I can't remember an administration I more wanted to see go away, but I have to admit that I'm really a little uneasy over what will fill the White House next.

Hey madkow ......

The Bush White House cut funding to the aqueducts in Louisiana.  Just like they cut money for other infrastructure line items like roads, hospitals, bridges ...... but - even with these cuts the deficit climbs.  Don't blame the governor unless you decide to blame all governors for a failure to get money for anything except war machinery or aid ($8 billion a month) to Pakistan, for instance.

You can't win the hearts and minds of other countries by not being above really bad ideas - like torture.  Two wrongs have never equaled a right.  It just makes two wrongs.  By the way - you don't get reliable intelligence thru torture.  Millions of people said they were witches/warlocks or Christians under torture - when they weren't.  History gives us lots of information if we decide to listen.

The last check I did on the US economy and taxes collected - nearly 80% of taxes come from the middle class and small businesses.  The poor are exempt and the rich make use of the loop holes.  The very rich and big business take their profit and put it in their pockets.  They reinvest as little as possible and only a few "give back" via charity unless they need the write off.  The gap between the very rich and the very poor has never before been so huge as we see today.   

The last I heard from all our politicians and military personnel - including your president when he lobbied for the "surge"-  we need a "political" solution in Iraq.  How does replacing a general make that happen?

Sorry - have to disagree with you madkow. 

I for one think this President is doing an amazing job. I love how so many people think they know everything when it comes to the war, but have you been there? Have you seen first hand what is going on there? I have a family member that has been there 4 times and would go again. Of course you guys don't see the soldiers handing out food and taking care of civilians.  My family member is very proud to have served under this Commander in Chief. He won't be saying the same thing if another Clinton gets elected again. Serving 8 years under the 1st Clinton was bad enough.

It's perfectly acceptable to disagree with me :)  I'm just trying to inject some deeper thought into the conversation, rather than the typical "I hate Bush" knee-jerk reaction.  And I always appreciate a well-thought-out debate, even if it means playing a little devil's advocate!

With regards to the cut funding to Louisiana:  I do not believe in a large federal government.  I believe that the states should have much more say in how their state is governed and how their money is spent.  In my humble opinion, I think the federal government should keep to things that involve us all, like the interstate freeway system, and, yes, even military and the conducting of war.  But Louisiana should deal with it's own levees.  California should deal with it's own aqueducts and levees.  All the states should tax their own citizens to pay for public services within it's own state, not beg the grossly enlarged federal government for funding.  The government should be a balance between state and federal rights, and the federal has ballooned way out of proportion.  That would cut our federal taxes and put the accountability for our tax dollars closer to home.

You're very right on torture.  It doesn't always give us reliable information and it is barbaric.  But the question still stands: how do you get intelligence?  And I'm not sure if the witchhunt/Inquisition example is an entirely accurate simile.  There is a big difference between "Tell us you are a witch or we will kill you" and "Tell us where the next terrorist attack will be or we will dunk your head underwater a lot."  That isn't to make light of torture, I hope you understand.  But as shows my ignorance, I really am not certain of all the torture methods that were employed by agents of the United States, so I feel I cannot make a fair judgement on whether they were "cruel" or not.  I always remember that the media is wont to exaggerate things...

I still think tax cuts were a wonderful step in the right direction.  It was meant to jump-start the growth of big business, which would create jobs, increase spending power of the average consumer, and in general spur on economic growth.  Ideally, I think the tax system should be completely overhauled.  This is an idea I could really get behind: http://www.pbs.org/newshour...
But like I said earlier, the tax cuts were part of a theory that has the best intentions.  I'm actually amazed it was even passed, seeing as how Congress, in all it's infinite glory, can't stop spending our money either.  Thank God for accountability to the constituents, although this ability of the voters to hold our politicians accountable is sorely underused.

Iraq issues I won't even bother to argue, because I think it's pointless by now.  It's a cluster****.  I say, just put in some generals, go in Patton-style, and send the terrorist hold-outs running.  Iraq will probably never be stable because it seems that the several groups there (Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd, if I remember right) are so diametrically opposed that they will never agree.  And in that part of the world, a disagreement leads to guns and IEDs and the slaughter of men, women and children.  The only reason it was "stable" under Saddam was because he ruled like a mini-Stalin.  And I think we can all agree that Stalin was bad, very bad.

Thanks for the comments on this site. I enjoy reading what others say. Its very interesting and informative.

madkow2747: "If they're not doing their job of winning the war, then they should be replaced.  Would you expect to keep your job when you are incapable of succeeding?" How do you win an un-winnable war? There is no real organized resistance, the time for a "Patton-style" invasion has long since past. As for torture, I'm not going to say that I support it, but when the insurgents are kidnapping and beheading innocents on video, I think it's time we start playing by their rules.

As for jump-starting the growth of big business, do we really want to put our faith in such corrupt institutions? I certainly don't because the lust for money inevitably gets in the way of the best interest of the consumer. In the ideal economy, putting more money in the hands of big business would always lead to better products and service, but do we see this? I don't think so, I think we either see corporations milking consumers of every last penny for life's necessities (drug companies for example) or we see them taking advantage of the less fortunate to offer the lowest prices, thereby  forcing competiton out of the market and increasing revenue (Wal-Mart for example).

Do you really think that the government (state or federal) will spend money on projects that make improvements that only might be needed? No way, the government only acts ex post facto, when it is too late...and I thought an ounce of prevention was worth a pound of cure...

My opinion: History will judge the Bush administration the most enept and corrupt America has ever experienced. A man that has claimed he needs no advisor but God has to be suspect at least. And then to use this as a pretext for making wars to further an agenda of corruption further enriching the wealthy rather than putting the interests of America ahead of other nations should speak for itself. But the corruption in Congress is no less. For example, why should Bush together with Congress be talking about "national security" all the while evidencing more concern with securing the borders of other nations like Iraq and Afghanistan than our own borders if not for slave labor? The hypocrisy of things like this means following the money every time.

There seems to be another "knee-jerk" reaction occuring here, and it's the Federal Government is Always Bad mantra voiced by so many conservatives.

It's seems so simple to place the failure of the levees on Louisiana, and to assert that the levees only affect the locals. But here's the reality: a huge amount of our country's oil goes through that part of the country. That makes federal involvement crucial to our economy.

I'd like everyone who thinks they could get along quite nicely without our federal systems of support to really think about how they benefit, everyday, from clean water & interstate commerce & food inspections & dozens of other areas that shouldn't vary from state to state, in a country as great as ours.

Maybe our federal government has been failing us because those in power (the Republicans) don't want it to work. If you appoint incompetent & uncaring leaders to various government agencies (like Brownie & Gonzo), of course those departments will fail. Then if you're someone like Dubya, all you have to do is point to these government agencies and say, "See? I told you your tax dollars are being wasted! Big government is baaad!"

Another example of governing through fear. Meh.

Oohchild - most excellent points.  In agreement over here.