Missile Defense test successful

[KipWellsFan]

Assuming you live long enough to get an appointment to see a doc and get the drugs, that might be a good thing.  As for Kyoto, it will be dead in 5 years, when all the nations that thought it was a good thing, see how it totally f***s their economy and productivity.  European countries are so far behind in their 'goals' that it would take a miracle for them to meet their targets for reduction.  Kyoto was a good idea, bad execution.

 

Call me oblivious, but I'm not scared of some rogue missile hitting me or my country. And seeing as the majority of Canadians didn't support involvement in missile defense (anyone actually know what this involvement would include?) they don't seem to be too worried either.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Call me oblivious, but I'm not scared of some rogue missile hitting me or my country.  And seeing as the majority of Canadians didn't support involvement in missile defense (anyone actually know what this involvement would include?) they don't seem to be too worried either.

 

see Canadia's got a missle defense

 

 

[sox4lifeinPA]

While I agree I don't think we'd have consistent views as to what qualifies as playing nursemaid.

 

 

Southsider2k5 doesn't shut up about playing nursemaid with Texsox....

 

 

 

 

and f you in advance for any miss pa jokes

[Mathew]

The only reason the U.S. wanted Canada to join the missle defense was to give the U.S. the much needed credibility that it absolutely doesn't have. Thank God Canada didn't sign and piss away a 30 yr history of trying to rid the world of offensive weapons like this one, the weaponization of space and for example the hard work done on the land mines issue. The U.S. is not creating a defensive weapon here and everyone with half a brain knows it. Good thing the Canadian government has demonstrated having half a brain, though likely not much more then that at times.

[KipWellsFan]

The only reason the U.S. wanted Canada to join the missle defense was to give the U.S. the much needed credibility that it absolutely doesn't have.  Thank God Canada didn't sign and piss away a 30 yr history of trying to rid the world of offensive weapons like this one, the weaponization of space and for example the hard work done on the land mines issue.  The U.S. is not creating a defensive weapon here and everyone with half a brain knows it.  Good thing the Canadian government has demonstrated having half a brain, though likely not much more then that at times.

 

I obviously only have half a brain. Why is this so obviously an offensive action?

[CubKilla]

And I'll always trust the Liberals to take better care of me than Republicans.

 

Trust me when I say that the liberals are taking care of no one but themselves. They may make you think they are, but lies about what conservatives will do to necessary social programs wouldn't be drastically cut by conservatives.

 

The Democratic Party has brain-washed minorities, particularly black America, into thinking that without them, the Republicans would wipe every social program off of the face of the earth.

 

11% of black America that voted in 2004 has come around and knows that that is not the case and they voted Republican. The Democrats are losing the hispanic vote. Without winning back those minority votes already lost, the Democratic Party may one day outlive it's usefulness under it's current political set-up.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Trust me when I say that the liberals are taking care of no one but themselves. They may make you think they are, but lies about what conservatives will do to necessary social programs wouldn't be drastically cut by conservatives.

 

The Democratic Party has brain-washed minorities, particularly black America, into thinking that without them, the Republicans would wipe every social program off of the face of the earth. 

 

11% of black America that voted in 2004 has come around and knows that that is not the case and they voted Republican. The Democrats are losing the hispanic vote. Without winning back those minority votes already lost, the Democratic Party may one day outlive it's usefulness under it's current political set-up.

 

Reagan's budget director David Stockman said the following about the Reagan tax cuts:

 

He described them as a 'Trojan Horse' to reduce the top income tax rate paid by the wealthiest families. Working families saw their tax burden continue to rise, while the rich enjoyed tax breaks on capital gains, personal investments, estates, depreciation and profits. Under Reagan's plan, a family earning $30,000 a year would suffer a slight increase in taxes while a family with an annual income of $200,000 would enjoy a tax break of 10%.

 

The whole point of these tax cuts, which have been touted by Republican administration for years, is as Grover Norquist put it "draining its lifeblood" of government.

 

Tax cuts for the ultra rich and corporations, many of which are being promoted by the Bush II administration have been smashmouthed by Republicans as well.

 

Dr. N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of Dubya's own Council of Economic Advisors called Reagan's supply siders "charlatans and cranks." Irving Kristol, the godfather of the neo-cons, admitted that it is crap economics but good politics. It's a Trojan Horse for getting inside the walls of government to dismantle government. After tax cuts create monumental deficits, government won't have funds to stop the mean and greedy from doing whatever the f*** they want.

 

Let's not forget that the "Death Tax" that Dubya railed about only applied to approx. 2% of Americans.

 

So when its said that some Republicans will wipe social programs out by cutting their funding, look no further than their own admissions, CubKilla.

[KipWellsFan]

Trust me when I say that the liberals are taking care of no one but themselves. They may make you think they are, but lies about what conservatives will do to necessary social programs wouldn't be drastically cut by conservatives.

 

The Democratic Party has brain-washed minorities, particularly black America, into thinking that without them, the Republicans would wipe every social program off of the face of the earth. 

 

11% of black America that voted in 2004 has come around and knows that that is not the case and they voted Republican. The Democrats are losing the hispanic vote. Without winning back those minority votes already lost, the Democratic Party may one day outlive it's usefulness under it's current political set-up.

 

Well for one I know the Democratic Party cares more about the people than the Republican party and 2 the democratic party doesn't run Canada.

[kapkomet]

Well for one I know the Democratic Party cares more about the people than the Republican party and 2 the democratic party doesn't run Canada.

 

And Kip, how do you know the Democratic Party cares more about people?

Edited February 27, 2005 by kapkomet

[KipWellsFan]

And Kip, how do you know the Democratic Party cares more about people?

 

You really just have to look at the poeple running the Republican party. Where do their loyalties lie? Oil and big business. And this has really been the tendancy as I see it since Goldwater and the right wing of the party had taken over in the mid 60s. I'm not saying Democrats are god's gift to the earth but in comparision to say... Wolfowitz, Delay and Cheney they look like saviours. There's really nothing anyone could say that would make me think Democrats are just as bad as Republicans on all levels. They for the most part disgust me.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Reagan's budget director David Stockman said the following about the Reagan tax cuts:

 

He described them as a 'Trojan Horse' to reduce the top income tax rate paid by the wealthiest families. Working families saw their tax burden continue to rise, while the rich enjoyed tax breaks on capital gains, personal investments, estates, depreciation and profits.  Under Reagan's plan, a family earning $30,000 a year would suffer a slight increase in taxes while a family with an annual income of $200,000 would enjoy a tax break of 10%.

 

The whole point of these tax cuts, which have been touted by Republican administration for years, is as Grover Norquist put it "draining its lifeblood" of government.

 

Tax cuts for the ultra rich and corporations, many of which are being promoted by the Bush II administration have been smashmouthed by Republicans as well.

 

Dr. N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of Dubya's own Council of Economic Advisors called Reagan's supply siders "charlatans and cranks."  Irving Kristol, the godfather of the neo-cons, admitted that it is crap economics but good politics.  It's a Trojan Horse for getting inside the walls of government to dismantle government.  After tax cuts create monumental deficits, government won't have funds to stop the mean and greedy from doing whatever the f*** they want.

 

Let's not forget that the "Death Tax" that Dubya railed about only applied to approx. 2% of Americans.

 

So when its said that some Republicans will wipe social programs out by cutting their funding, look no further than their own admissions, CubKilla.

 

 

HORSE-s***

 

Fable 10: In the 1980s the Rich Got Richer and the Poor Got Poorer

 

    During the 1980s the bucket of liberty and economic freedom rose, while the bucket of income equality fell. Upper-tier Americans significantly expanded their share of national wealth, while low-income citizens lost ground. Reagan policies were critical to the shift. [48]

 

During the Reagan years, the total share of national income tilted toward the wealthiest Americans. From 1980 to 1988 the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans increased their share of total income from 16.5 to 18.3 while the poorest fifth saw their share fall from 4.2 to 3.8 percent. [49]

 

Yet it is not true that the gains by the wealthiest Americans came at the expense of low-income Americans. From 1981 to 1989, every income quintile--from the richest to the poorest--gained income according to the Census Bureau economic data (see Figure 11). [50] The reason the wealthiest Americans saw their share of total income rise is that they gained income at a faster pace than did the middle class and the poor. But Reaganomics did create a rising tide that lifted nearly all boats.

 

Table 8 shows that by 1989 there were 5.9 million more Americans whose salaries exceeded $50,000 a year than there were in 1981 (adjusting for inflation). Similarly, there were 2.5 million more Americans earning more than $75,000 a year, an 83 percent increase. And the number of Americans earning less than $10,000 a year fell by 3.4 million workers.

 

Fable 12: The Rich Saw Their Tax Bills Go Down in the 1980s While Everyone Else Paid More

 

Contrary to popular rhetoric, the wealthiest Americans did not pay less taxes; rather, they paid more taxes after the income tax rate cuts in 1981. In constant dollars, the richest 10 percent of Americans paid $177 billion in federal income taxes in 1980 but paid $237 billion in 1988. The remaining 90 percent of households paid $5 billion less in income taxes over this period. [52] They earned more and they paid more. In fact, Federal Reserve Board member Lawrence Lindsey has shown that taxes paid by the wealthy were substantially higher than they would have been if the top tax rate had remained at 70 percent.[53] Figure 14 shows that the share of total income taxes paid by the wealthiest 1 percent of all Americans actually rose from 18 percent in 1981 to 25 percent in 1990. The wealthiest 5 percent of Americans saw their tax share rise from 35 to 44 percent. So the rise in the deficit was clearly not a result of "tax cuts for the rich."

 

The CATO institute kindly explodes your little bulls*** myths about the Reagan years. Go read their study about the facts of what really happened in the 1980's economically.

 

The rest of the facts about the Reagan economic record are at this website. Go look at it and get a clue.

 

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html

Edited February 27, 2005 by NUKE_CLEVELAND