Poverty Rate Reaches Highest Levels

[Guest040616]

[quote=LexusLover;1660872]

Originally Posted by bigtex

.... What side would you be on then, BT? Let me guess. Bush bashing.

Hell, that is an easy one! Do you have anything a lil' mo' difficult?

LL knows which side I have been on from the beginning. This must be LL's version of the "bait and switch!" In a previous effort to satisy LL's curiosity, a couple of years ago I performed a little research through the P's historical records. Why, you might ask? Because he was crying the very same "hindsight is 20/20" tears. I responded by linking the actual thread (I believe it was in the latter part of February 2003, give or take a few weeks) in which I specifically stated that there was not enough information available at the time (Feb. 2003) to justify an invasion of Iraq. I went on to say that the weapons inspectors should be given the opportunity to complete their assignment (supposedly they needed another 5-6 months). I went on to conclude that if WMD's were found, then and only then, an invasion should be seriously considered. To take it s step further, I even went as far as praising the Bush Administration for putting the weapons inspectors back in Iraq. Something Clinton had been reluctant to do!

I ask you, does that sound like "Bush bashing?" (Bottom line: it was not what LL wanted to hear at the time. Thus he conveniently refers to it as "Bush bashing!") How quickly he seems to forget the things he would prefer not want to remember! Oh well, it is now a "moot point!" At the end of the day, I was RIGHT and he was WRONG! (And he and I both know it!) Therein lies his problem! He hates to be wrong. Most especially when I am the one right!!!!!

Now, back to the aforementioned LL claims to be a Democrat thingee! Shall we once again debate that subject?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

. . . The fact that the Iraq war was clearly a mistake should be patently obvious right now to anyone with even a modicum of good sense.

Hindsight is always 20/20; that’s not the case in the “real world”. Too many midget minded simpletons would rather just claim “Bush lied” than look the real facts. Though it’s now evident that Iraq had no WMD and that Saddam was not connected to al-Qaeda, in 2003 these stark truths were not so clear. Hell, even Hillary voted for the resolution to go to war!

The WMD Commission and the Butler report both indicate that the intelligence community was correct in suggesting that Saddam was probably seeking to re-arm his military forces with WMD. That conclusion is, in part, based on these known facts: 1) Saddam had had WMD in the past. 2) Saddam had strong incentives to reconstitute his arsenal. 3) He had the money to refinance such a reconstitution. 4) He had trained, competent technicians who could reconstitute his stockpile of WMDs. 5) He had the necessary materiel on hand to proceed with such a reconstitution. 6) He repeatedly stalled and deceived the inspectors—which begged the question—“What is he hiding?”

One need only recall Pearl Harbor, Operation Market Garden, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and Iran in 1979 to see similar gross mistakes in intelligence—and those presidents were all Dimocraps. In this more recent instance, even if there had been no errors in gathering and analyzing the evidence, as per the WMD Commission and the Butler report, the analysts could only conclude that Saddam seemed to be actively pursuing all kinds of WMD and probably had some on hand.

[waverunner234]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

nobody in the world is more productive than the American worker...

As usual you are wrong again, just google it!!!!!


Europe's top performers include some of the region's smaller nations. Leading the way are the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg), which outperform the U.S. based on gross domestic product per hours worked each year. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development, Belgium and the Netherlands, which mandate 30 and 28 annual vacation days, respectively, are almost 2% more productive than the U.S. And Luxembourg, with its highly competitive financial services industry and 32-day yearly vacation allowance, is a staggering 27% more efficient.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I can live with the current conditions in Iraq . . . .

Well, give it a year or two. When we leave, and are no longer an effective check on a majority Shiite government, what are we going to do when the civil war that we've been repressing breaks out. Let's say that the Shiite's start killing the Sunni's and Saudia Arabia is, nor surprisingly pissed off. The Saudi's tell us that we're going to war in Iraq to protect their coreligionists or they're cutting off the oil tap. Then what the fuck are we going to do. (Actually, I know what we're going to do. We're going to go back to war in Iraq if we can't get the Saudi's to back down. And every Western Country that they want to is going to war with us.) This is a very real scenario that can easily happen.

Good thing is oil will go to about $350/bbl. and natural gas will go to $13 - 20/mcf and I can finally retire if it will stay there for a year or two. (At least if I have time to turn my stocks into cash before they go completely to shit.) But it won't be a pretty scenario economically for most.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Well, give it a year or two. When we leave, and are no longer an effective check on a majority Shiite government, ....

Now that is not the "current situation" is it?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

I went on to say that the weapons inspectors should be given the opportunity to complete their assignment (supposedly they needed another 5-6 months). I went on to conclude that if WMD's were found, then and only then, an invasion should be seriously considered. To take it s step further, I even went as far as praising the Bush Administration for putting the weapons inspectors back in Iraq. Something Clinton had been reluctant to do!

I think I know why BT voted for Obaminable now. I have been wondering.


Security Council
4714th Meeting (AM)
"COLIN L. POWELL, Secretary of State of the United States, said today’s meeting concerned a very, very important question, namely, whether the Iraqi leadership had made the decision to comply with Security Council resolutions and to rid itself of all weapons of mass destruction and infrastructure for such weapons. The answer was not about how many inspectors were on the ground, or how much more time and effort should be given, nor whether more benchmarks were needed. The answer depended on whether Iraq had made the choice to actively cooperate in every possible manner in the immediate and complete disarmament of its prohibited weapons.


Today’s briefings had shed more light on that difficult question, he said. He had listened very carefully to hear if Iraq had finally understood that the will of the international community must be obeyed. He was pleased to hear some new progress and activity with respect to substance, but he was sorry that that was all still coming in a grudging manner and that Iraq was still refusing to offer immediate, active and unconditional cooperation -- not late, but immediate, not passive, but active, and not conditional, but unconditional in every respect. Despite some progress, he still found a catalogue of non-cooperation. If Iraq genuinely wanted to disarm, he would not have to worry about setting up the means to look for mobile biological units, and search extensively for the underground facilities he knew existed.


Iraq must not be allowed to shift the burden of proof onto the inspectors nor could the world return to the failed bargain of resolution 1284 (1998), which offered partial relief for partial disclosure. Iraq’s “initiatives” were small steps, which had not come forward willingly and freely, but had been “pulled out” or “pressed out” by the possibility of military force and the political will of the Security Council. Iraq had taken those “initiatives” only grudgingly and primarily under the threat of force. He was pleased that some Al Samoud 2 missiles were being broken up, although that had perhaps paused for the moment. But, the problem was it had not been disclosed how many missiles were there and whether there was the infrastructure to produce more. The intent of the Iraqi regime was to keep from turning over all of its mass destruction weapons, and that had not changed. If Iraq had made that strategic decision to disarm, cooperation would be enthusiastic, and not coerced or pressured.


Turning to Dr. ElBaradei’s briefing, he said that, in 1991, the IAEA was just days away from determining that Iraq did not have a nuclear programme, but it soon found out otherwise. The Agency was now reaching a similar conclusion, but it should be cautious and keep the books open. There was still some dispute about some specific items, including the use for the aluminium tubes, which Iraq had been trying to acquire over the years. A European country where Iraq had shopped for such tubes had provided evidence that the tolerances being sought by Iraq could not be justified for use by unguided rockets. The UNMOVIC had put together a solid piece of research that added up, fact by chilling fact, to a damning record of 12 years of lies, deception and failure to come clean by Iraq.


He said he had looked carefully at the document and found nearly
30 instances where Iraq had refused to provide credible evidence substantiating its claims, and 17 examples where the inspectors actually uncovered evidence contradicting Iraq’s claims, including the planting of false evidence. There was page after page of how Iraq had obstructed the inspectors at nearly every turn over the years. On the bombs capable of carrying chemical and biological warfare agents, the report said that during 1992 Iraq had changed its declaration on the number of bombs it had produced, saying that it had produced a total of 1,200. That number was subsequently changed to 1,550. Given that information by Iraq, the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) had been unable to calculate the total number of such bombs. The present report says it had proved impossible to do so, but UNMOVIC had not discounted the possibility the chemical- and biological-filled bombs in the hundreds remained in Iraq.


All outstanding questions could easily have been cleared up in the
7 December 2002 declaration from Iraq. There should not be those outstanding issues to resolve, but there were. The present document showed that Iraq still had the capability to manufacture, not only chemical, but also biological weapons, and that it still had tens of thousands of delivery systems, including dangerous unmanned vehicles. In his report today, Dr. Blix had remarked on the paucity of information on Iraq’s programmes since 1998. Everyone was working hard to fill that gap, but Iraq was the one to do that if it was truly complying. Indeed, it would be inundating the inspectors with new information, setting out in detail all of its banned weapons programmes. Then, and only then, could the inspectors do the credible job of verifying, destroying and monitoring.


He said that Iraq’s current behaviour revealed a strategic decision to delay, deceive and throw us off the trail, leading to a fracturing of the international community. The Iraqis still were not volunteering information, and when they were, it was partial and misleading, and stories changed whenever they were confronted. The Council’s membership carried a heavy responsibility to take hard decisions on tough issues, including the one it faced today. Last November, the Council had stepped up to its responsibility. It must not walk away now with Iraq, once again, marching down the merry path of weapons of mass destruction, threatening the region and the world. Members must not forget the horrors going on in Iraq. Now was the time for it to send a clear message to Saddam Hussein that it had not been taken in by his transparent tactics.


Nobody wanted war, he said, but it was clear that the limited process and slight substantive changes in Iraq had come from the presence of a large military force, from nations willing to put their military men and women in harm’s way. The unified political will of the Council, and the willingness to use force if it came to that, would ensure that the disarmament of Iraq was achieved. Now was the time for the Council to say that the clock had not been stopped by Saddam Hussein’s stratagems and machinations. The resolution put forward for Council action was appropriate, and it should be brought before it in the very near future. The consequences of Saddam Hussein’s continued refusal to disarm would be very, very real."
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7682.doc.htm

I appreciate BT's learned and in depth evaluation of the situation, which is consistent with the European and Middle Eastern perception of the "need" for continued "inspections" .... of course what BT fails to accept and apparently recognize that even those who were like mindly opposed to military action from the beginning perceived that Iraq had a WMD program that required dismantly along with the ongoing development of a delivery system (or the $$ to buy them from N.K.).

If there was no belief that it had, why "inspectors"?

Powell is, I believe, more "informed" and credible than BT. This thread is not about the rehashing of the decision to invade Iraq, nor about BT's "special knowledge" regarding the existence of WMD's and facilitating programs ...

...although BT would much rather discuss those topics than the actual thread topic .... I understand why.

"His Man" is presiding over high unemployment and high poverty ... and cannot or will not do a damn thing about it.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I think I know why BT voted for Obaminable now. I have been wondering...............Powell is, I believe, more "informed" and credible than BT.

I would be the very first to agree that General Powell is an "informed" and "credible" source. Need I remind you that even the most "informed and credible" sources can make mistakes! The article quoted by LL in the previous thread specifically was about the "4714th Security Council Meeting." Apparently LL did not post the specific date from his referenced memo (no harm, no foul) but I assume the date was sometime in February 2003, a month or so prior to the the actual invasion of Iraq.

Indeed, those were Powell's feelings at the time but 13-14 months later Powell acknowledged something dramatically different. In early April 2004, Powell acknowledged that "the "most dramatic" part of his presentation to the United Nations making the case for war on Iraq was based on flawed intelligence." He even takes it a step further: ""Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid. But at the time I was preparing that presentation it was presented to me as solid," Powell told reporters on a flight home from a trip to Europe." In other words Powell admitted a year later that he acted upon "flawed intelligence," presented to him by the "intelligence community." Hmmmmmmm!

Despite LL's lackluster attempt to deflect attention this does not change the words I made prior to the actual spring of 2003 invasion. I clearly stated then that the weapons inspectors should have been allowed to complete their task, prior an invasion of Iraq. The Bush Administration (including General Powell), in their haste to go to war, decided otherwise. History has shown that was the wrong decision and according to General Powell a decision that was based upon "flawed intelligence."

None of this alters the fact that I was responding to LL's "hindsight is 20/20" remark. But it is clear that I made my references prior to any application of the "hindsight is 20/20" rule!

While on the topic of Colin Powell, who did he personally endorse for President in 2008? It the event that your memory has failed, Powell endorsed Obama!

The full text of Powell's "flawed intelligence" reference can be found below!
============================== =======================

Powell: Key intelligence piece on Iraq flawed
(Agencies)
Updated: 2004-04-04 09:16
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged that the "most dramatic" part of his presentation to the United Nations making the case for war on Iraq was based on flawed intelligence.

Powell also said he hoped a commission investigating the U.S. intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction would reveal how the CIA ended up depending on unreliable sources for key evidence he used to argue for war.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell listens to questions during a media conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels, April 2, 2004. [AP]

The acknowledgment about alleged mobile chemical arms laboratories could further hurt the credibility of the Bush administration, also under fire in an election year for failing to stop the Sept. 11 attacks.

The United States justified its first preemptive war by accusing Iraq of amassing illegal arms and invaded last year without explicit U.N. approval and over the objections of many allies.

In February, 2003, Powell made a major presentation of the U.S. case against Iraq at a special session of the U.N. Security Council, where he said the United States had several sources showing mobile chemical weapons laboratories.

But on Friday, the top American diplomat said the evidence on the trailers has been shown to be shaky.

"Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid. But at the time I was preparing that presentation it was presented to me as solid," Powell told reporters on a flight home from a trip to Europe.

While doubts about the U.S. sources of evidence for the laboratories have been raised for over a year, Powell's remarks were the most straightforward acknowledgment from the Bush administration that the information was probably wrong.

"That was the most dramatic of them (pieces of evidence) and I made sure it was multi-sourced," he said. "Now if the sources fell apart, then we need to find out how we've gotten ourselves in that position."

"I hope (the commission) will look into these matters to see whether or not the intelligence agency had a basis for the confidence that they placed in the intelligence at that time," he said.

The failure to unearth banned weapons a year after the invasion has fueled criticism of the Bush administration for misleading the country into a war that caused hundreds of U.S. deaths and sparked a deadly insurgency against the American occupation.

Despite being one of the administration's most respected officials, Powell's credibility has suffered because many critics saw him as the mouthpiece for the intelligence community over Iraq.

Powell sought on Friday to distance himself from the evidence he used in his U.N. presentation.

"I'm not the intelligence community," he said.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by bigtex

I would be the very first to agree that General Powell is a very "informed" and "credible" source. . . .

Those were Powell's feelings at the time but a year later Powell acknowledged that "the "most dramatic" part of his presentation to the United Nations making the case for war on Iraq was based on flawed intelligence." He even takes it a step further: ""Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid. But at the time I was preparing that presentation it was presented to me as solid," Powell told reporters on a flight home from a trip to Europe."

In other words Powell admitted a year later that he acted upon "flawed intelligence," presented to him by the "intelligence community." Hmmmmmmm!

"Hind"-sight is always 20/20 but quite applicable in your case since you always want to talk out your ass. Again:

http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1660970&postcount=32

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

I would be the very first to agree that General Powell is a very "informed" and "credible" source.

The article quoted by LL in the previous thread speciaffly was about the "4714th Security Council Meeting."

Herein lies a distinction between BT's posts on the subject and mine, as was the case in 2002 forward with HIS POSTS.

The "4714th Security Council Meeting" I posted were MINUTES from the Security Council meeting ... and

.... what BT has "sourced" IS an article in which Powell was "QUOTED" as discussing the THEN (2004 ... after the invasion) post-invasion knowledge, just like BT does.

Just like BT, who was "anti-Bush" from 2000, because BT was a McCain guy, the anti-Bush media sought any kernel of dispute regarding the information available at the time of the decision to enter Iraq (again) in 2003, BT's "inspection model" of international weapons' control wasn't working in Iraq ...

and it is NOT working in Iran or North Korea...... 10 years later.

Now, about the poverty in this country.

BT, should we have some more "inspections" on the existence of poverty?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Herein lies a distinction between BT's posts on the subject and mine, as was the case in 2002 forward with HIS POSTS.

The "4714th Security Council Meeting" I posted were MINUTES from the Security Council meeting ... and

.... what BT has "sourced" IS an article in which Powell was "QUOTED" as discussing the THEN (2004 ... after the invasion) post-invasion knowledge, just like BT does.

Just like BT, who was "anti-Bush" from 2000, because BT was a McCain guy, the anti-Bush media sought any kernel of dispute regarding the information available at the time of the decision to enter Iraq (again) in 2003, BT's "inspection model" of international weapons' control wasn't working in Iraq ...

There you go again! LL never let's the facts stand in the way of the story he wants to tell.

Need I remind you once again that my original comments were not "post-invasion," as you are trying desparately to make people believe, they were "pre-invasion." One has "hindsight is 20/20" implications, the other does not!

At the end of the day, you and I both know the truth. And quite frankly, the "truth" is what bothers you! My remarks were made prior to the spring 2003 invasion. You and I both know what I said and when I originally said it!

Admit it, lick your wounds, tuck your tail between your legs and move on!

Remember: Confession is good for the soul!

[Whirlaway]

Again Waverunner posts misleading information without any links to his claims; so here are the UN statistics on world productivity. It clearly says the US worker is the most productive !

The average U.S. worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, followed by Luxembourg at $55,641, Belgium at $55,235 and France at $54,609.

The productivity figure is found by dividing the country’s gross domestic product by the number of people employed. The U.N. report is based on 2006 figures for many countries.

Only part of the U.S. productivity growth, which has outpaced that of many other developed economies, can be explained by the longer hours Americans are putting in, the ILO said.

The United States, according to the report, also beats all 27 nations in the European Union, Japan and Switzerland in the amount of wealth created per hour of work — a second key measure of productivity.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828...st-productive/


Why does the left continually try to make their false claims without providing the links?

Originally Posted by waverunner234

As usual you are wrong again, just google it!!!!!


Europe's top performers include some of the region's smaller nations. Leading the way are the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg), which outperform the U.S. based on gross domestic product per hours worked each year. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development, Belgium and the Netherlands, which mandate 30 and 28 annual vacation days, respectively, are almost 2% more productive than the U.S. And Luxembourg, with its highly competitive financial services industry and 32-day yearly vacation allowance, is a staggering 27% more efficient.

[Whirlaway]

Back to the topic of the thread:

The Poverty Level is so high because of a 40 year trend of increasing single family head of households; the explosion in the break up of the traditional family is causing/driving this alarming trend......children having children, acclearting divorce rates, absentee fathers, etc.

Almost every economist (and American family) will tell you the best model out of poverty is an intact family with two parent household.......young women raising children, not working, relying on government assistance doesn't work !

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Need I remind you once again that my original comments were not "post-invasion," as you are trying desparately to make people believe, they were "pre-invasion." One has "hindsight is 20/20" implications, the other does not!

You made lots of comments "pre-invasion" against invading, and like most of those "anti-invasion" critics, they focused on the "wmd" element of the issue, and dismissed the FACT that there had been an agreement drawn up for a "cease fire" under Bush I, which contained conditions that Iraq was to meet, and for over 10 years Iraq had not done so. Even Clinton, your mentor, addressed that same issue when he went to Congress, just like Bush II, to obtain authority to attack Iraq, which he did, although ineffective. You "pre-invasion" comments, as you just recently posted, were NOT that there were NO WMD's, but that you preferred that "inspections" be allowed to continue. And ..

like I said .. the inspection hadn't worked under Clinton .. the inspections were not working under Bush II, and

inspections have not worked in Iran or North Korea for the past 15 or better years ... and its the same bunch of European incompetents with the blessings of the UN running the show.

Saddam himself was proclaiming he had WMD'S .... and had used them in the past against his own people. And you want to sit there at your computer and profess to the world that you ..

.... "knew better all along"! And you call me "arrogant"?

"Inspections" were an excuse to forestall military conflict and to "pacify" the pacificists in Europe who legal and politically were not interested in attacking the country that they had been supporting for years, ala France, German, and Russia. Just like inspections are an excuse to avoid a confrontation with Iran and North Korea ... all it has gotten the U.S. is being laughed about, disrespected, insulted, and the arming of some dangerous adversaries because of their seemingly unstable "emotional" conditions.

Additionally, what you, and your fellow Bush Bashers, conveniently forget is that the UN mandates for "inspections" did not require UN authorized personal to dig around in the country looking for stuff, it required them to examine the stuff that Iraq turned over to them, which Iraq was not doing in a timely manner ... as per the UN MINUTES I posted, and as per Powell's statement in the MINUTES.
..
Like Darrel Royal said:

3 things can happen with a forward pass and 2 of them are bad.

So, back to poverty ...

... how long do you want the poverty inspections to go on ...

.. or do we turn that over to the U.N., also, for "further study"?

.. How about a "food for oil" U.N. program here in the U.S.?

That worked in Iraq during .... "the inspections"!

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

the inspection hadn't worked under Clinton .. the inspections were not working under Bush II

I agree that the inspections did not work under Clinton. Why? Because Clinton was not forceful enough with Saddam! We will never know whether the inspections would have worked properly under Bush II because GW stopped the inspections shortly after they began. The Weapons Inspectors final report was not due for another 5-6 months. Had the Administration waited (like I repeatedly suggested) they might have found out an invasion was no longer necessary. Why, you might ask? Because the Weapons Inspectors would have found no WMD's, which is the very excuse used by the Bush Administration for the spring 2003 invasion. DUH!

To take it a step further, the US would have saved in excess of 1 trillion taxpayer dollars and more important over 4500 eventual American lives which were sacrificed. If only the Bush Administration would have shown a little patience and allowed the Weapons Inspectors to complete their task. I refused to drink GW's Kool-Aid. LL not only drank it, he overdosed on it!

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

[LexusLover]

[quote=bigtex;1663337] I agree that the inspections did not work under Clinton. Why? Because Clinton was not forceful enough with Saddam!/quote]

Exactly, what did you want Bill to do to be "forceful enough"?

[So, you do want inspections regarding this poverty thingy?]

As an aside, BT, I realize that you haven't been in Austin long, but it can rub off on you, so just to suggest to you that personally attacking someone with cutsy little remarks in an inane attempt to dismiss their credibility is a "suspenders and bean sprout" mentality that was spawned when 6th street went through a transition with the "Beamer" crowd, and actually a substantive response with FACTS is a much better tactic to create credibility. In other words, I would step back from the Op-Ed articles and dig into the actual documents generated at the time upon which the decisions were made. You rely too heavily on opinion articles supported with "selected quotes" .. and that also includes your tactic in responding to posts in threads. Otherwise you have a nice day, hear?

I asked in 2003 on, and I will ask again, what happened to the WMD's, then?