The one and only State of the Union thread

[Guest NoCalMike]

I don't know if Hydrogen cars will work. The energy needed to create that kind of reaction is rather high. The ptoential is there, and it's a good idea in theory, but the energy cost seems far too high at this stage. But then again, it almost seems like he's trying to push foreign cars out of the market since they're really pushing hybrids strong.

They have already worked see. They engines and specs have been made and then immediately bought and copyrighted by auto companies.....Fuel efficient engines will not hurt the economy. A lot of engines in SUVS are similar to engines in Cadillacs and Crowns Vics, and the Caddys/Vics has some of the cleanest engines EVER...it is simply a lack of cocern for anything BUT profit.

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

Hey, I'd buy a hydrogen engine just because it sounds cool. I was hyped up about those things.

[Guest Marlow Jr]

Bush is an idiot.

 

It was the US Gov that helped create the monster that is Saddam. If Hussein was a supporter of the US gov, you can be sure there would be no war.

[Guest Ozymandias]

^A bit crude, but it is the truth.

 

 

I like that the dumb-shit can talk for an hour and not even acknowledge that we're going through a national recession. Cuz - remember kids - if you don't mention it, IT ISN'T REALLY HAPPENING.

[Guest bob_barron]

Bush is an idiot.

 

It was the US Gov that helped create the monster that is Saddam. If Hussein was a supporter of the US gov, you can be sure there would be no war.

So because we put him in power we should just ignore him??? That doesn't really make any sense when you think about it.

 

You're right on the second point- if Hussein hadn't invaded Kuwait and violated a treaty which he saved his own ass I don't think there would be a possible war either.

[Guest Brian]

Still, hydrogen feul cells have about ten years to go before the prototype stage.

[Guest Marlow Jr]

I find it hard to contemplate the solution to the so-called somewhat artificial 'Iraqi crisis'. Saddam should have been removed for despotism for starting the Iran-Iraq war. Alas the hawks were interested in war-by-proxy and extending the capitalist sphere of influence into communist or likely communist states. The arc of instability that some hawks talk about is really the former battlegrounds for the war-by-proxy (the Horn of Africa, Indian sub-continent, south-east Asia including Indonesia, and of course the middle east). By geographical circumstance and for no other reason these areas are also the Muslim world. In fact fundamentalism has its root causes in the vain attempts by the US and its allies to extend their influence into these regions. Then to fight communists by arming secular and religious crack-pots with the best instruments of death Uncle Sam, the French, UK and German governments and companies could provide.

 

So I guess shooting the doves for inaction on Saddam is unfair. Because at the time the West was making these monsters (Saddam, Osama), it was unpatriotic to do or say any different. The west kept its knowledge that these people, we then called allies and friends, were in fact despots and that they were committing crimes against humanity.

 

My solution is that the International Criminal Court be given real prosecutorial powers to try and if found guilty of crimes against humanity, war crimes or other violations of international human rights laws to be justly punished. The US, Israel and other nations who prop up despots or are themselves despotic do not want the Court to try their own citizens. Such a cop-out allows the Milosovic's to prosper and Saddam to commit more and more atrocities. Enforcing international law is a viable alternative to war, it is fair, just and does not result in unnecessary collateral casulties.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

So the United States was just supposed to sit ideally bye and let the Soviets take over Afghanistan?

 

The same goes for the Iran-Iraq War. At the time the West, thought that Iran was more of a threat.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Bush is an idiot.

 

It was the US Gov that helped create the monster that is Saddam. If Hussein was a supporter of the US gov, you can be sure there would be no war.

Yeah, but when you crap in the toilet do you still leave it there? No, you flush it!

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

This has probably been discussed in another thread (a hundred times), but how in God's green earth does anyone think Bush's tax cut plan is going to help our economy?

 

Our bad economy is caused, in large part, by overproduction. The solution to that is to allow the common, working class man to spend more money. The way to get the common, working class man to spend more money is to give him tax cuts.

 

Okay, thanks, but how does giving the majority of the significant tax cuts (specifically, the elimination of dividend taxing) to the wealthiest 5% of Americans... THOSE WHO PRODUCE THE PRODUCTS WHICH ARE BEING OVERPRODUCED... going to help our economy?

 

Why the hell are we supporting this tax plan?

 

Someone, please. Riddle me that.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

This has probably been discussed in another thread (a hundred times), but how in God's green earth does anyone think Bush's tax cut plan is going to help our economy?

 

Our bad economy is caused, in large part, by overproduction. The solution to that is to allow the common, working class man to spend more money. The way to get the common, working class man to spend more money is to give him tax cuts.

 

Okay, thanks, but how does giving the majority of the significant tax cuts (specifically, the elimination of dividend taxing) to the wealthiest 5% of Americans... THOSE WHO PRODUCE THE PRODUCTS WHICH ARE BEING OVERPRODUCED... going to help our economy?

 

Why the hell are we supporting this tax plan?

 

Someone, please. Riddle me that.

Our economy is NOT in that poor of shape contrary to popular belief. It is you the people that have decided that holding onto your money and spending it on *gasp* worthwhile things like food and shelter is a better idea. Remember, the free-market is the ULTIMATE Democracy and you all have decided that the dotcoms, and some fast food chains ect are not worthy of your dollars.

 

When people hold onto their money for neccesities, the highest of luxuaries will be phased out and thus will have a hard time staying in business. I live in the silicon valley where computer related jobs rule the day and, not surprisingly, unemployment is at record highs because these businesses provide luxuaries that in the grand scheme of it all, aren't that important.

 

How does this tie in with Bush's tax cut? Well, how would giving a cash handout (I refuse to call it a tax cut because these people play little taxes to cut in the first place) to the bottom rung of society help? It wouldn't really, they'd just spend their check on neccesities or maybe a minor luxuary and that would be it. There might be a short term boost in sales like around the Christmas but a couple of boxes of Hamburger Helper and a DVD player wont put the economy back on the map. Instead, cutting taxes for those that actually pay the bulk of the taxes is smarter because it creates incentive to start new businesses that can lead to more jobs to fill the gap left by the failing businesses. Will these new products or services be worthy of your dollars? That's for you to decide. Basically what we need to do is divert the rich man's attention towards creating new jobs in hopes of replacing the failing businesses, with something the public might actually want. Again, it is for you the public to decide, I can not stress this enough.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Our economy is NOT in that poor of shape contrary to popular belief.

 

Oh, I'm sorry. I guess all those people who study these things, who are privy to this information, must be wrong.

 

Let's listen to Olympic Slam, everyone!

 

*sigh*

 

Trickle down economics... has... NEVER worked. NEVER. It NEVER will.

[Guest Brian]

There's a reason the bottom rung are holding onto their money. They don't have enough to spend it. God forbid they eat before they invest. Whereas the rich currently enjoy those luxuries (and still don't seem to be boosting things), and yet need three or four more tax cuts now.

[Guest Ozymandias]

Instead, cutting taxes for those that actually pay the bulk of the taxes is smarter because it creates incentive to start new businesses that can lead to more jobs to fill the gap left by the failing businesses.

And who is going to patronize these new buisnesses if the lower calsses are still in the same place they were before? These new buisnesses wouldn't be offering anything that isn't already available so why would people decide to part with their money just because there happen to be more buisnesses than before?

 

It's an established fact that the middle and lower classes spend the most and save the least. That is what caused the late-90's economic boom and it would have continued if only the clowns in D.C. were smart enough to give bigger tax cuts to the people who were funding the economy the most.

 

Giving tax breaks to the richest would do nothing good, as they already have all they need and would simply hoard the money. They aren't spending it now, they didn't spend it during the boom, and given that precedent it's clear they won't spend it in the future.

 

Even if some created new buisnesses with the money what good is it if the people who keep these buisnesses in existence don't have enough money to "decide" with?

[Guest Marlow Jr]

So the United States was just supposed to sit ideally bye and let the Soviets take over Afghanistan?

 

The same goes for the Iran-Iraq War. At the time the West, thought that Iran was more of a threat.

Vern, in the eighties the cold war still on foot courtesy of Regeanism and Thatcherism. The cold war could have ended much earlier, but the west saw it their interest to maintain a misguided rage. Enemies still wore red not muslim attire.

 

The western rage created bestial leaders - Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Soharto, the list could fill this post. My point is the west blames the beast or their religion of birth (not necessarily practice) for terrorism, and not the regime that created them.

 

The same dim-witted white fools who kept the cold war alive (Rumsfeld, Armitage etc) are trying to invoke this war. Why is it so difficult for some many others to see this simple equation?