This link will help you understand Clinton's budget surplus. Clinton did not spend the surplus, and stated that he believes it should be used to pay for social security. Bush did not use it to pay for social security, but instead spent it as though it were part of his usual tax dollars.

The reason I say that it is generally better practice to use social security tax dollars to prevent debt is because interest on debt accumulates much faster than interest gathered on money invested. That is, if the government went into debt, it would lose more money than it made from the interest of investing the social security money, and this loss would eventually have to be repaid by the taxpayers in the form of increased taxes.

Trickle down economics: The only theory that actually sounds like pissing on people.

I'd like to point out that Bill O'Reilley doesn't know shit about economics, and the amount of money collected by the government is irrelevant when we are in over our ears in debt.

Anyway, I don't think that tax cuts for the rich help the poor, but they certainly help the rich, and there's nothing wrong with that. Personally, I think it would make more sense to just restructure and have a flat percentage for everyone above the poverty line, but making the transition would probably be a bit rocky.

I actually think that the government could get more revenue from a simplified system, because it would be much, much harder to cheat.

Unless the government puts itself into MORE debt, which president Bush seems to be doing. Technically, our tax money doesn't even cut into the debt. We're just paying the interest. Granted, as the debt increases, the amount of interest to pay increases as well.

The Bush administration has basically fucked us over, as far as fiscal responsibility and conservatism is concerned.

Did you ever try funding a war on 2 fronts without a national debt? Check out WWII figures.

People spend far too much time pissing and moaning about "the rich".

First of all, nobody has a set consensus on who "the rich" are.
- Is it $50,000 per year and above families?
- Is it people who have inherited money?
- Is it farmers who, on paper, are worth over a million dollars?
- Are "the rich" determined by world standards, comparing Americans to people in 3rd World countries?

Second, for the most part, it is "the rich" who are creating jobs and employing people.
- Joe Blow, who works 9-5 and buys 5 Lotto Tickets on his way home, before stopping at the local bar, will almost certainly NEVER employ anybody, or pay their wages. But he'll be the first one to sit on the bar stool and scream about "them ()*#&@^#@*^$#@ rich SOBs!"
- For the most part, it is the venture capitalists and visionaries who strike out and create jobs. However, they also often fail in their business ventures. Often the person who owns and runs a very successful company today was broke 10 years ago. But he tried again.

Third, most people don't understand that a business that grosses $2 million per year does NOT automatically mean that the owner of that business is rich.


Let's stop blaming "the rich" for all that ails our world. They're not the problem. Furthermore, blaming "the rich" does little more than help people continue to be lazy and make bad decisions. After all, "it's not my fault!"

I'm going to pretend you're not equating the Iraq War with WWII. WWII was TOTAL WAR, it was a conventional war on two fronts. We're fighting a popular insurgency.

What is a conventional war?

You nailed it. Bullseye on that one.

A national military vs. a national military. Fought with conventional weaponry, and more traditional battlefield tactics in an effort to weaken or destroy the enemies' military.

Is there any such thing, by this definition, of a "conventional war" in the 21st Century?

Let's not kid ourselves. The goal of war is to win. Nothing more and nothing less. The only question is in regards to what lengths a country will go to "win".