"Tax Me": Stephen King

[KoihimeNakamura]

Originally Posted by Xulld

The issue is that he is expecting the government to do a better job of spending that money. Why? The government is composed of schmucks who will spend money anywhere they can to appease constituencies, at what point to we really expect government to make better business choices?

Opinion, poisoning the well, assumes evidence not proven.

Quote:

The things he lists are all good things (IMHO), but it is MY opinion, and his, not necessarily the opinions of the folks in government who will ear mark that dough. Government is the biggest polluter, and we want to give it money to clean up pollution?

As above.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-f-s-sake.html

(some strong language)

Essentially, even when the rich donate to good causes, it's a drop-in-the-ocean; taxing them at a much higher level is needed rather than relying on their charity.

Can't say I disagree with him, though I think it'll have little effect. Warren Buffet's comments from a few months ago don't seem to have effected a sea change in US (or global) economics.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I, a rich-people-admiring Republican, will be very, very willing to look at increased taxation for the rich -- once you convince me our spending is under control.

And on which U.S. federal government agency was more money spent than any other in fiscal year 2010 according to the GAO? The Department of Defense—over 20% of total federal expenditures that year. (The Department of Health and Human Services was second.)

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

If we raise taxes right now, the spending problem's going to get worse.

If you think a Republican in the White House will reign in spending or be sound fiscal managers, history indicates otherwise. The last Republican administration from 2001-2008 when it came into office was handed a $128 billion budget surplus—but it delivered eight consecutive years of budget deficits, amounted to some $3.5 trillion overall. Then there was Reagan and Bush (41), no budget surpluses there either.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

And on which U.S. federal government agency was more money spent than any other in fiscal year 2010 according to the GAO? The Department of Defense—over 20% of total federal expenditures that year. (The Department of Health and Human Services was second.)

Please provide a cite for that.

Quote:

If you think a Republican in the White House will reign in spending or be sound fiscal managers, history indicates otherwise. The last Republican administration from 2001-2008 when it came into office was handed a $128 billion budget surplus—but it delivered eight consecutive years of budget deficits, amounted to some $3.5 trillion overall. Then there was Reagan and Bush (41), no budget surpluses there either.

I think having Bush in the White House was bad, but having Obama has been far, far, far worse.

Sorry, but at some point you're going to have to stop blaming Bush for the fact that, under the Obama administration, we've broken every kind of record for increases in government spending.

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura

Opinion, poisoning the well, assumes evidence not proven.



As above.

Yep, opinion, show me I am wrong. Government waste is not controversial.


You will have to try harder than just cry fallacy to prove otherwise.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

If we raise taxes right now, the spending problem's going to get worse.

Not sure if this horse is dead yet so I'll keep beating it.

Originally Posted by CNN

source June 23, 2011: Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) walks away from debt ceiling talks with Biden after refusing to consider any tax increases. The administration had offered $2.4 trillion in spending cuts for $400 billion in taxes, an 83:17 split.

Which BTW: Was very close to the optimum ratio (85:15) identified in a report commissioned by the GOP Spend Less Grow More. (there were other offers by the GOP for tax rate increases but only if taxes were reduced on the very wealthy).

The Democrats are ready to make a deal. We just need the GOP to put aside their Norquist pledge and work with the Democrats. I predict that the GOP will eventually deal and there will be deep cuts to Social Security and none to Defense.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I think having Bush in the White House was bad, but having Obama has been far, far, far worse.

I don't think it is even close. Bush arguably took us to the brink of disaster. Obama arguably brought us back.

Originally Posted by CNN

source Ironically, Obama has been pivoting at the very moment events in the real world are providing him with the perfect campaign issue. We are four years into the financial crisis. In the United States, the government acted speedily and massively to stimulate the economy, using monetary and fiscal measures. In Europe, by contrast, governments quickly turned toward austerity programs, cutting spending across the board to reduce budget deficits.

Well, the results are in: The U.S. economy is expected to grow 2 to 3 percent this year. The euro zone is expected to contract by 0.3 percent this year; Spain and Britain have officially entered a double-dip recession, the first time major economies have done so in 40 years. IMF projections show that even Germany's average growth rate over the next five years will be only 40 percent of America's.

[Morrigan]

It amazes me that people say things like "why is he interested in other people's money?". Hint: he's not. He says HE and wealthy people like him needs to be taxed more, to fill the coffers of social services needed for a stable and decent society AND to alleviate the tax burden on the middle class. What's not to like about this way of thinking? I just don't get it.

Originally Posted by Cleon

Riiight.

Pwned.

Originally Posted by ravdin

Well done, you got me. You either have a photographic memory or way too much time on your hands.

Nice attempt at deflecting. You were a giant hypocrite and he called you out on it, plain and simple.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Please provide a cite for that.

See pages 58-59 of this 268-page PDF financial report by the GAO on the 2010 fiscal year.

The net amount spent on each department/agency (top five):

Department of Defense: $889.2 billion (21.36%)
Department of Health and Human Services: $857.7 billion (20.60%)
Social Security Administration: $753.9 billion (18.11%)
Department of the Treasury: $372.9 billion (8.96%)
Department of Veteran Affairs: $235.5 billion (5.66%)

Total net amount spent on all department and agencies: $4,163.1 billion.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Sorry, but at some point you're going to have to stop blaming Bush...

Not blame, just fact: the Bush administration was handed when it came into office a $128 billion budget surplus. Its very first budget wiped out that surplus and went back to deficit spending. It then followed that with seven more budgets of deficit spending. Over its terms in office it spent some $3.5 trillion more than it took in. Then as stated there were the Reagan and Bush (41) terms which also featured deficit spending. My point thus stands: if you think putting a Republican in the White House will result in an end to deficit budget spending and a return to sound fiscal management, history indicates otherwise. The Republicans' own record while in office works against their claims. But perhaps this time they really, really mean it.

[Xulld]

Both parties are full of big spenders. Bush was one of the WORST. In the last 30 years government has grown unlike any other time in history.

[Tatyana]

Originally Posted by Giz

Really?

"OECD study released last year showing that the U.S.—not France or Sweden—has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations.”

The problem seems to be that the USA's overall tax level is too low compared to spending, not that it is insufficiently progressive. Maybe everyone needs to pay more (or we make cuts)?

Link.

I think this is quote of a falsehood.

[Tatyana]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

No group of Americans can pay taxes to the government as fast as liberals can spend them.

Is it really only the liberals that are spending all the federal money in the USA?

[Dessi]

So, can Lovecraft and Poe vote to rape King?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dessi

So, can Lovecraft and Poe vote to rape King?

Don't be stupid.



They're not roommates!

[ravdin]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

It amazes me that people say things like "why is he interested in other people's money?". Hint: he's not. He says HE and wealthy people like him needs to be taxed more, to fill the coffers of social services needed for a stable and decent society AND to alleviate the tax burden on the middle class. What's not to like about this way of thinking? I just don't get it.

Then you're deliberately not paying attention to the comments that I and other people have posted about how the problem is in spending, not revenue. Taxing Stephen King and his income cohort at 100% won't even come close to making up for the deficit- and if it did, I guarantee that Washington would come up with ways to spend even more money.

I don't object to King saying he needs to be taxed more- he's probably right. But he didn't even address the other side, which is that politicians are spending too much money on things he probably doesn't like, such as the military-industrial complex, corporate welfare, corruption, and waste.

Originally Posted by Morrigan

Nice attempt at deflecting. You were a giant hypocrite and he called you out on it, plain and simple.

Did you look at the date? I made that post three years ago. And if you want to hold me to the same standard as Stephen King then go right ahead, I could certainly do worse.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by ravdin

I don't object to King saying he needs to be taxed more- he's probably right. But he didn't even address the other side, which is that politicians are spending too much money on things he probably doesn't like, such as the military-industrial complex, corporate welfare, corruption, and waste.

Are those line items, or do they have a department that handles spending on corruption and waste?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Xulid: Non controversal does not mean true.

[Molinaro]

Originally Posted by ravdin

Then you're deliberately not paying attention to the comments that I and other people have posted about how the problem is in spending, not revenue. Taxing Stephen King and his income cohort at 100% won't even come close to making up for the deficit- and if it did, I guarantee that Washington would come up with ways to spend even more money.

I don't object to King saying he needs to be taxed more- he's probably right. But he didn't even address the other side, which is that politicians are spending too much money on things he probably doesn't like, such as the military-industrial complex, corporate welfare, corruption, and waste.



Did you look at the date? I made that post three years ago. And if you want to hold me to the same standard as Stephen King then go right ahead, I could certainly do worse.

There's two problems.

1) Rich people are not taxed enough, as a percentage compared to lower income earners.
2) Too much is being spent by the government.

Are you saying that nothing should be done to address either problem unless it solves both?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Molinaro

There's two problems.

1) Rich people are not taxed enough, as a percentage compared to lower income earners.
2) Too much is being spent by the government.

Are you saying that nothing should be done to address either problem unless it solves both?

I'm saying that until we address the spending problem, increasing taxation is counterproductive.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm saying that until we address the spending problem, increasing taxation is counterproductive.

I would encourage you to read the GOP report. Their experts looked at a broad range of strategies for growing the economy and reducing deficits. They found that an optimum ratio is 85% spending cuts and 15% tax increases.

From the report:



What this means is that the GOP used real world examples to find a spending cut to revenue increase that worked to grow the economy and shrink debt.

Is there a reason we shouldn't rely on the GOP experts their report based on real world examples?

[epepke]

Here's what you do: Tax the rich. 80%, 90%, whatever. Then allow them to lower their tax burden with loopholes.

Here's why nobody will try:

Conservatives will think in terms of "punishing the rich" whom they call "job-creators" and talk in terms of "the social contract," which they don't like. To them, I say, I don't care. The rich got their tax cuts based on the idea that they would then just go out and create more jobs. They didn't. Unsurprisingly, they laid off more people so that they could just buy their stuff, which was cheaper with all the foreclosures.

Progressives will talk about the rich paying their "fair share" through government. That will never happen, and it isn't the point.

The purpose of taxing the rich is that you can take away their taxes if they only do some things that are easy for them, like open businesses as tax dodges. This is good, and I want them to do it. I specifically want it to be cheaper for them to do these things than it is for them to buy politicians, which they spend an awful lot of money at anyway.

[HghrSymmetry]

Originally Posted by Giz

Have Buffett and King been mailing those checks? Why not?

Perhaps not in this universe, but maybe in a parallel universe the Buffetts, Kings, and Gates Seniors cut a check for 80% of their yearly salary and send it to the US Treasury.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by epepke

Here's what you do: Tax the rich. 80%, 90%, whatever.

No. The Republicans commissioned a report that found that such a plan is doomed to failure. The GOP plan calls for a package that includes an 85% spending cut and 15% tax rate increase. Last summer the Democrats offered an 87:13 ratio. We just need the Republicans to at least take the advice of their own experts.

And please, read the report.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Is there a reason we shouldn't rely on the GOP experts their report based on real world examples?

Yes. The reason should be self-evident. I would equally question a Democratic plan that "arrived" at seemingly obvious solution which was amazingly in line with their political planks and stated economic opinions.

That doesn't mean the plan it without merit, only that it is of questionable status.

[ZirconBlue]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Not blame, just fact: the Bush administration was handed when it came into office a $128 billion budget surplus. Its very first budget wiped out that surplus and went back to deficit spending. It then followed that with seven more budgets of deficit spending. Over its terms in office it spent some $3.5 trillion more than it took in. Then as stated there were the Reagan and Bush (41) terms which also featured deficit spending. My point thus stands: if you think putting a Republican in the White House will result in an end to deficit budget spending and a return to sound fiscal management, history indicates otherwise. The Republicans' own record while in office works against their claims. But perhaps this time they really, really mean it.

Further, a major Depression/Recession is the correct time for deficit spending. We should have been reducing the deficit during the good times in anticipation of the inevitable rainy day.

Originally Posted by RobRoy

Yes. The reason should be self-evident. I would equally question a Democratic plan that "arrived" at seemingly obvious solution which was amazingly in line with their political planks and stated economic opinions.

Except that it isn't in line with their political positions. Many Republicans in Congress have been championing a solution that is 100% spending cuts, 0% tax increases.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by ZirconBlue

Except that it isn't in line with their political positions. Many Republicans in Congress have been championing a solution that is 100% spending cuts, 0% tax increases.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. When I said "in line" what I meant was that it was similar enough that it is deeply suspect. "See, we were mostly right. So we're like . . . whassaword . . . compromising. Right. Right. But you guys were all wrong!"

Again, that doesn't mean that plan is without merit, but coming from the GOP and aligning with their political viewpoint makes it questionable. And in response to RandFan, that is the reason "we shouldn't rely on the GOP experts their report." If an unbiased (or as near as) agency came up with the same/similar plan, then I'd be more inclined to rely on it, as RandFan requested.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by Tatyana

Is it really only the liberals that are spending all the federal money in the USA?

I don't remember any liberals buying into the WMD line or promoting the idea of conflict in the middle east. Which is basically where the problem started during the Bush administration. You simply can't have tax cuts for the wealthy and an ongoing, insanely expensive war at the same time.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by bookitty

I don't remember any liberals buying into the WMD line or promoting the idea of conflict in the middle east.

Go back and look again.

Quote:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Pretty much everybody bought into that WMD line.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

Yes. The reason should be self-evident. I would equally question a Democratic plan that "arrived" at seemingly obvious solution which was amazingly in line with their political planks and stated economic opinions.

That doesn't mean the plan it without merit, only that it is of questionable status.

You have a point however, the report would only be questionable if it were self-serving. This report is contrary to their stated goals (don't raise taxes). I don't find it self-serving. Therefore I'm more likely to give it credence.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Department of Defense: $889.2 billion (21.36%)

Wow ! Talk about an increase from the last time I checked.

They should rename it the department of invasion and occupation. That way maybe people would be more amenable to reducing its budget.

[Christian Klippel]

Originally Posted by Molinaro

There's two problems.

1) Rich people are not taxed enough, as a percentage compared to lower income earners.
2) Too much is being spent by the government.

Are you saying that nothing should be done to address either problem unless it solves both?

Point 1 may be true where you live, i don't know. However, i like to add a pre-condition to that list as point 0: Have them actually _really_ pay the taxes in the first place. Big companies and people above a certain level of "richness" have way too many loopholes available in the tax laws that they can exploit, so that in the end they pay little to no tax at all, completely legal of course.

First plug these holes, and really go after the ones who evade paying tax then. Only if that doesn't really help (which i doubt), then increase the tax for the rich and for companies.

Point 2 in your list id of course true, spending has to be cut down. Funny thing, though. Politicians, at least over here, really love to tell you how they deserve the money they get each month, because their job is oh-so-hard. Then, debt increases, money is taken away from the people, and what do they do? Increase their "salaries" because, lo and behold, their job just got so much harder, what with the crisis and all that....

Greetings,

Chris

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

Again, that doesn't mean that plan is without merit, but coming from the GOP and aligning with their political viewpoint makes it questionable.

Except that the report analyzes the examples of other nations who were facing serious debt issues and how they proceeded to tackle them. One of those examples was Canada. In the early 1990s roughly one-third of government revenue, if I recall correctly, was going to servicing the national debt. That situation was untenable. So the Liberal government of the time embarked upon a plan to bring things under control. And it did, over a period of years. So much so, in fact, that the government from then on was posting budge surpluses each year. (Which continued right up until the recent recession, when the Conservative government went back into deficit. But it has already started taking steps to return to a balanced budget within five years or so.)

Moreover, it's worth remembering that the United States itself had taken steps in the 1990s to eliminate deficit spending. And it did, in the latter 1990s under the Clinton administration, posting several years of budget surpluses. The country had returned to a fiscally prudent course. Then the Bush administration came into office, and the surpluses vanished. The U.S. had squandered the gains it had made in the latter part of the 1990s.

[RobRoy]

Originally Posted by RandFan

You have a point however, the report would only be questionable if it were self-serving. This report is contrary to their stated goals (don't raise taxes). I don't find it self-serving. Therefore I'm more likely to give it credence.

Exactly. The report may have merit, but there is reason to question it.

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

Except that the report analyzes the examples . . .

None of which I was addressing.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by RobRoy

Exactly. The report may have merit, but there is reason to question it.

And what reason is that? If the GOP's report is not self serving and their actions are then I fail to understand your point.

So, I'm confused, could you clarify? What reason is there to question the report if the report is the opposite of self serving?

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by KoihimeNakamura

Xulid: Non controversal does not mean true.

Your right, I was too busy to back up my statements, as it seems you where to busy to present evidence that falsified my statements. It happens I guess.

Quick question, do you think the US military is the largest consumer of oil in the world?

If not how high do they rank?

If one could argue that the current levels of Millitary action where not needed could that usage be considered wasteful?

Just wondering your opinion. Forums are a great place to express opinions even when like me your at work and cant spend the time to research and present all the facts all the time to support every opinion on demand.

[Morrigan]

Originally Posted by ravdin

Then you're deliberately not paying attention to the comments that I and other people have posted about how the problem is in spending, not revenue.

And whose fault is that? We all know it's the war that's the costliest government venture, and that war was started by the so-called "small government", "little spending" GOP.

Quote:

Did you look at the date? I made that post three years ago.

I did not notice, no. I take back my hypocrite comment, people do change in 3 years. Sorry.

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

If that were really what he were saying, then Christie's counterargument would hold -- there's nothing stopping King from paying the amount of money he wants to be taxed to the programs he wants to help.

I legitimately want to understand this -- why don't people like King donate the money to do the things he wants the government to do? They have the money to do it; the things will work just as well with donated dollars as with tax dollars.

I would feel much better about what King was doing if he would pony up and say, "Here is the amount that people should be taxed; to be used on these programs. Look, I just donated my share to those same programs; other wealthy people should be forced to do the same!"

But, no, apparently, if Random Rich Person X isn't forced to give up their money to a greedy, fiscally irresponsible government, then King won't do so voluntarily either.

First off, how do you know that he hasn't? Secondly, federal programs can not run off donations. That's incredibly naive. Federal programs have necessary budgets. Those budgets rely on predictable income. Donations are not predictable.

Third and most important, why is it "better" for King to donate to federal programs and then demand (your word) that other wealthy pay taxes, and simply asking that people in his income bracket and above be taxed?

[bookitty]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Go back and look again.




Pretty much everybody bought into that WMD line.

Yeah and all your quotes are from 2003 and before. Saddam Hussain's government collapsed in 2003. And that's when Bush stopped all military aggression in Middle East, brought our troops home and went on to add trillions of dollars to the surplus he had inherited.

...oh wait, that was sane timeline.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by bookitty

Yeah and all your quotes are from 2003 and before.

Yes, which was when everybody "bought into that WMD line".

If your really just meant "the liberals changed their minds later and started criticizing Bush and undermining the war", you should have said that, rather than trying to revise history.

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Yes, which was when everybody "bought into that WMD line".

If your really just meant "the liberals changed their minds later and started criticizing Bush and undermining the war", you should have said that, rather than trying to revise history.

You've got quotes saying saddam has a big arsenal of WMDs, others saying he's stockpiling them, others saying if he continues force should be used - but it was Bush who steamrolled through and invaded while Blix was asking for more time. I didn't see any quotes saying an invasion in 2003 was appropriate.