about the Democrats and the Republicans rather than the quality of the individual candidates, than we are part of the problem. IMO