An Analogy of America’s Path to Socialism

[elvis]

Please explain specifically when and how costs/taxes were raised on the poor and middle class as a result of the war in Iraq. How, SPECIFICALLY, did Bush take money from the poor/middle class and give to the wealthy?

Remember the Bush tax cuts? He borrowed $5 Trillion in order to pay for those cuts. The disproportionate amount of those cuts went to the extremely wealthy. For this, we were supposed to get "tinkle down" jobs. Instead, those jobs went overseas and we ended up bailing out the wealthy.

Wasn't it Slick Willy who signed NAFTA? Always love the blame Bush crowd.

Slick willy signed NAFTA. He also repealed Glass Steagall which caused the bank meltdown from last October. But these idiots continue to call it the republicans' fault.

 

[elvis]

The previous administration was willing to spend money on the American people. The RICH American people. And yes, it was perfectly fine to redistribute the wealth as long as it was distributed upward.
Any attempt to redistribute that wealth back to previous levels gets labeled.....SOCIALISM

Please explain specifically when and how costs/taxes were raised on the poor and middle class as a result of the war in Iraq. How, SPECIFICALLY, did Bush take money from the poor/middle class and give to the wealthy?

Remember the Bush tax cuts? He borrowed $5 Trillion in order to pay for those cuts. The disproportionate amount of those cuts went to the extremely wealthy. For this, we were supposed to get "tinkle down" jobs. Instead, those jobs went overseas and we ended up bailing out the wealthy.

Yeah dipshit. That's why the tax cuts saved me $2500 each year and I only made $70k.

 

[elvis]

Gotta love it how these lefties play the role of Lewinsky in letting Clinton off the hook for NAFTA.

 

[Meister]

Gotta love it how these lefties play the role of Lewinsky in letting Clinton off the hook for NAFTA.

Surprisingly huh?

 

[veritas]

If only that's what actually was happening. Then you would be right. However, the countries we are invading ARE a threat. Now that's a different subject for a different thread but that's where us right wingers stand.
And "helping the American people." is not the same as bailouts or widespread doling.

Iraq was not a threat. Period.

Afghanistan was, I'll give you that.

Just because Iraq didn't represent an imminent attack doesn't mean they were not a threat. They were trying to become one. Also trying to incite the rest of the Arab countries against us. I call that a threat.

Iraq was never a threat to us. Saddam huffed and he puffed so Iran [3 times Iraq's size] wouldn't crush him. So he bluffed. Any good leader would do the same if he didn't have a hand. The Arabs already hated Saddam, he was a meat eating, cigar smoking, alcohol drinking psycho who had a Christian for a right hand man. How many 911 hijackers were from Iraq? Exactly none. It was the Wahabbis like binnie and they came from Saudi Arabia.

Afghanistan was never a threat either, as long as we stayed out. Hell, we were supporting the Taliban because they were playing ball with the Uzbeks and keeping the potential pipeline a salient concept in the minds of the mujahadin. We pumped millions of dollars right to the Taliban mullahs to buy their special brand of PR with their Muslim neighbors to the north.

 

[Ringel05]

Iraq was not a threat. Period.

Afghanistan was, I'll give you that.

Just because Iraq didn't represent an imminent attack doesn't mean they were not a threat. They were trying to become one. Also trying to incite the rest of the Arab countries against us. I call that a threat.

Iraq was never a threat to us. Saddam huffed and he puffed so Iran [3 times Iraq's size] wouldn't crush him. So he bluffed. Any good leader would do the same if he didn't have a hand. The Arabs already hated Saddam, he was a meat eating, cigar smoking, alcohol drinking psycho who had a Christian for a right hand man. How many 911 hijackers were from Iraq? Exactly none. It was the Wahabbis like binnie and they came from Saudi Arabia.

Afghanistan was never a threat either, as long as we stayed out. Hell, we were supporting the Taliban because they were playing ball with the Uzbeks and keeping the potential pipeline a salient concept in the minds of the mujahadin. We pumped millions of dollars right to the Taliban mullahs to buy their special brand of PR with their Muslim neighbors to the north.

The Iraq statement is mostly true (not enough detail). The Afghanistan statement I am unfamiliar with and I do have some knowledge of the area. Where did you get this information? I'd like to check it out (credible government sources only please).

 

[veritas]

here's a timeline of events in the region, I forgot the Turkmen, I'm not as astute on my 'stans as I should be:

Unocal and Bridas Woo the Taliban for Oil Pipeline Project

it is footnoted.

Since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, corporations—often with government support—have competed for control of Central Asia's hydrocarbon resources, in a battle that some analysts have called a new "Great Game" for control over Eurasia.

The international press has turned to this topic with new interest since the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan began on Oct. 7. As the United States augmented its military presence around Afghanistan, Ranjit Devraj, writing for Hong Kong's Asia Times, likened U.S. President George W. Bush's aims in Afghanistan to his father's in Iraq. In both cases, Devraj argues, the motive was oil. Devraj is not alone. George Monbiot—in a column written for London's Guardian but syndicated in Lahore's centrist, mass-circulation Dawn—called the U.S.-led campaign a "colonial adventure." "American imperialism has begun its unilateral war against Afghanistan," echoed Sitaram Yechury for Chennai's mass-circulation The Hindu (Oct. 13).

World Press Review - Oil Central Asia - Afghanistan - Taliban

Great link with article and many more links^

Google: US pays Taliban for pipeline, or words to that effect.

Enron and India and Pakistan and Kazakhstan........stan stan stan......then Russia and Iran have similar competing ideas at the same time. Fascinating stuff. It would take years to wade through all the stuff.

 

[Ringel05]

here's a timeline of events in the region, I forgot the Turkmen, I'm not as astute on my 'stans as I should be:

Unocal and Bridas Woo the Taliban for Oil Pipeline Project

it is footnoted.

Since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, corporations—often with government support—have competed for control of Central Asia's hydrocarbon resources, in a battle that some analysts have called a new "Great Game" for control over Eurasia.

The international press has turned to this topic with new interest since the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan began on Oct. 7. As the United States augmented its military presence around Afghanistan, Ranjit Devraj, writing for Hong Kong's Asia Times, likened U.S. President George W. Bush's aims in Afghanistan to his father's in Iraq. In both cases, Devraj argues, the motive was oil. Devraj is not alone. George Monbiot—in a column written for London's Guardian but syndicated in Lahore's centrist, mass-circulation Dawn—called the U.S.-led campaign a "colonial adventure." "American imperialism has begun its unilateral war against Afghanistan," echoed Sitaram Yechury for Chennai's mass-circulation The Hindu (Oct. 13).

World Press Review - Oil Central Asia - Afghanistan - Taliban

Great link with article and many more links^

Google: US pays Taliban for pipeline, or words to that effect.

Enron and India and Pakistan and Kazakhstan........stan stan stan......then Russia and Iran have similar competing ideas at the same time. Fascinating stuff. It would take years to wade through all the stuff.

Thanks. That actually jogged some memories.....Jeeze, I must be getting senile in my not so old age. But I am familiar the "news sources" (tongue in cheek) you've quoted and understanding the "oil" connection, the speculation that we invaded Afghanistan based on that premise plus colonialism is interesting to say the least. (If I'm reading this wrong let me know). As for paying the Taliban as you have stated, yes, it was the option that was taken at the time, for a variety of reasons.
International relations is such a fickle business.

 

[veritas]

Rethink Afghanistan

The above is a link to a documentary series site on why we should get out of Afghanistan, why we didn't have to go in in the first place, and how it increases, rather than decreases, the threat of terrorism.

Installment 6 is available on youtube and linked/embedded on the HuffPo.

 

[veritas]

Ex-CIA agent: Argument That Afghanistan War Makes Us Safer is "Bulls**t"

HuffPo link:

Robert Greenwald: Ex-CIA agent: Argument That Afghanistan War Makes Us Safer is "Bulls**t"

 

[Ringel05]

Rethink Afghanistan

The above is a link to a documentary series site on why we should get out of Afghanistan, why we didn't have to go in in the first place, and how it increases, rather than decreases, the threat of terrorism.

Installment 6 is available on youtube and linked/embedded on the HuffPo.

I know where your coming from on this one and I know who Robert Greenwald is. What is really funny is 99.9% of what comes from sources like these are usually misrepresentations, partial information or outright lies. The reason is almost always personal/career/political "sour grapes". Knowing that to be true my trust level in these type of stories is guarded at best.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Greenwald specifically fits the norm but since it is the norm you understand my hesitation and most sincere doubt.
Gotta go to bed, gotta get some sleep. Have a good night!

 

[Vast LWC]

Afghanistan was never a threat either, as long as we stayed out. Hell, we were supporting the Taliban because they were playing ball with the Uzbeks and keeping the potential pipeline a salient concept in the minds of the mujahadin. We pumped millions of dollars right to the Taliban mullahs to buy their special brand of PR with their Muslim neighbors to the north.

I'm gonna have to disagree there.

We were the ones who helped make it a threat, but threat it was. The taliban was in fact aiding and harboring Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda proved that they are a direct threat to the United States.

 

[Vast LWC]

Ex-CIA agent: Argument That Afghanistan War Makes Us Safer is "Bulls**t"

HuffPo link:

Robert Greenwald: Ex-CIA agent: Argument That Afghanistan War Makes Us Safer is "Bulls**t"

If Afghanistan had been done correctly, without Iraq siphoning off attention and resources, it would have made us safer.

Unfortunately mistakes were made.

That does not change the fact that it was a righteous war.

And as a New Yorker, I want to see every last member of Al Qaeda dead. Afghanistan was where Al Qaeda was, aided and abetted by the governing Taliban regime.

IMO, Afghanistan was one of the few things Bush did right. And then he pretty much abandoned the effort. Real shame that.

 

[Christopher]

I hate to say this but I am convinced there is no stopping America’s transition to Socialism. I will continue to argue against it and vote against it, but too many today are pushing towards it.

I understand that there is much more to Socialism than what I will discuss here; however, I would like to provide an analogy about how we are moving towards socialism and see how many of you agree with it.

Imagine with me for a moment that the free market system is like a large giant with the capability to accomplish much work and growth. Unrestrained, the giant can also create much destruction. So, America initially placed a long rope to give the giant enough freedom to accomplish work. Gradually, the American government has continued to shorten this rope and this has not necessarily been a bad thing to a degree. The problem is that now the balance of how long to make the rope is lost and the shortening of the rope because “the free market needs more controls” has become similar to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

What I mean by this is that those who ask for more controls are also saying the free market cannot function on its own and needs help, while they continually make it difficult for the free market to accomplish work by shortening the rope. It is almost like a trainer prodding an elephant to reach all the peanuts or hay when the trainer does not allow enough rope/chain to do so. As the elephant becomes more hysterical to reach the food, the trainer will say, “What is wrong with you? Why are you acting this way? There must be something wrong with the elephant and it needs more of my control. I’m going to shorten its chain so I can watch it more closely.” Eventually, the elephant will die and the trainer will ironically say “See, it needed my help all along”.

Now imagine that the giant is actually made up of all those individuals that are in the market, the small businesses, the investors, large corporations, etc. and each of these individuals or entities has a similar rope that keeps shortening. As the balance between being able to accomplish enough to be profitable with the short rope shifts towards unprofitability, each individual will begin to see other options. Some will say “The government is giving out ‘free’ pay with no effort and I cannot seem to make ends meet” and decide to get out of the market. Others will say “I can do better just working for the group at the end of this rope” or “it’s not worth the effort” and will get a job working for the government. What this also does is put more strain on those still making efforts against the short rope and intensifies the problem, since less individuals per capita are working in the free market and more individuals go on government support which have to be paid by increased taxes of the free market. All we have to do is consider the percent of government spending as a percent of GDP to see this.

Eventually, as more and more continue to rely on either “free” support from the government or a paycheck from the government, the “free market” will be “morphed” into one much larger, monopolized, and more destructive giant with little or no restraint: the government.

Newsflash!!!!!!!!

We ARE already a socialist country. We are NOT a democracy or a capitalist country anymore. We ceased being such with the Clinton Administration. Too bad for guys like you and me. The takeover of communism is next.

You know, you are pretty cute, truthmangler........right down to your magical underwear. [yes I read that thread, got to page 30, when I have another lapse of reason maybe I will stick my toe in again].

Christopher, analogies aren't your thang. Look elsewhere for amusement.

Whether or not analogies are “my thang” is not really the discussion, is it? Perhaps you could explain the problems you see with the analogy.

Your assumption that I’m “looking for amusement” by creating this thread is just that, an assumption. I find it useful to provide analogies when attempting to get across a point to others.