Quote:
Originally posted by Tubalcain
and i'll tell you something else, i never had a problem finding a job during clintons term. as for bush, well.....i cant say the same.
|
Agreed here. This is a good opportunity to point out a difference between republicans and democrats:
Mississippi's governor (Haley Barbour) is a republican. And, in typical republican fashion, he decided that he would save the state some money by laying off over 1000 of the state's public school teachers (of which I am one). Luckily, our district managed to scrape up enough funds to avoid losing any of our teachers, but many districts in the state were not so lucky. Where did the saved money go? Most of it went into the pockets of the university professors and administrators. Republicans have no problem dicking over the poor in order to benefit the wealthy.
Just like our Commander-in-Cheif who went and gave the wealthy in America (Bush and his cronies) a nice tax cut. This money could have been used to help fund this misbegotten war ... but to republicans, politics and big business are one in the same.
Gothic-chick asked the question: "When should we INCREASE military spending? When we're at a time of war and it's too late?" shortly before she proceeded to tactfully request that I "wake the fuck up."
Kerry voted to decrease military spending during the Clinton administration, in the years following the Gulf War when our nation's debt was the worst it has ever been. The Clinton administration not only paid off the debt, but created an economic surplus, which Dubya has not only elminated, but he has also brought us back into the hole that his daddy dug.
Yes, you increase military spending when you are in a time of war, and will not be "too late" when you do so. You sound as if decreasing military spending to help get us out of debt is synonymous with saying "eliminate the military altogether." You decrease the spending when you already have a military that is so over-prepared to go into war that it isn't funny, and when you have a multi-billion dollar national debt. If a short-term war appears, you fight it and increase the spending to make up the losses. If a long-term war appears, you fight it and increase the spending as the war rages on. Decreasing the spending is not going to cause us to lose what we already have.
As for Micheal Moore, I just watched Farenheit 9/11 last night. I agree that this particular documentarian does not present his material without a heap of biases, but the evidence he presents in that film should be startling to ANYONE who watches it (except the Bush administration, who tried to hide this evidence). Even if you don't believe Moore's interpretation of the evidence, you would be hard-pressed to take it on yourself to use this evidence to show that Bush actually had this nation's interest in mind when he took us to war with Iraq.