.
.
.
.
.
.
I’m more than likely going to have to take a few days off from the blog, as I’m closing a big fiscal.
But I want to wish ALL the Orange Juice Blog folks (and their families) a VERY Happy New Year!
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE be safe! See you all next year!
Hirota: out!
So, good thing he was killed, you're saying?
Daniel DID do drugs. Report below shows he had METH in his system and an extensive criminal history that included…
Greg, You can think what you want. Criminals, illegal immigration and neighboring countries can all erode countries sovereignty. But war…
My definition is ... irrelevant to this discussion, counselor. (I'd look up case law if I needed one.) You're the…
Wait what is your definition of sovereign nation? And I don’t think you understand what independence is. Entering into treaties…
But maybe you did mean (1) "Completely independent" and (2) "authority over its borders" as two separate things. In that…
I'll presume that you meant to write: "Completely independent authority over its borders." OK, by that definition, is the USA…
Completely independent and authority over its borders. That sounds about right. Not wrapped in tin foil.
What exactly do you think that the word "sovereign" means? Maybe we're getting to the root of the problem here.
If it can’t guarantee its own safety it is not much of a sovereign nation is it?
Tim,
I’ve posted several comments asking how you rationalize your conservative principles regarding war/religion/taxes and have yet to get an answer, I won’t stop asking. Good luck with your “big fiscal”.
In case you missed them;
Posted December 17, 2010 at 10:39 AM
“they also accept all the consequences of the choices they make”
I wonder if Hirota is willing to accept higher taxes as a consequence of the TRILLION DOLLAR war he supported ( I remember his warmongering letters-to-the editor in The Register), somehow I think his “version” of consequences ends well before it reaches his pocketbook.
Posted December 23, 2010 at 11:38 PM
Hirota,
By your definition of “conservative”, no real world politician will EVER cut-the-mustard, leaving you free to dance away from any of the consequences of “conservatism”, I do hope that you will extend the same purity test when you examine “liberals” vs liberal politicians.
Oh and speaking of consequences, as I recall (from OC Register, letters to the editor) you were a big proponent of the Iraq war. The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war took this country down a path we had never gone before, as well as his refusal to pay for his trillion+ dollar disaster.
Why did you as a “conservative” defend and support Bush’s radical war and do you support tax increases to pay for it?
How did/do you feel as a Catholic who “… means that I stand (and well as I am able) with the teachings (Dogmatic) of the Catholic Church…ALL of them.” when the Pope/Church came out against the Iraq war?;
“John Paul has insisted that war is a “defeat for humanity” and that a preventive strike against Iraq is neither legally nor morally justified.” Foxnews.com
“John Paul was not a pacifist — he describes war as a “last resort,” not as an impossible resort. At the same time, though, he never thought that the invasion of Iraq had reached the “last resort” stage. Catholic Bishops in the United States and Great Britain were unanimous in their support for his message of peace.
According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the invasion of Iraq did not “meet the strict conditions of Catholic teaching for the use of military force.” Bishop John Michael Botean of Canton, Ohio, even went so far as to declare that fighting against Iraqis was a mortal sin. Papal representatives met with President George Bush to try to change his mind.” about.com
Posted December 29, 2010 at 10:05 AM
Tim,
Choice without consequence is not limited to “liberals”, as I recall certain “conservatives” advocated and defended our uneccessary and disasterous attack on Iraq, I wonder where they stand on PAYING for that war, now that Iraq has cost us a TRILLION dollars and counting, because as I’m sure you will recall, we had tax cuts and war, which was a RADICAL departure from traditional sound economic principles.
So Tim,as one of those “conservatives” do you support higher taxes to pay for our ongoing wars?
High taxes are a necessary consequence of war, and as a war-protesting liberal I resent having my tax dollars go to pay for war-mongering hubris just like you resent having to pay for some poor 15 year old girl’s “mistake”, the BIG DIFFERENCE being that WAR is far costlier than abortion.
From Pub-Med;
Public benefits and costs of government funding for abortion.
In state referenda to end public funding of abortions for poor women, one of the most successful tactics of abortion foes has been to charge that abortion funding increases the burden on taxpayers. A state-by-state analysis by The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) shows that the opposite is the case. For every tax dollar spent to pay for abortions for poor women, about four dollars is saved in public medical and welfare expenditures. The savings are in public expenditures that otherwise would have to be incurred because of the babies that poor women would have borne. On the basis of earlier research, it was assumed that 20 percent of Medicaid-eligible women who could not obtain abortions would give birth. Public costs examined in the AGI analysis include Medicaid expenditures for prenatal care, delivery and postnatal care for the mother, and for newborn care, neonatal intensive care and pediatric care for the child for the first two years of life; as well as expenditures for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), food stamps and the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) during those first two years. The benefit-to-cost ratio varies from about 9:1 in Massachusetts to 2:1 in Hawaii and Pennsylvania. The net savings for the nation as a whole over a two-year period if abortions were publicly funded in every state would total at least $339.6 million.
*************
The tax hikes may need to be HUGE as economist Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes are now predicting the COST of our WARS will reach a STAGGERING 4 to 6 TRILLION DOLLARS;
From The Daily Beast
Nobel Prize recipient Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard budget guru Linda J. Bilmes are revising their original $3 trillion war cost estimate. As Bilmes reports, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are at least 25 percent costlier than previous projections.
As Election Day draws near, it’s pretty clear: Voters are worried about jobs, the budget deficit and the rising national debt.
But behind those issues—behind the ads and candidates’ speeches, behind the rhetoric about “out-of-control” government spending—there lurks a hidden, less-talked-about issue: the cost of the ongoing wars.
Already, we’ve spent more than $1 trillion in Iraq, not counting the $700 billion consumed each year by the Pentagon budget. And spending in Iraq and Afghanistan now comes to more than $3 billion weekly, making the wars a major reason for record-level budget deficits.
Two years ago, Joseph Stiglitz and I published The Three Trillion Dollar War in which we estimated that the budgetary and economic costs of the war would reach $3 trillion.
Taking new numbers into account, however, we now believe that our initial estimate was far too conservative—the cost of the wars will reach between $4 trillion and $6 trillion.
For example, we recently analyzed the medical and disability claim patterns for almost a million troops who have returned from the wars, and, based on this record, we’ve revised our estimate upward to between $600 billion and $900 billion—a broad specter, yes, but certainly also a significant upward tick from our earlier projection of $400 billion to $700 billion, based on historical patterns.
Similarly, our estimates for the economic and social costs associated with returning veterans can be expected to rise by at least a third—the staggering toll of repeated deployments over the past decade.
The Bush administration not only vastly underestimated the cost of the wars but cut taxes twice—in 2001 and 2003—just as we were ramping up the war effort. This was the first time in U.S. history that a government cut taxes while also appropriating huge new sums to fight a war. And the consequence is that the wars added substantially to the federal debt.
Although I may disagree with many of your views (and I’m sure the feeling is mutual re: my radical anti-government views), I do support your right to state your views in a forum that respects freedom of expression and will fight for your right to state your views. I do enjoy the fact that you have the inate ability and talent to stir up passions without getting nasty, vulgar or boorish.
For the record, I am against taxpayer funded abortions. While I believe a woman has sovereign rights over her body in accordance with natural law (as do all of us), I do not believe that the taxpayers should be coerced into financing such activities at so called “free clinics.” Which, for the record, are not free. But that’s another subject for a future blog post.
Have a safe and sane happy (fill in the political correct term for the holiday season here so that you don’t offend the thin skinned amongst us)
I promised to respond to both “anonster” as well as “Guy Fawkes” before I closed completed my blogging time at OJB. And, again, I TRULY appreciate the discussions, points-of-view and energetic debate! (We ALL, hopefully, grow and learn…). Unfortunately, I’ll be unable to respond further because I’ve got myself good and buried in the business (and political writings) of the New Year….
A great 2011 to all!
ANONSTER
Posted December 17, 2010 at 10:39 AM
(…they also accept all the consequences of the choices they make…)
Yes…with a caveat: As National Security is a Constitutionally-defined responsibility on our Federal Government, I DO support tax dollars being directed toward the defense of our nation. BUT, if we would reform our grotesque national entitlement programs, which are NOT a Constitutionally-defined responsibility of our Federal Government, we’d have money….without the need to raise taxes…to conduct those aspects which ARE Constitutionally-defined. (I say “reform” because, at this stage, it is useless…for now…to discuss “elimination-of”).
Posted December 23, 2010 at 11:38 PM
(Standards)
Yes, I would (and do) apply the same standard to both Liberals and Conservatives. “Liberal” and “Conservative” represent the “ideal” positions. I measure the “Liberal-ness” or “Conservative-ness” of a politician based on how close they legislate to either ideal. While I recognize that my standard of measurement is subjective and therefore subject to debate, I would argue that my characterization of “Liberalism” and “Conservatism” (dictionary definitions notwithstanding) are accurate.
First of all, there is no “Bush Doctrine” (specifically defined by Bush), other than what has been ascribed to him by others. Did he contemplate pre-emption? Yes. So did Clinton when he justified an attack on Iraqi weapons sites:
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”
(Re: Catholicism)
The teachings of the Catholic Church, with regard to war, are not Dogmatic teachings. None of the Dogmatic teachings of the Church regard war and are therefore subject to interpretation.
And, as long as we are discussing “pacifists”, Gandhi clearly contemplates physical defense of self and nation:
“Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look
upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
Posted December 29, 2010 at 10:05 AM
(The “BIG DIFFERENCE”)
I disagree. The “BIG DIFFERENCE” is that the Constitution CLEARLY defines the conduct of war as being a Constitutional duty of Government. NOWHERE in the Constitution is abortion legislation contemplated (the “right to privacy” was said, by Harry Blackmun, to be found in the Fourth Amendment, which states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”).
GUY FAWKES
(Abortion, etc)
How about that! We share some common ground, Guy!
I am VERY pleased to hear that you do not support publicly-funded abortions.
And, again, I agree: a person, whether woman or man, irrespective of race, creed, gender, gender preference, possesses sovereignty over their own “person”. But, as I argued, the child which temporarily resides within a woman’s body is NOT her body. Rather, that person is a genetically separate entity and, therefore, entitled to sovereignty.
A personal note to both “anonster” and “Guy Fawkes”:
Thank you both (and others) for your well-wishes as I worked to close a difficult fiscal. Your good thoughts were CLEARLY there as my company made its number……we ended the year UP .00007%!!!! (Can you say “skin of the teeth”?) I wish you (and ALL at OJB) all the best and thank you all for your political awareness and activism!
(And, by the way, as I continue to draft further “Conservatism 101” pieces, I’ll copy Vern. If you’re interested in reading them, contact Vern. Hopefully, he’ll oblige…
Take care, my friends.
Hirota: OUT!