Budget Fun

SacTown Chronic · 02-08-2005, 08:09 AM

No doubt, Scrooge.

Really, MBC, what's wrong with giving to the rich, taking from the poor, and increasing the funding to make war? Compassionate conservatism at it's best, baby.

scaeagles · 02-08-2005, 10:55 AM

I think the budget offered is politically brilliant. Of course I disagree with many of the items in the budget. Even with the cuts being made, 2.57 trillion is simply ridiculous and needs to be cut further. I doubt, however, that will happen.

The reason it is politically brilliant is because it offers republicans in the House and Senate an opportunity to look as if they are offering huge concessions to the dems because of how the budget is positioned. Should the dems not accept these concessions and demand more, they look petty and unwilling to compromise.

The final budget, after going through the House and Senate, will look much different. Bush and his team know this. So they are using the classic strategy of starting a negotiation far, far from what you are willing to accept so that they get perhaps more than they really want.

As far as Iraq becoming another Iran, I sincerely doubt it. Yes, the cleric said what he said, but if you are familiar with the situation in Iran, you know how incredible instable the government there is. One reason we may not have to take action in Iran is that it is looking like it will come from within. That being the case, I do not think that the citizenry of Iran wants this. In fact, polls of the Iraqis asking what type of government they would most prefer, an overwhelming majority chose that resembling the UAE, which is the most western style government in the region.

The cleric is a religious leader. Of course he will demand an islaminc government. I doubt the people of Iraq will go that route. Granted, I am not an expert on the Constitutional process going on there now (as far as how it will be written, ratified, etc).

wendybeth · 02-08-2005, 11:12 AM

Are you seriously suggesting that if the people in Iraq vote for a theocracy, they will not get it? Do you mean to say that we won't let them? Even if it is the 'will of the people'? The Iranian government may be unstable, but they are still very much in control of the country.

The budget is brilliantly laughable. More and more people, including the conservative pundits, are questioning aspects such as the decrease in funding for HS. Compassionate Conservatism, which has always been an oxymoron, is now a comic catchphrase. The Neocons are hanging themselves, and they are too arrogant to even realise it.

scaeagles · 02-08-2005, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Are you seriously suggesting that if the people in Iraq vote for a theocracy, they will not get it?

Not at all. I am saying they won't vote for it. Like I posted earlier, polls in Iraq have shown that the Iraqi people overwhelmingly favor a government like the UAE, which is the most "western" of any government in the region.

wendybeth · 02-08-2005, 12:18 PM

So, that would be why they appear to have elected the Shiite group with ties to Iran? Iraq Vote

scaeagles · 02-08-2005, 12:32 PM

Yes, they did receive the majority of the votes. Please note, however, that many Sunni areas boycotted the vote. Now, before shouting about how that shows the democracy will not work, I point out these two paragraphs from your link.

"In a bid to avoid marginalization, a group of Sunni Arab parties that refused to participate in the election said Saturday they want to take part in the drafting of a permanent constitution — a chief task of the new National Assembly.
The representatives of these political bodies that did not participate in the elections have decided in principle to take part in the writing of the permanent constitution in a suitable way," a statement from the group said. "

What this demonstrates is that the Sunnis realized that boycotting the election was about the WORST thing they could have done, and are now scrambling to become involved in the process of drafting the constitution. They know that being involved in the democracy is the best way to protect their interests.

So, while not a great prediction, prior to a Shiite majority proclaiming their version of Islamic law for Iraq in the constitution, there wold be a civil war. Neither of these will happen, however. These groups will have to learn to work together because of the ratification process.

These reports and predictions of doom are no different than the other predictions that said there was no way we'd meet any of the deadlines we had set for an interim government or an election.

For being less than 2 years after the initial invasion, I'd say things are going remarkably well. Violence still? Most certainly. There will continue to be so. This does nt mean that the process does not continue.

SacTown Chronic · 02-08-2005, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

For being less than 2 years after the initial invasion, I'd say things are going remarkably well.

What did I miss...have we found WMD?

02-08-2005, 08:09 AM	#1
SacTown Chronic the myth of the dream Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,217	No doubt, Scrooge. Really, MBC, what's wrong with giving to the rich, taking from the poor, and increasing the funding to make war? Compassionate conservatism at it's best, baby. __________________ Is it the fingers, or the brain that you're teaching a lesson?
	Submit to Quotes

02-08-2005, 10:55 AM	#2
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I think the budget offered is politically brilliant. Of course I disagree with many of the items in the budget. Even with the cuts being made, 2.57 trillion is simply ridiculous and needs to be cut further. I doubt, however, that will happen. The reason it is politically brilliant is because it offers republicans in the House and Senate an opportunity to look as if they are offering huge concessions to the dems because of how the budget is positioned. Should the dems not accept these concessions and demand more, they look petty and unwilling to compromise. The final budget, after going through the House and Senate, will look much different. Bush and his team know this. So they are using the classic strategy of starting a negotiation far, far from what you are willing to accept so that they get perhaps more than they really want. As far as Iraq becoming another Iran, I sincerely doubt it. Yes, the cleric said what he said, but if you are familiar with the situation in Iran, you know how incredible instable the government there is. One reason we may not have to take action in Iran is that it is looking like it will come from within. That being the case, I do not think that the citizenry of Iran wants this. In fact, polls of the Iraqis asking what type of government they would most prefer, an overwhelming majority chose that resembling the UAE, which is the most western style government in the region. The cleric is a religious leader. Of course he will demand an islaminc government. I doubt the people of Iraq will go that route. Granted, I am not an expert on the Constitutional process going on there now (as far as how it will be written, ratified, etc).
	Submit to Quotes

02-08-2005, 11:12 AM	#3
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	Are you seriously suggesting that if the people in Iraq vote for a theocracy, they will not get it? Do you mean to say that we won't let them? Even if it is the 'will of the people'? The Iranian government may be unstable, but they are still very much in control of the country. The budget is brilliantly laughable. More and more people, including the conservative pundits, are questioning aspects such as the decrease in funding for HS. Compassionate Conservatism, which has always been an oxymoron, is now a comic catchphrase. The Neocons are hanging themselves, and they are too arrogant to even realise it. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

02-08-2005, 12:18 PM	#5
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	So, that would be why they appear to have elected the Shiite group with ties to Iran? Iraq Vote __________________
	Submit to Quotes

02-08-2005, 12:32 PM	#6
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Yes, they did receive the majority of the votes. Please note, however, that many Sunni areas boycotted the vote. Now, before shouting about how that shows the democracy will not work, I point out these two paragraphs from your link. "In a bid to avoid marginalization, a group of Sunni Arab parties that refused to participate in the election said Saturday they want to take part in the drafting of a permanent constitution — a chief task of the new National Assembly. The representatives of these political bodies that did not participate in the elections have decided in principle to take part in the writing of the permanent constitution in a suitable way," a statement from the group said. " What this demonstrates is that the Sunnis realized that boycotting the election was about the WORST thing they could have done, and are now scrambling to become involved in the process of drafting the constitution. They know that being involved in the democracy is the best way to protect their interests. So, while not a great prediction, prior to a Shiite majority proclaiming their version of Islamic law for Iraq in the constitution, there wold be a civil war. Neither of these will happen, however. These groups will have to learn to work together because of the ratification process. These reports and predictions of doom are no different than the other predictions that said there was no way we'd meet any of the deadlines we had set for an interim government or an election. For being less than 2 years after the initial invasion, I'd say things are going remarkably well. Violence still? Most certainly. There will continue to be so. This does nt mean that the process does not continue.
	Submit to Quotes