Like I've pointed out repeatedly before, cutting tax rates does not make tax revenues go up, it makes tax revenues go down. What does go up is the realization of capitals gains taxes, but that's only in the short term and is completely meaningless in the long term.The deficit shrank in 2007 from what it appears, but perhaps because of the housing bubble? (it will probably enlarge now). However, I agree on the spending habits. The Republicans could likely have kept the deficit a lot smaller if they hadn't gone on such a wild spending spree. A temporarily increased deficit, to cut taxes, I think is okay, if government is truly reigning in spending at the same time, but when they openly go and spend so much money, that is wrong.
A true Republican, even if they cut taxes and tax revenues start going up highly, still should have the discipline to reign in spending as much as possible.
Furthermore, for all the insane tax cutting from the Bush terms, you'd think we would have the highest growth rate and job creation rate ever. On the contrary, we've had lower growth in GDP, lower growth in the markets and lower private sector job creation than most any other President in the last few decades.
My point was a statement of fact (just as yours was), not an argument of reason. But to answer your question, here's a reason: "protecting" America can make the globe more prone to terrorism, if that protection involves unjustified invasions of other countries that live on the same globe.How does protecting America make the rest of the globe more prone to terrorist attacks?
I guess it's okay to have the United Nations so long as it only infringes on other countries' sovereignties.It also did not demand the same from countries such as China and India, which are huge releasers of carbon. Kyoto called for some severe carbon constraints on American industry and would have also made America answerable to the United Nations, infringing on our national sovereignty.
I honestly can't fathom the level of ignorance required for this whole pre-9/11 mindset business. Anyone that talks of a pre-9/11 mindset is essentially admitting to being nothing more than a Neanderthal with a really good tailor and hairdresser. Did these morons in the WH really think we were protected by oceans?!! Really, you ought to be able to impeach them for just saying something like that.Well the thing is, that was before 9/11 occurred. Things changed.
That has to be a joke! Really, what Nixon did to the reputation of the WH was probably lame compared to the destruction caused by Bush.And I think he did bring back some integrity to the White House.
So what? Bush also spent more on stem cell research than any previous president. And people have been talking about preventing disease since the Ancients.I wouldn't say so necessarily. It would mean he has tried more than other Presidents to aid in developing new forms energy. Politicians have been talking about dependence on foreign oil and so forth all the way back to Jimmy Carter.
This doesn't say anything about "trying" more than other Presidents. There just wasn't the technology before. Now there is.
It is a difficult issue, no doubt.I really don't know where to stand on the issue of illegals. On the one hand, they are illegal, and I don't think they should get things like education, healthcare, etc...off the back of the taxpayer who struggles to afford these things; on the other hand, I think they do lower prices for things like food and so forth by providing cheaper labor (however certain companies have been found to be abusing them as well, which isn't good).
Also, it's not like we can just round up these millions of illegals and ship them out of the country.
So I have mixed feelings about the issue.
Get your facts right. The average Indian emits less than a tenth of the CO2 that the average American emits. And a decade ago, that ratio was close to a thirtieth. India's per capita emission rate is currently even below the global average.It also did not apply to China and India, two enormous CO2 emitters.
The overturn said nothing about the legality of the wiretaps. It only ruled that the ACLU specifically did not have the legal standing to sue.The ACLU, in order to challenge the whole thing, had to go and get a judge named Anna Diggs Taylor, a Carter appointee and very Leftist judge, to rule against it, and her ruling was then overturned by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Absolutely not true. If it were, Congress wouldn't have had to pass a new law (S.1927) to make the wiretapping program legal. Bush's argument all along has been that his Executive powers during wartime supercede any requirements to follow the FISA law.It isn't "warrantless wiretapping" from my understanding. It is a foreign surveillance program that intercepts international signals. It isn't as if the government is illegally wiretapping its own citizens. The President went through all the proper means to enact such a program, it was challenged by the ACLU, and held up by the court system.
You are wrong, and the Supreme Court said so June 29, 2006.I would say waterboarding is legal when applied to terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay; I do not believe that terrorists are subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention.
The question is not about whether it should matter or not. The question is about whether it is legal or not. You brought up the legality issue, not I.*What should it matter when dealing with terrorists?
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court called BS on this one too, on three different occasions, I think (most recently in Boumedine v. Bush, a couple months ago).These are captured terrorists, not ordinary U.S. citizens. They are not subject to the same rights as American citizens.
* Reminds me of an interesting anecdote recounted in Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror. You might find it interesting too.
Clarke said:'Extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ***.'