General discussion

Locked

Bush, Cheney and the Neo-Con Job

By Peter Warren ·
For those who believe Bush, Cheney and their neo-con Republican allies honor the men and women who serve in the US armed forces, take the time to visit these web sites:
http://www.saluteheroes.org/redesign/,
http://www.lastwishfoundation.org/, http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php,
http://www.iava.org/index2.html.

Can anyone defend a Republican party that sends young men and women to war, but drags its feet and pinches pennies on benefits for the wounded and for the families of the dead? (http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/12861), (http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=tp-108-1-405).

It would be one thing if we were broke. But while non-governmental organizations struggle to help veterans; the neo-con Republican administration and Congress are:

? directing billions in sweetheart contracts to their friends at Halliburton, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60minutes/main551091.shtml?CMP=ILC-SearchStories,

? allowing big oil to reap unprecedented windfall profits without requiring reinvestment either in oil production capacity or funding of alternative energy research (http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/28/news/economy/windfall_tax/), and

? in the ultimate irony, throwing hundreds of billions at the wealthiest among us (http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm), without requiring the sacrifice of so much as one thin dime of this tax windfall to help veterans and their families.

Yes, the neo-con Republicans were FINALLY embarrassed into passing some increases in veterans? healthcare benefits, (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/29/politics/main712817.shtml). But it?s still not enough! Instead of insisting that ALL of us share the sacrifice, the burden of adequate funding is left to non-governmental organizations, which must continue to fight with the government and ask for contributions in order to raise money.

The same neo-con ?warriors? who send OTHER families? children to war have shown their true priorities. Wildly irresponsible tax breaks for the wealthy come before adequate funding for veterans? benefits. The Republican Party, the so-called party of national security, wraps itself in the flag, while it uses and betrays American soldiers and their families. Now that?s a neo-con job!

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

37 total posts (Page 1 of 4)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

So,

by TonytheTiger In reply to Bush, Cheney and the Neo- ...

I have my own set of beefs with conservatives (mostly related the fact that most of them don't really seem as "conservative" as they should be), but just exactly what is it you think these people owe you personally, and what are your justifications for thinking that way?

Collapse -

Neo-Con Obligations

by Peter Warren In reply to So,

I suppose you could say the neo-con Republicans owe me nothing. On the other hand, these flag-wavers claim to be leaders -- ?patriots? who represent ?true? Americans and insist everything they do is in America?s long-term interest. If they claim the mantle of leadership, they must bear the responsibility of leadership. This is my justification for demanding the following of neo-con Republicans: honesty, intelligence, an open-minded willingness to learn from their colossal mistakes, and accountability for their massive failure of leadership.

But forget about me. What do neo-con Republicans owe to young Americans, those who are going to fight, die and pay for an endless series of wars? Those to whom the tab for the Bush administration?s borrowing binge will fall? Surely those who have already paid with their blood are due more than the begrudged crumbs tossed from the Republican trough of pork and tax cuts. Surely those who will take their place in the future are due more than the short-sighted blundering, pointless bluster and empty posturing of the Bush/Cheney administration.

The great neo-con job is a fantasy that pretends we won?t have to pay for our excesses. Like the skyrocketing debt incurred to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, neo-con Republican policies are out of control. And unless we change those policies, they will come back in spades to haunt all of our lives, as well as the lives of our children and grandchildren.

Collapse -

by TonytheTiger In reply to Neo-Con Obligations

"insist everything they do is in America?s long-term interest."

As have all holders of that office.

"endless series of wars?"

Your crystal ball has a crack in it.

"Like the skyrocketing debt incurred to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy"

Oh? So who should get the tax cuts? What would they use it for?

Should someone get a tax cut who is going to spend it on, say, a new pair of shoes for everyone in the family?

Or would it be better to give it to someone who would, say, expand their plant hiring 200 more people in the process?

45,000 new construction jobs last month. Gee, what are they building? And who are they building it for?

Collapse -

A defense of the neo-con job?

by Peter Warren In reply to

Is this a defense of the neo-con job? You say you have your own beefs with this administration, so I?m wondering why you want to defend it. I invite you to visit the web sites I referred to in my first post and if you want, defend the ill-conceived and dreadfully executed adventure in Iraq. In the meantime, here are my thoughts on your comments.


--"insist everything they do is in America?s long-term interest."
As have all holders of that office.?

And I would question that assertion regardless of who was in office, but right now it?s the neo-con Republicans.

--"endless series of wars?"
Your crystal ball has a crack in it.?

I think not. As we have set ourselves up as THE SUPER POWER, I?m afraid we?re in the crapper on this. We?re already spoiling for a war with Iran. And though this war may become a necessary evil, it will hardly be a practical alternative after the neo-con fiasco in Iraq.

-- "Like the skyrocketing debt incurred to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy"
Oh? So who should get the tax cuts? What would they use it for? ?

Call me old fashioned. When a country goes to war and asks its children to sacrifice life and limb, I don?t expect, and I don?t condone, the luxury of tax cuts -- especially when real defense needs go unmet. If it?s war the Republicans think we need, than how about having the courage to pay for it now, not by taxing future generations.

--Should someone get a tax cut who is going to spend it on, say, a new pair of shoes for everyone in the family??

What have you got against shoes for the family? (Just kidding.)


--Or would it be better to give it to someone who would, say, expand their plant hiring 200 more people in the process? ?

The following is excerpted from ?Bush?s Tax and Budget Policies Fail to Promote Economic Growth? by John Irons and Lee Price. You can read the entire report at: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1425171.

?According to proponents of the tax cuts, cutting corporate income taxes and personal income tax rates was supposed to ?improve the investment incentives of America?s businesses.? Small business owners, especially, were supposed to respond to lower individual tax rates by investing more and hiring new workers. In addition, more than $200 billion of cuts were specifically tied to business investment, reducing the cost as a way to encourage purchases of equipment, software, structures and machinery.
The cuts were an utter failure. Business investment has always recovered after a recession, but this was the most sluggish recovery in memory. As a result, business investment has grown 65% more slowly since the peak of the business cycle five years ago than the average for similar periods after nine cycle peaks in the last 60 years. (A business cycle includes a recession and the expansion until the next recession. The peak of a business cycle occurs just before a recession.)
In the recession and recovery of 1990-1994, instead of cutting taxes, Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton signed tax increases into law. Yet businesses? investment grew much faster during that recovery than it has during the last four years.
The Bush tax cuts have been a waste precisely because they were targeted at business owners and the wealthiest Americans, rather than the average consumer whose increased demand and consumption would have made it sensible for businesses to invest.?
See also http://www.cbpp.org/2-6-06tax.htm and http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20051026.

--45,000 new construction jobs last month. Gee, what are they building? And who are they building it for??
I?m not sure how this is relevant. The soundness of the US economy is being undermined by the reckless economic policies of the neo-con artists. Construction jobs are great. But the big picture is dark. If a corporation was **** bent on borrowing money to pay dividends to a few preferred share holders, and it had no plan for repayment other than ?trust us,? and no workable incentive for reinvesting those dividends, would you invest your money in that company?

Collapse -

by TonytheTiger In reply to A defense of the neo-con ...

"You say you have your own beefs with this administration, so I?m wondering why you want to defend it."

I defend the office no matter who is in it. We hired them to do a job, so let them do it. We'd be idiots as managers if we micromanaged our employees like that.

I learned something in Driver's Ed that applies to life in general. The instructer taught that the hands naturally follow the eyes, so the first thing to do when you get in a skid is "Look where you want to go. If you look at the tree, you will almost certainly hit the tree."

Life is like that. If you constantly look at the bad, that's what you're going to get.

Rather than belly-ache about what someone else has and you don't, go about go about getting what you want. If you claim you "can't", then that's most likely a reflection on you and not any particular administration's policies.

"would you invest your money in that company?"

Is that relavent? I mean, what percentage of people in this country actually "invest" in any company?

Collapse -

Can This Be True?

by Peter Warren In reply to

-- ?I defend the office no matter who is in it. We hired them to do a job, so let them do it. We'd be idiots as managers if we micromanaged our employees like that.? ?

So, if you were in Germany in 1939, and by some crazy twist of fate you had the power to remove the Nazi Party from power, you?d say this?

At what point do we, as managers, have a responsibility to assess the performance of our employees? The current neo-con Republican administration has repeatedly failed on a massive scale. How much failure should we accept?

I agree with your driving instructor, but not with your conclusion. We certainly are in a national skid. We need to look at where we want to go. I don?t want to hit the tree staring us in the face. Whether or not we look at the evils of the current administration, they will continue to harm us unless we stop them.

-- ?Rather than belly-ache about what someone else has and you don't, go about go about getting what you want. If you claim you "can't", then that's most likely a reflection on you and not any particular administration's policies.? --

It?s not about me. It?s not about what I have or don?t have. It?s not about what I want or don?t? want. It?s not about what I can or can?t do. It?s about us. It?s about how a neo-con Republican administration, which apparently doesn?t know its *** from its elbow, is screwing all of us. It?s about their reckless stupidity and how it?s helping to destroy the values and the freedoms and the economy that once made America a special place. For all of us, there comes a time when we need to look beyond ourselves and our own narrow desires. That time has arrived.

Collapse -

hindsight

by TonytheTiger In reply to Can This Be True?

"So, if you were in Germany in 1939, and by some crazy twist of fate you had the power to remove the Nazi Party from power, you?d say this?"

Invalid! I know the outcome of the Nazi rise to power.

"It?s not about me."

Of course it is.

I like most of what I see that the Bush administration is doing, andyou don't. You liked most of what the Clinton administration was doing, and I didn't. On November 4, 2008, we get to do it all again.

Collapse -

You Don?t Need a Weatherman . . . . .

by Peter Warren In reply to

-- Invalid! I know the outcome of the Nazi rise to power.? ?


If you were in Germany in 1939, and still capable of thinking, you wouldn?t need to know the outcome to know the Nazis needed to be removed from power. Their record to date, their insane racial ideology, their crimes against the innocent, and their fanciful dreams of world domination would have been more than enough for me.

Like most Americans who vote, you seem to be on a four year political cycle. I think you should start looking more closely at what?s really going on.

Collapse -

Looking at what's going on.

by TonytheTiger In reply to You Don?t Need a Weatherm ...

Let's see...

My family and friends are in good health and their lives are going along relatively smoothly. In and around my community the economy is improving, wages are up, unemployment is down, and crime is down. The weather's not too bad, and all my favorite sports teams are winning.

Did I miss anything important?

Collapse -

Yes, You Missed This

by Peter Warren In reply to

The year's at the spring,
And day's at the morn;
Morning's at seven;
The hill-side's dew-pearled;
The lark's on the wing;
The snail's on the thorn;
God's in his Heaven -
All's right with the world!

-- Robert Browning

Back to Community Forum
37 total posts (Page 1 of 4)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums