In November, the shareholders in USA Inc. get to vote

[Abednego]

OK ....

We went to war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein, as a consequense of the first Gulf War, was mandated to prove he had destroyed his WMD. The very same ones he had actually used before as well as any other WMD he was developing.

These WMD were the essense of the UN inspections program that Saddam got away with terminating during the Monica years.

These WMD were the essense of the 19 UN resolutions (was it really that many .... it is just so hard to keep count) to force him to comply.

Why, the last one it seems even authorized the use of force. You do understand the meaning of force don't you?

These WMD were the essense of the US Congress granting approval to President Bush to invade Iraq. The purpose was to protect America. Don't you realize this already or have you just not paid attention.

Everybody and I do mean everybody believed these WMD existed. Some still believe. Some don't anymore. I do, you don't. President Bush does.

The reason this is important is that it would have been irresponsible to allow these WMD - the ones he had used before as well as the ones he was developing - to be supplied in a surrogate manner to terrorists (AL Qaeda for example but not just them) for use against America.

1000 lives is regretable - I have family members who have served in this war, family that continues to serve there, and others that are soon to go. I am so very very very proud of them but mostly thankful for the young men and women who serve so unselfishly in our military and tell them so frequently. I know many.

Terrorism isn't new. Munich was 1972 .... the Akile Lauro (please forgive spelling) was in 1985. There have been numerous embassy bombings and other attacks against the US before 9/11. We are engaged in WWIII. GWB is taking it seriously. I thank God for him and as long as God still blesses this country GWB will win this election and the battle against evil will continue. It is time to finish these bastards off.

President Bush has a vision of establishing freedom and democracy in the Middle East, This is an attempt to fight back against the hate the emerges from there. From the beginning GWB has said it would take a long time. We have only just begun. It will take a long time but we will win. It is regretful that so many don't have the stomach for it. The nicest thing I can say about them is they don't really understand the nature of this battle.

There are freedom loving Muslims and they must be given the opportunity to be free. This is what this war in Iraq - a part of the war on terror - is about. How many died in WWII and was it worth it? The answer is yes.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Let us imagine you had a corporation with annual gross revenues of about $2 trillion. And let's say that in 2000, it had profits of $150 billion. So you bring in a new CEO, and within four years, the profit falls to zero and then the company goes into the red to the tune of over $400 billion per year. You're on the Board of Directors and the CEO's term is up for renewal. Do you vote to keep him in? That's what Bush did to the US government. He took it from surpluses to deep in the red. We are all paying interest on the unprecedented $400 billion per year in deficits (a deficit is just a loan), and our grandchildren will be paying the interest in all likelihood.

[/ QUOTE ]

The irony of this statement is that if the government actually were run in this way, he would be the first guy to complain about it happening. To complete the analagy, if revenues fall like government revenues did during the last recession (please don't ask me to prove this, I've posted links the U.S. Historical Budget Data many times) and we wish to maintain profitibility then where does the "fat get trimmed" from the budget? Well you want to stay in business so the Defense Department budget has to be maintained. You want to trim expenses but maintain revenue so you cut ependitures that don't produce revenue which is quite obviously entitlements. Some may say that you would just raise taxes to produce the same revenue and to a certain extent that may be true. However, those that actually pay more than their fair share of taxes (they receive less from re-distribution of income than those who don't pay taxes) most assuradly will prefer the choice of cutting spending. Which party would support higher taxes to maintain entitlements at their current level? It's the party who has a core constiuency of those that benefit the most from entitlements. Is it any wonder that the lower income groups are so overwhelmingly Democrat and is it so preposterous that Democrats want to solidify and expand this constituency? By default the Democratic party is the party of higher taxes, more expansive entitlement spending because of their core constituency.

[ QUOTE ]
And what if you had been working for America, Inc. all your life, and were vested in its pension plan (i.e. social security)? And you heard that the company is now hemorrhaging money and that the losses are going to be paid for out of your pension? What if you thought you were going to get $1000 a month to retire on, and it is only going to be $500? Or maybe nothing at all? Because of the new CEO whose management turned a profit-making enterprise into an economic loser?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all Social Security has a wider scope than providing pensions. And any self respecting pension program would not be set up as Social Security is setup. The corporate analagy would be that will pay for current retiree benefits from current revenue, revenue will keep growing at a constant pace forever, and that will index the retiree benifits to inflation so that the amount expands forever. This is with the knowledge that in the future revenues will fall at current tax levels or that monster tax increases will be needed in the future from those working to pay the retiree benifits. Furthermore if taxes are increased too much it will kill incentives for economic growth which produces revenue.

[ QUOTE ]
Would you vote to keep him on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again it brings up the choices regarding the re-distribution of income.

[ QUOTE ]
What if the CEO convinced himself that the Mesopotamia Corp. was planning a hostile takeover? What if he had appointed a lot of senior vice-presidents who were either incompetent boobs or had some kind of backroom deal going with crooked brokers, and fed him false information that Mesopotamia Corp. was making a move and had amassed a big war chest for the purpose? And what if, to avoid this imaginary threat, he launched a preemptive hostile takeover of his own, spending at least $200 billion to accomplish it (on top of the more than $400 billion he is already losing every year)? Remember, it was a useless expenditure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the math is wrong and the analagy is ridiculous. A war doesn't compare ot a hostile takeover of another company. The whole idea that we could be spending more on entitlements instead of war that Kerry's selling illustrates exactly what I'm stating above. That money could better spent making more people reliant on government so that a core Democratic party constiuency maintains and expands it's power base. If Social Security is such a great idea, then why does it need an overhaul? If welfare was such a great idea, why did it need a drastic overhaul in 1996? If medicare/medicaid is such a great idea then why does it threaten our solvency? Medicare/Medicaid will have to be overhauled at some point as the growth in expenditures can't possibly continue at this pace without reform.

[ QUOTE ]
It turns out that Mesopotamia Corp. was a creaky old dinosaur with no cash reserves, and couldn't have launched a hostile takeover of the neighborhood mom and pop store. And, moreover, its arena of operations is extremely dangerous, and nearly a thousand America, Inc. workers get killed taking it over. And it turns out that the managers that the CEO put into Mesopotamia Corp. were bunglers. They adopted policies that made the taken-over employees bitter and sullen and uncooperative. Instead of standing on its own, the wholly owned subsidiary of Mesopotamia, Inc., requires continued infusion of capital from America, Inc. It looks increasingly as though Mesopotamia, Inc., will have to be let loose, and that its new managers will opt for interest-free Islamic banking as soon as they can.

Meanwhile, the real threat of a hostile takeover comes from al-Qaeda, Inc.

But because 138,000 employees had to be assigned to Mesopotamia, Inc., there are few left to meet that challenge!

[/ QUOTE ]

I've run out of patience and time responding to this lunatic and the lunatic named Cyrus apparently.

[Abednego]

Neither I nor President Bush would call them stupid grunts but you did. I hope you won't anymore.

[Utah]

Hi Cyrus,

I hope we can agree that macro-economic theory does NOT concern itself at all with corporations! The metaphor given by that college professor (Bush as corporate CEO) is not a matter of macro-economics.

Um....it very much concerns itself with macro economic principles by default. If you think that the government acts, reflects, or is a corporation then you must believe that either a corporation has the macro economic powers of the government or that the government lacks macro economic effecting principles such as taxation, money supply manipulation and money creation, inflationary controls, etc. etc.

Let me ask a simple question - where does the $400B deficit money go?

Also, I think Bush has been simply terrible on spending. Worse, I think he has spent to buy off voting groups. That, combined with potentially the WMD issue is enough not to vote for him. BTW - I still think the Iraq war was a very good idea with lots of benefits and I dont think he lied about them. However, regardless of intentions, one must be held accountable when taking a country based on a false premise.

[Cyrus]

"Neither I nor President Bush would call [the United States Marines] stupid grunts but you did. I hope you won't anymore."

I will too.

Because calling them "stupid grunts" is infinitely better than treating them like "stupid grunts". Which is what President Bush does (and you appplaud him for it).

Get it yet, or must I channel Lenny Bruce?

[The once and future king]

Hey big ears.

Perhaps you could refute the points in the artice instead of just pointing fingers at the poster of said article.

Its called reasoned debate. Give it a try.