WHO DO YOU LIKE for Pres ... ???

[Lawman]

This book ^^^^

I think he ment the book I was pulling from.

Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson USAF Ret. wrote the book in question. He was a military advisor under the Clinton Administration. The book is intitled Dereliction of Duty And is one of 3 books now published by LtCol Patterson.

 

[Herc_Dude]

I think he ment the book I was pulling from. Im still looking for it, will edit this post with the info later.

My bad ... sorry bro aperbag_

 

[Flash]

I think he ment the book I was pulling from.

Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson USAF Ret. wrote the book in question. He was a military advisor under the Clinton Administration. The book is intitled Dereliction of Duty And is one of 3 books now published by LtCol Patterson.

I read a little bit of the book, he seemed to have a bit of an axe to grind. And he still does with "Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers and Jeopardize our Security"

P.S. Why do Air Force guys usually have 'cool' callsigns? They ain't that cool.......

 

[Flash]

One of the more glarring things to me was that members of the military attached to the white house were not allowed to wear their uniforms and instead dictated to wear suit and tie at all times in the white house. Says a lot about the character of the man in charge at the time that his ego would be so easily bruised by seeing men and women in a uniform he ran away and hid from.

I had not heard about that rule, but there are several places aound DC that military personnel are required to wear civilian clothes in their everyday work. Among them are Congressional liasons, the State Department and other non-DOD agencies. The reason being is that while they are 'working for' that particular agency and have to play by their rules, and it is a basic courtesy to show that we are not trying to come in and 'take over'.

Whenever there is an important meeting, presentation or testimony the military will wear their uniforms, ususally the dressy ones like SDB's. One of the things I have learned while working with other agencies in this area......

I will caveat this by saying that I do not know all the rules for the White House, especially what they were for the Clinton administration. There are many military types who do work there though, from stewards to the guys who carry the 'football', and I do know for certain that some have been required wear civilian clothes well before Clinton's time in the White House.

 

[snake020]

One of the more glarring things to me was that members of the military attached to the white house were not allowed to wear their uniforms and instead dictated to wear suit and tie at all times in the white house.

Gen Colin Powell in the Reagan Administration:

 

[greysword]

In all fairness, I haven't fully reviewed her voting record either, but from what I know of it...this, she is not.

I decided to take your advice and look up Hilary's voting record. I used the website VoteSmart.org, and if this is not a reputable website, please let me know.

I compared Clinton to Colorado's conservative Senator, Wayne Allard. He is pretty far into the right's camp, so I thought he might be a good choice.

It was interesting to match the two. You are right, Hilary voted for more spending provisions, including the emergency funding bills. She didn't vote for the tax cuts or to make them permanent.

One other note, Hilary voted for VA monies, where Allard did not.

Hilary:
http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=WNY99268


Wayne Allard
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=H0632103

I consider myself a moderate and slightly right due to the need for fiscal restraint, keeping most decisions at the local and State level, gun control, military, and other issues. Fiscally, I don't mind paying taxes as long as the money is spent in a responsible way to provide services, in which I have some benefit. To me, cutting taxes is not a positive thing if we have lots of bills and deficit spending. I would rather have a stable balanced budget that limits spending, reduces the deficit, and then provides a tax refund fo rmonies not spent (sort of like USAA does).

Anyway, I apologize for getting onto a tangent. Based on Hilary's record, she seems to have voted yes on all of the requested emergency funding for the war, voted for veterans, as well as funding for other social programs.

 

[robav8r]

No matter what policies are put in place, sometimes sh!t happens - sometimes it happens two or three times. That said, I find the Wen Ho Lee issue emblematic of a system-wide inadequacy in the vetting of personnel given high level clearances.

Brett

Brett - concur. One of the things Richardson did while he was there, was to endorse a policy whereby everyone had the same kind of security badge and credentials. They didn't want the lower, lesser cleared folks feeling inferior to the high-level scientist who had the highest clearances and access to the sensitive projects being conducted. Another example of "let's treat everyone the same, we don't want to segregate folks simply because of clearance, access or need to know."

 

[Goober]

I think he ment the book I was pulling from.

Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson USAF Ret. wrote the book in question. He was a military advisor under the Clinton Administration. The book is intitled Dereliction of Duty And is one of 3 books now published by LtCol Patterson.

Great book, and verified by someone I personally know "inside" who was a daily witness to it all.

 

[snake020]

Great book, and verified by someone I personally know "inside" who was a daily witness to it all.

Just bought that book a week ago.

 

[White_Male]

Fiscally, I don't mind paying taxes as long as the money is spent in a responsible way to provide services, in which I have some benefit. To me, cutting taxes is not a positive thing if we have lots of bills and deficit spending. I would rather have a stable balanced budget that limits spending, reduces the deficit, and then provides a tax refund fo rmonies not spent (sort of like USAA does).

I basically agree with you. I think I have a simple explanation for why conservatives are generally for cutting taxes though. If you cut taxes, you basically infuse economy with money that it didn't have before. People spend that extra money. Businesses make more money, and then hire more people to meet the demand. More people are making more money and more people are spending more money. So what used to take a %15 tax to make $100 now only takes a %10 tax.

I think that is the basic idea there.

 

[scoober78]

I basically agree with you. I think I have a simple explanation for why conservatives are generally for cutting taxes though. If you cut taxes, you basically infuse economy with money that it didn't have before. People spend that extra money. Businesses make more money, and then hire more people to meet the demand. More people are making more money and more people are spending more money. So what used to take a %15 tax to make can now be made or surpassed by a %10 tax.

Really...I would love to hear any ideas you may have on the sociological effects of widely disparate American wealth with special attention payed to the effects of that inequality on spending and saving habits. Also, do you see a connection between conservative tax reform and the record low savings rate of the last two decades? Deep stuff man...did you do your own research?

<Hugs>

 

[HercDriver]

I basically agree with you. I think I have a simple explanation for why conservatives are generally for cutting taxes though. If you cut taxes, you basically infuse economy with money that it didn't have before. People spend that extra money. Businesses make more money, and then hire more people to meet the demand. More people are making more money and more people are spending more money. So what used to take a %15 tax to make $100 now only takes a %10 tax.

I think that is the basic idea there.

Next you'll tell me that cutting taxes will actually increase tax revenue...where is that money coming from that will make up for the tax cuts?

 

[greysword]

I basically agree with you. I think I have a simple explanation for why conservatives are generally for cutting taxes though. If you cut taxes, you basically infuse economy with money that it didn't have before. People spend that extra money. Businesses make more money, and then hire more people to meet the demand. More people are making more money and more people are spending more money. So what used to take a %15 tax to make $100 now only takes a %10 tax.

I think that is the basic idea there.

Exactly; Economics 101. Two ways to restart the economy: cut taxes and let the private sector cash circulate or infuse the economy with government funds directly through subsidies. The former is much better than the latter in the long run, but won't work in a deep depression (like the 1920s and '30s.

Really...I would love to hear any ideas you may have on the sociological effects of widely disparate American wealth with special attention payed to the effects of that inequality on spending and saving habits. Also, do you see a connection between conservative tax reform and the record low savings rate of the last two decades? Deep stuff man...did you do your own research?

<Hugs>

Now, sir for you...:icon_tong

The concept of wealth and saving habits of the different class structures is a little off topic from discussing why the Bush Administration cut taxes in an effort to pull the country out of the recession. The economic downturn of the new millennium was not very severe because most Americans spent their way out of it.

Consumer spending spurred by the low mortgage rates and refinancing options, was able to reignite the economy and keep it from dropping too low. Although there were significant layoffs in 2000-2002, job growth in the service industry kept unemployment from climbing too high.

As for a correlation between decreased taxes and savings rates, I think lower savings were brought on due to the recession, no need to save to get a mortgage (with 100% financing becoming the norm), and the "want it now" culture, which caused people to spend more than save.

Oh, and interest rates were lowered in conjunction with decreased taxes in an effort to entice people to spend more than save using credit an mortgages. Now that we are out of the recession, the Federal Reserve Board is using interest rates to control inflation.

Yes sir, I'm yanking your chain...in a respectful way, of course :tongue2_1

 

[Brett327]

Next you'll tell me that cutting taxes will actually increase tax revenue...where is that money coming from that will make up for the tax cuts?

Assuming that spending is held constant (not the case since the Bush tax cuts), it does result in increased revenue - a historical fact during the Reagan tax cuts. He already explained it in his post. Bottom line, lower taxes can increase rate of economic growth which means a larger base from which to collect revenue. It's basic Econ 101. There's a theoretical sweet spot (on the so-called Laffer curve) where maximum revenue meets minimum tax rate.

Edit: What GS said above. WRT savings rates, those have historically been low for Americans, so it's no as though current policy is responsible for where it is, nor should it necessarily be concerned with changing it. There was an interesting article in The Economist a couple years ago that postulated that Americans place disproportionate amounts of their capital into their homes and real estate compared to other nations, so a direct comparison may not be the most accurate reflection of American saving habits, as some of their "savings" are actually invested in their homes in lieu of traditional investment instruments.

Brett

 

[Intruder Driver]

As a business owner, these last two posts are very accurate. Lower taxes spur production and revenue significantly.