[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
I'm not sure why, but you have incredible difficulty answering direct questions.

I'll ask it again: What would you differently than Bush is doing RIGHT NOW?

I'm not sure why, but you have incredible difficulty understanding the situation in Iraq RIGHT NOW is the product of Bush's decisions.

As far as what I believe should be done differently today, there really are few choices. The US cannot just leave, so we're faced with continued loss of money and lives. remember the Powell comment, it's like Pottery Barn, if you break it you own it...well. here we are, and Bush should "own up" to his poor decisions.

I'm curious. What did Clinton (or Bush I or Reagan or Carter or Ford before them) do to reduce our dependence on petroleum and imported petroleum? I don't recall anything, really, which means you could offer the same generic criticism of every American president for the past 30 years.

oh, is this a thread about other Presidents?
Clinton proposed a energy consumption tax to reduce demand, as well as support for ethanol (both tax credits for production and at POS).
What has Bush done? anything? well... he has given us higher prices for the energy, but guess who is getting the added dollars? the producers.

Actually, the Electric Power Research Institute says that the "cap-and-trade" plan will produce greater estimated overall reductions in mercury concentrations than the plan promoted by environmentalists. Also, the alternative plan would require many power plants to switch from coal to natural gas, meaning an increase in electricity prices and higher costs for home heating, food, and many consumer and industrial products. You know who pays that price the most, Mavdog? That's right -- the poor and the elderly. I find it hard to believe that you would be in favor of environmental regulations at the expense of the poor and elderly.

How heartless of you. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

gee, quoting the trade org that virtually wrote the bill? that's comparable to asking the fox if the henhouse was safe.
The assertions are not facts, the power plants do not need to switch they would need to install "scrubbers" to stop the emissions.

Ironic that you would use the trade orgs assertions about "an increase in electricity prices for home heating" when that is exactly what is happening TODAY!

Failed to include a single species under the Endangered Species Act

Sorry, don't see that as a failure.[/quote]

Mother nature strongly disagrees with you and remember, Mother Nature doesn't like to get messed with. It always comes back to hurt us humans in the end.

Failed to request Congress to continue the tax on polluters to fund the Superfund, shifting the cost to the overall budget (taxpayers)

You don't get basic economics, do you? Taxes are ALWAYS shifted to the taxpayer (consumer). Taxing polluters might be a good idea, but don't be naive enough to think they'll be the ones paying the taxes. [/quote]

no, that is incorrect and ALWAYS not the case if the tax is not levied on all producers, the market will not allow for only some of the producers to raise their prices when other producers don't have the same tax. In this case, the polluters themselves would pay the tax. Those who don't pollute don't pay.

Attempts to exclude the Dof Defense from environmental regs (ever hear of perchlorate?)

I've heard of it. This is just whining on your part. The fact is that the Department of Defense is working jointly with the EPA to make recommendations for the establishment of national standards for acceptable levels of perchlorate groundwater contamination, to determine what military and defense industry sources have contributed to any contamination, and to take appropriate steps to mitigate or clean up any pollution the military or defense industry may have caused.[/quote]

yeah, it's "whining" when the DofD is allowed to NOT conform to the environmental regs like EVERYONE else. There are existing "acceptable levels" of contamination in the regulations, the DofD should adhere to them, rather than be allowed to violate them or to have different "acceptable levels.

[

sure they should, the greatest burden on a lower income family are having unintended kids.

So what? It's not the government's job to keep people from procreating.[/quote]

It IS in the best interests of our country to help the poor, large unintended families are a burden. We clearly disagree about how the state can aid society, you wish that it not work to help the poor and I do.

guess you missed the data on who received the lion's share of the tax breaks. the rich are getting richer, there are more poor Americans then ever before.

I guess you missed the data on who pays the lion's share of the taxes. Say it with me: EVERYONE who paid taxes got a tax break, Mavdog. The purpose of taxes is not to keep the rich from getting richer, nor is it to make the poor richer, despite what you and Howard Dean might think[/quote]

The upper incomes were given more tax reductions than the other economic classes, they also were given relief on capital gains in addition to the tax cuts. They recieved more when they need it less. The higher income houdeholds now have a greater share of the nation's wealth than they did before the tax cut. That increase in wealth is pushing the US into a starker divide in classes, a trend that is not healthy for our society. The tax policies have NOT made the "poor richer" and HAVE made the rich richer. The tax code should NOT be used to accomplish the rich getting richer. period.

first, yes it is opposition to Bush's policies. Look at all the "american" styles prevalent. they love the USA and our culture.
second, many of us Do want to be in the world's community, and understand that non-Americans have opinions that should be evaluated. we don't have an obl;igation to do as they say, but they should not be tuned out.

I disagree with you. I think that there are certainly those that oppose Bush's policies, but many oppose the Western way of life.[/quote]

look around the world. In Asia, American styles dominate. In Europe, American styles dominate. The world loves Americana, they just don't like our current leadership. No, we don't need their consent, but as we live on the same planet, have economic and cultural integrations, we should work with other countries to acheive common goals. Today, we aren't. that is a bad situation, period.