Is the call for Iraq pull out uniting Americans?

[peepnklown]

Are Americans finally coming together as one voice in Iraq?

I can only hope, but I would like to see them also unite to remove the Bush administration.

 

[JoshuaW]

Iraq can be fixed too. The troops don't think it's a lost cause. They're the only opinions that matter.

The troops are 19 year old kids with heavy weapons. While they are heroes for enduring the hell we have placed them in, their opinions are far from the only ones that matter.

We triggered a firestorm in Iraq...threw a match into a room full of gasoline. It was obvious to almost everyone that this would happen. Perhaps the administration sought this chaos for its own reasons, because it was inevitable.

 

[Nathan Poe]

SS can be fixed but Democrats won't do anything to cooperate with Bush.

We don't know that yet -- it may not be the same as how the Republican Congress obstrcuted Clinton at every turn.

Iraq can be fixed too.

How?

The troops don't think it's a lost cause.

Source please?

They're the only opinions that matter.

How about the American people's opinion? They matter too.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

The War in Iraq is uniting Americans, but I'd like to point out that it isn't doing as well at uniting Americans as the gay marriage bans are.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The troops are over there. They see more than just about anyone else. I would listen to them before I'd listen to a political commentator making six figures or people who link articles that show only one side of the war.

And what are the troops saying when their superiors aren't standing over them?

 

[dlamberth]

I guess you can't make an analogy between one mismanged program (SS) & another supposedly mismanged program (Iraq).

For a supposedly miss-mangled program, SS has been a remarkable success and Bush wanted to mess it up just like he did Iraq and everything else he touched.

.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

For a supposedly miss-mangled program, SS has been a remarkable success and Bush wanted to mess it up just like he did Iraq and everything else he touched.

Are you kidding me!!! We spend more annually on SS then we do on our military, even with the war in Iraq!!! And look at how bad SS is messed up.

Also, Social Security is supposed to be for the American people, right? To help those in retirement? Yeah, but less than half of the SS budget goes to that!

And what are the troops saying when their superiors aren't standing over them?

The same, unless you have strong evidence to the contrary...

 

[Nathan Poe]

Are you kidding me!!! We spend more annually on SS then we do on our military, even with the war in Iraq!!! And look at how bad SS is messed up.

Source?

 

[JoshuaW]

And look at how bad SS is messed up.

...

Social Security is an American success story. Its overhead costs represent just 1% of annual payments.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050103/scheer1221

You infer that we all "know" that it is "messed up". Please explain.

 

[dlamberth]

Are you kidding me!!! We spend more annually on SS then we do on our military, even with the war in Iraq!!! And look at how bad SS is messed up.

I don't know where you get the idea that SS is messed up, because it's not.

SS is insurance. It is not payed for by our tax dollars like our military is. Money is taken out of each paycheck that goes to our future. SS is one of the most successful programs going. It is not messed up. But, let Bush mess with it and it will be.

The main problem with SS is that there is such a large pot of money there that our lawmakers can't keep their hands off of it.


.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Source?

http://www.federalbudget.com/
http://www.fightfolly.com/folly_of_budget_06.htm

"Social Security was designed to be a self-financing program, in which current workers pay taxes to support benefits received by current retirees. In the early years of the program, there were more than 16 workers for every beneficiary, which allowed the program to be financed with a very low payroll tax rate. Currently, there are 3.3 workers for every beneficiary, and a much higher tax rate."

I would much rather be handling my own retirement rather than conributing into a fund which is then eaten up, then distributed amongst the retired.

I don't know where you get the idea that SS is messed up, because it's not.

SS is insurance. It is not payed for by our tax dollars like our military is. Money is taken out of each paycheck that goes to our future. SS is one of the most successful programs going. It is not messed up. But, let Bush mess with it and it will be.

The main problem with SS is that there is such a large pot of money there that our lawmakers can't keep their hands off of it.

That sure is the biggest problem.

But SS is paid by tax dollars, if you don't think so then check again - it's the biggest part of our budget (when you include administrative costs). Not paid for by taxes? No, you know that isn't right. We get taxed and that money goes into a pool, which the politicians then take from and use some for squandering votes, then it gets distributed to the elerly. Bush has proposed that we pay for our own retirement - I don't think that's very ridicilous.

 

[JoshuaW]

And what do you propose for the people who can't afford to finance their own retirement? Bear in mind, these people will be in the majority. Would you have them fend for themselves? This is what we had before Social Security, when old people were literally starving.

 

[dlamberth]

I would much rather be handling my own retirement rather than conributing into a fund which is then eaten up, then distributed amongst the retired.

But...that does not mean that SS is all messed up like you made claim to. That's just a scare tactic used by this Administration to confuse people like you into thinking that we have a real problem here when we don't.

As for myself and what is also another thing that is uniting Americans is that we don't want SS messed with. It's working just fine, don't break it, please.

.

 

[dlamberth]

Bush has proposed that we pay for our own retirement .

SS IS paying for our own retirement.

.

 

[USincognito]

It was crystal clear Bush was going to go to war when the Iraq vote was taken.

It was crystal clear to some of us long before any votes were taken actually.

To the OP, I never supported the war in prinicple and watched aghast as brilliant maneuver and heroic sacrifice during March and April gave way to a breakdown in civil order in May and a slow gradual decline to where we find ourselves today. But I think an immediate withdrawl would be madness.

Iraq is like a tooth. It probably just needed a cleaning in 2003, had some cavities by 2004, hello and goodbye root canal in 2005 and 2006 meaning it's going to have to be pulled, and it's going to hurt in 2007. That means staying until we can at least get a stable government so our withdrawl won't be a shoot and scoot down the same highways we came up almost 4 years ago.

 

[The Lone Gunmen]

It was crystal clear to some of us long before any votes were taken actually.

To the OP, I never supported the war in prinicple and watched aghast as brilliant maneuver and heroic sacrifice during March and April gave way to a breakdown in civil order in May and a slow gradual decline to where we find ourselves today. But I think an immediate withdrawl would be madness.

Iraq is like a tooth. It probably just needed a cleaning in 2003, had some cavities by 2004, hello and goodbye root canal in 2005 and 2006 meaning it's going to have to be pulled, and it's going to hurt in 2007. That means staying until we can at least get a stable government so our withdrawl won't be a shoot and scoot down the same highways we came up almost 4 years ago.

That's what an effect of the U.S. military's policy of preparing to fight the last combat action, police action, or whatever.

IIRC, H. Norman Schwarzkopf wrote something about in his book (I highly recommend it by the way), because for GW 1, they had to replace a lot of the jungle equipment with desert eqipment.


After GW 1, the U.S. military focused on a preparing for a short high intensity conflict. You can see that approach worked for March and April.

After this unpleasantness, the military is going to be gearing toward a long drawn out relatively low intensity occupation in primarily an urban and desert environment.

The next war will probably be a lot different.

Repeat ad infinitum.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

Social security is little more than a redistribution of wealth. Those contribute great amounts to it get abysmal returns. Social Security is nothing more than a pathetic form of forced redistribution of wealth - THINK ABOUT IT!!!

Those who aren't well off should be helped, those who have no food should be fed, those who have no clothes should be clothed, those who have no shelter should be sheltered. But can you justify stealing from the successful to give to the unsuccessful? No, there is no justification for it. The PEOPLE should be helping the helpless who are in need, otherwise you are endearing those unfortunate and those who didn't make good decisions to the government, and not to the American people. You instill them with the idea that they have a RIGHT to reap the rewards of what others have sown, and that those who have sown the seeds do not have a right to reap the harvest and do as they will with what they have grown - to give to the needy? Nope.

Social Security is wrong. I do not have a right to reap what I have not sown, and neither does anyone else have a right to reap what they have not sown.

If I were to be given back all of the forced charity that the government took from me in one year, then I would give it all back to charity. What's the difference? Enormous.
1) I am giving to charity, and no one holds that they have a right to reap what I sow.
2) What charity comes from me is given by me, not taken from me.
3) There would be no "administrative costs."
4) There would be no mismanagement of my money


I OPPOSE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!!! No one has a right to reap what they didn't sow, but those who've sown the crop have a right to reap it and use it as they see fit, including to feed those who have sown nothing.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

That's what an effect of the U.S. military's policy of preparing to fight the last combat action, police action, or whatever.

IIRC, H. Norman Schwarzkopf wrote something about in his book (I highly recommend it by the way), because for GW 1, they had to replace a lot of the jungle equipment with desert eqipment.


After GW 1, the U.S. military focused on a preparing for a short high intensity conflict. You can see that approach worked for March and April.

After this unpleasantness, the military is going to be gearing toward a long drawn out relatively low intensity occupation in primarily an urban and desert environment.

The next war will probably be a lot different.

Repeat ad infinitum.

Great point.

 

[JustOneWay]

Social security is little more than a redistribution of wealth. Those contribute great amounts to it get abysmal returns. Social Security is nothing more than a pathetic form of forced redistribution of wealth - THINK ABOUT IT!!!

I thought about it, and I conclude that you are wrong.

Rich and poor alike pay into SS by taking it from their paychecks. Rich and poor alike recieve money back upon retirement (or other circumstances).

Where is this redistribution of wealth you are talking about?

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

That's what an effect of the U.S. military's policy of preparing to fight the last combat action, police action, or whatever.

IIRC, H. Norman Schwarzkopf wrote something about in his book (I highly recommend it by the way), because for GW 1, they had to replace a lot of the jungle equipment with desert eqipment.


After GW 1, the U.S. military focused on a preparing for a short high intensity conflict. You can see that approach worked for March and April.

After this unpleasantness, the military is going to be gearing toward a long drawn out relatively low intensity occupation in primarily an urban and desert environment.

The next war will probably be a lot different.

Repeat ad infinitum.

Great point.