Deegan said:
Seems as if you need to study the tax cuts a bit closer sir, you'll find that the government brought in more funds by the tax cut, then by raising the taxes would have. If you let the people have that money, they will spend it, and it all comes back tri fold. It's a simple formula that Dems can't seem to grasp, but the facts a right there in the last fiscal report.
Ahh the trickle down theory. Yes, combined with a little bit of a post hoc fallacy and you have some talking points that can actually make sense to the uneducated, even if they aren't acurate.
There is no direct theory that can isolate the cause of an increase in taxation revenue to a decrease in taxation rates. Pundits love to simplify statistics and theories they don't even understand to fake a valid point.
I have studied economics and taxation in considerable depth, but thanks for the suggestion, Sir.
Deegan said:
As for this tired argument about sending the troops in without proper equipment, it's nonsense. These IED's rip through even the strongest steel, there is no metal that can take the brunt of some of these blasts. We also did not expect the number of IED's we would encounter, but once we saw the problem, companies here were working night and day to get them that extra protection for the Humvee's.
As for the IEDs, you are breaking out another GOP favorite logical fallacy: The Insignificant Causal Fallacy. Just because IEDs can in certain cases rip through the strongest steel, that doesn't make it OK to force troops to use non-armoured Humvees. If that was the case, then why did the administration make a considerable effort to change the situation once it finally broke in the "liberal media"? Of more importantly:
WHY DID IT TAKE MEDIA EXPOSER IN THE FIRST F**KING PLACE!
Maybe they should have gotten a clue about a bottomless well of IEDs in the future when they let the insurgents walk off with that big cache of explosives in 2003 (RDX wasn't it?).
Deegan said:
The Guard in LA, had 76% of their force, Alabama 67%, Mississippi 70%, how is that robbed of forces? This is more nonsense, where are you getting this crap son? The problem was a govenor that would not allow the troops in to her state, not the lack of Guard. In fact, we even sent in the 82nd Airbourne, to protect, and restore order, they had just returned from Iraq.
This one I love. The press let it float right by. They quote moderately depleted troop levels, and neglict to mention the equipment that was seriously depleted. You Sir are the one that is buying the crap. The troop levels were also depleted, requiring out of state people to come in, when locals (who are more familar with the area) should have been there in stronger numbers.
If you think that Iraq war didn't reduce the Guard's ability to react, then that is your problem. But it is the truth and many in the Guard have admitted it.
Yes the state government has some responbility as well, but don't try to pin the worst appointment (Brownie) and most pointless re-org (FEMA under DHS) EVER, as the fault of the govenor or mayor.
The military is streched to the limit. Stop loss policies, tour extension, removing or ignoring the NG foreign deployment guidelines, etc. Why wasn't this expected? Or right, it was, just ignored by Bush.