Time for Druff to abandon his delusion about George W. Bush and the Iraq War

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sanlmar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I still don't understand how the DoD would be telling the Dept of Commerce NOT to approve exports to Iraq in the '80s if this was some conspiracy to allow Saddam to build WMD's

---

I feel foolish even writing this.

Do you really view the government as a seemless and coordinated institution with some singular purpose, Druff?

You don't think the DoD and the DoC might be working at cross purposes?




There were several selfish and nefarious motives.

The WMD's were just a digestible "sales point" as Sonatine suggests.

Speaking of WMD's. In hindsight, knowing that 500,000 people would be killed over there would you have advocated a limited nuclear option?

Somehow this course of action has been more palatable?

---

For some bizarre reason, Druff believes that the behemoth collection of agencies that constitute the US government operate more effectively than Caesars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sanlmar

I feel foolish even writing this.

Do you really view the government as a seemless and coordinated institution with some singular purpose, Druff?

You don't think the DoD and the DoC might be working at cross purposes?




There were several selfish and nefarious motives.

The WMD's were just a digestible "sales point" as Sonatine suggests.

Speaking of WMD's. In hindsight, knowing that 500,000 people would be killed over there would you have advocated a limited nuclear option?

Somehow this course of action has been more palatable?

---

For some bizarre reason, Druff believes that the behemoth collection of agencies that constitute the US government operate more effectively than Caesars.

---

After the Supreme Court declared the FBI to be unconstitutional, pretty much every Agency that wasn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution was rolled up under the Treasury Department. Everything revolves around controlling commerce now. That is the objective and where all laws stem from and are enforced over.

Aaaand it looks like they re-tooled it again to put it under the DOJ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4Dragons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

For some bizarre reason, Druff believes that the behemoth collection of agencies that constitute the US government operate more effectively than Caesars.

---

After the Supreme Court declared the FBI to be unconstitutional, pretty much every Agency that wasn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution was rolled up under the Treasury Department. Everything revolves around controlling commerce now. That is the objective and where all laws stem from and are enforced over.

Aaaand it looks like they re-tooled it again to put it under the DOJ

---

Huh? The FBI has *always* been a part of the DoJ. And it was formed to circumvent having to hire detectives who worked for the Secret Service, which was (and still is) an arm of the Department of the Treasury, to do investigations.
https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi.g.../brief-history

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrenadaRoger

the wars (Afghanistan & Iraq) were stupid, but what made them especially bad was doing that after cutting taxes in 2001 & 2003

so to pay for the war he ran up the national debt something fierce...


if you recall, near the end of the Clinton administration there was talk of someday paying off completely the national debt because with the federal government running a surplus for the year and projected continued surpluses...

Bush cut taxes, there went the surplus, then started a war, which required borrowing, mostly from the Chinese.

The stupid fuck Bush must have bribed his professors of the finance/risk management courses he took while getting his MBA at Harvard.

---

Don't worry. If not blown on the war, the Democrats would have blown the money on entitlements anyway.

Also the "projected" surpluses wouldn't have continued anyway. The dotcom bust and the economic slump related to 9/11 killed that.

---

When was the last time the Democrats created a new entitlement program or altered an existing entitlement program so that it cost more, and didn't build in the way to pay for it so it would not increase the deficit?

Affordable Care Act: deficit-neutral
food stamps & welfare: Clinton cut them

Contrast this to the medicare prescription drug benefit, a huge expansion of medicare, pushed by W and passed by Republicans who controlled both the House and Senate, without anything in the legislation to either raise revenue or cut other spending to ensure it didn't affect the deficit. The legislation specifically prohibits medicare from negotiating the price of drugs with Big Pharma--not very Jewish of them not to use their huge purchasing power to negotiate better rates!--which unnecessarily makes it much more expensive.

It's also totally irresponsible to cut taxes when you need money for war. Families of those fighting in that war and being hit with IEDs were buying their loved ones' body armor! Shouldn't Uncle Sam spring for the body armor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRK Star

I just immediately assumed that Cheney told Bush to start the war so his former company could make a shit ton of money


http://readersupportednews.org/news-...on-on-iraq-war

---

Left wing conspiracy BS.

Cheney left Halliburton well before the war -- in 2000.

He was given an "early exit" package from Halliburton when he left to run for Vice President. This sort of package is very common for ANY CEO of a major corporation who leaves. Recall the recent discussion of Yahoo owing Marisa Mayer $161 million if they were to fire her now.

Conspiracy theorists say that his $34 million departure package was a bribe to get him to start a war where Halliburton would benefit. There is no evidence of such an agreement, rather just conspiracy theories invented by Cheney's critics who see that Halliburton profited a lot from the Iraq war after he was already gone.

There is no substance to these allegations, and in fact Cheney's package when he departed was pretty standard.

---

True. But as with any politically powerful industry, there is a revolving door between government and the war industry. They take care of each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Bush's end game was pretty much building another Tangiers or Morocco.

But because he was surrounded by stone idiots running on Jesus Power and Tom Clancy books, things didnt really pan out.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wlHNCoqpxY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hongkonger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Don't worry. If not blown on the war, the Democrats would have blown the money on entitlements anyway.

Also the "projected" surpluses wouldn't have continued anyway. The dotcom bust and the economic slump related to 9/11 killed that.

---

When was the last time the Democrats created a new entitlement program or altered an existing entitlement program so that it cost more, and didn't build in the way to pay for it so it would not increase the deficit?

(1)Affordable Care Act: deficit-neutral
(2)food stamps & welfare: Clinton cut them

Contrast this to the medicare prescription drug benefit, a huge expansion of medicare, pushed by W and passed by Republicans who controlled both the House and Senate, without anything in the legislation to either raise revenue or cut other spending to ensure it didn't affect the deficit. The legislation specifically prohibits medicare from negotiating the price of drugs with Big Pharma--not very Jewish of them not to use their huge purchasing power to negotiate better rates!--which unnecessarily makes it much more expensive.

It's also totally irresponsible to cut taxes when you need money for war. Families of those fighting in that war and being hit with IEDs were buying their loved ones' body armor! Shouldn't Uncle Sam spring for the body armor?

---

(1) While revenue-neutral, this was only achieved by levying a 3.8% surtax on investment income for higher income folks. (A huge reason why so many GOPers *hate* Obamacare.)
https://www.atr.org/full-list-ACA-tax-hikes-a6996

(2) Clinton more than tripled the cost of the amount of tax credits for lower income folks (mostly families) by increasing tax credits for low income folks under the Earned Income Tax Credit.
http://benefitsplus.cssny.org/pbm/ta...it-eitc/184566

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MumblesBadly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hongkonger

When was the last time the Democrats created a new entitlement program or altered an existing entitlement program so that it cost more, and didn't build in the way to pay for it so it would not increase the deficit?

(1)Affordable Care Act: deficit-neutral
(2)food stamps & welfare: Clinton cut them

Contrast this to the medicare prescription drug benefit, a huge expansion of medicare, pushed by W and passed by Republicans who controlled both the House and Senate, without anything in the legislation to either raise revenue or cut other spending to ensure it didn't affect the deficit. The legislation specifically prohibits medicare from negotiating the price of drugs with Big Pharma--not very Jewish of them not to use their huge purchasing power to negotiate better rates!--which unnecessarily makes it much more expensive.

It's also totally irresponsible to cut taxes when you need money for war. Families of those fighting in that war and being hit with IEDs were buying their loved ones' body armor! Shouldn't Uncle Sam spring for the body armor?

---

(1) While revenue-neutral, this was only achieved by levying a 3.8% surtax on investment income for higher income folks. (A huge reason why so many GOPers *hate* Obamacare.)
https://www.atr.org/full-list-ACA-tax-hikes-a6996

(2) Clinton more than tripled the cost of the amount of tax credits for lower income folks (mostly families) by increasing tax credits for low income folks under the Earned Income Tax Credit.
http://benefitsplus.cssny.org/pbm/ta...it-eitc/184566

---

(1) I realize this. But the point is they paid for it. They didn't leave it to future Congresses to figure out how to pay for it like Bush with his war.

(2) The EITC only benefits people who are working, and is designed such that it is always more attractive to earn an extra dollar in wages/salary than to get another dollar of EITC. Yes it costs the government money, but economists calculate that the combination of more labor force participation (the working poor rarely pay income taxes but they still pay payroll tax and sales tax) and lesser reliance on other government benefits makes the EITC roughly revenue-neutral.