Congratulations to the Dems [Archive]

sammi jo

11-08-2006, 12:23 AM

Let me be the first to say it. Now:

That is a very sporting and charitable response, as obvously you are a strong GOP supporter... :)

1. Please don't waste time impeaching Bush. You'll look dumb.''

Pelosi has already stated her intentions on impeachment. I don't think anyone's going to try to impeach him during the remainder of his term. After January, 2008, though, there will be some very interesting developments... Watch this space ;)

2. Please don't raise taxes...even on the "rich." You'll hurt the economy.

To impose "supertax" on the very wealthiest isn't going to make any difference. Many very very wealthy people go to great lengths in paying teams of attorneys and tax accountants to set up schemes to legally avoid large tax bills. A relative of mine works for one such company, and he's described some of these schemes which are incredible and totally befuddling in their legal and technical complexity.

3. Please deal with immigration. Please.

Agreed 100%. Please, please deal with immigration, and do it properly. Rather than some harebrained scheme like building a fence, or border militias like the "minutemen", or prioritizing the busting of those unfortunate folk who are just trying to earn some money for their families, have a go at the crooks in business who knowingly employ illegal immigrants, and bring them to account, and also those who advertise services and jobs for illegal immigrants on the border. Believe me, when a few CEOs do a month or two in jail, and their firms, as a result, stop employing illegals, the flood of immigrants will dry up to a trickle. You don't fix a broken dam by trying to plug the holes on the downstream side.. you fix it at the source. Also, lets put some major pressure, financial and diplomatic, on the Mexican Government... their policies are partially responsible for the current and ongoing invasion of the US.

4. Please don't investigate everyone under the sun and then investigate the investigators who investigated in the first place.

There are two appalling outrages that need investigating now, and the perps brought to justice.
First was the debacle that was the response to Hurricane Katrina. Michael Chertoff should have been SO FIRED for his rank incompetence. No, as you were: he should be on trial for criminal negligence in the 2nd worst federal fvck up in US history.

The other incident, (which will probably end up as an even more lasting disaster than Katrina) which must be investigated with no expense spared, is the widespread sickness resulting from 9/11 victims, from breathing in the toxic dust and smoke that enveloped New York for up to 2 months following the attacks. Cheney's office should be a prime target in the probe... as that was where the order to block (and deliberately distort) the EPA's report and analysis on the toxicity of the dust and the extreme dangers of breathing in the fumes, originated. It has been estimated that as a result of this criminal coverup, the death toll from mesothelial cancers, asbestosis and other chronic and fatal conditions resulting from people not taking adequate precautions (because they were told that "the air is safe to breathe and the water is safe to drink", within the next decade and a half will exceed the actual death toll (2947) by a factor of perhaps 5 times.

5. Please don't pull us out of Iraq before the end of next year.

As a long term trend, things are going downhill in Iraq. It will be easier on Iraq, and the M.E. in general to pull them out now, rather than wait 18 months.

and most imporantly:

Thank God we don't have to watch anymore stupid goddamned ads!

Another "I concur 100% "..

AsLan^

11-08-2006, 12:31 AM

6. Please increase the value of our currency which BushCo and his cronies have devalued over the last couple of years.

I don't make enough to benefit from any kind of tax cuts and I don't have children. I do feel it right in the *pocket* every time I go to an ATM and it costs me $330 to withdraw KW300,000 which used to cost me $290 when I first moved to Korea 4 years ago.

trumptman

11-08-2006, 02:29 AM

I saw congratulations to the Democrats who it appears will take both houses, probably by at least one seat in the Senate.

I hope the Democrats take this as a mandate for a revolution and work as hard as possible to push their agenda through the Congress.

Nick

MajorMatt

11-08-2006, 07:45 AM

Indeed. Impeaching Bush will do no good, we'd end up with Cheney. That's far worse.

FormerLurker

11-08-2006, 08:09 AM

Yep.

Cheney - Best Presidential Shield since Dan Quayle!

tonton

11-08-2006, 08:09 AM

Indeed. Impeaching Bush will do no good, we'd end up with Cheney. That's far worse.

So we convict Cheney then impeach Bush! :D

And guess who becomes president!?

Nancy Pelosi!!!! :D :D :D

SDW2001

11-08-2006, 08:42 AM

So we convict Cheney then impeach Bush! :D

And guess who becomes president!?

Nancy Pelosi!!!! :D :D :D

Yeah, that would be greeeattt.

franksargent

11-08-2006, 09:17 AM

Yeah, that would be greeeattt.

:smokey:

Actually, like Nixon, they would just replace the VP first, with someone like Santorum!

So that after the impeachment we could all say ...

All hail Our Fearless Leader:

President Santorum

:smokey:

midwinter

11-08-2006, 09:22 AM

I hope the Democrats take this as a mandate for a revolution and work as hard as possible to push their agenda through the Congress.

Wait. I thought Democrats didn't have a plan.

jimmac

11-08-2006, 09:37 AM

Let me be the first to say it. Now:

1. Please don't waste time impeaching Bush. You'll look dumb.

2. Please don't raise taxes...even on the "rich." You'll hurt the economy.

3. Please deal with immigration. Please.

4. Please don't investigate everyone under the sun and then investigate the investigators who investigated in the first place.

5. Please don't pull us out of Iraq before the end of next year.

and most imporantly:

Thank God we don't have to watch anymore stupid goddamned ads!

:smokey:

And here I was going to congratulate you for good sportsmanship!

That was a little backhanded wasn't it?

Chris Cuilla

11-08-2006, 10:31 AM

Personally I am glad the D's have the House. I hope they win the Senate as well (sounds like a real possibility). Two main reasons:

1. Divided government is always good. The next best thing to much smaller, less intrusive government, is divided, even grid-locked government. Let's hope that this keeps the federal government so locked up it cannot get anything accomplished.

2. With the D's in control of the House and (possibly) the Senate, perhaps they will put to rest all of the whining, weeping, gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing. Of course now they have to actually govern...so we'll see how that goes...but at least there will be fewer excuses.

Finally, let's be clear about something in all of this...the grand expectations of change and revolution are quite likely unfounded. As Noam Chomsky (I believe) once said, we don't really have two parties in the United States but, rather, two branches of the same party (QUOTE: "There are two parties, so-called, but they're really factions of the same party, the Business Party. Both represent some range of business interests. In fact, they can change their positions 180 degrees, and nobody even notices.") both bent on obtaining, retaining and exercising power. But perhaps Pete Townshend said it best: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

trumptman

11-08-2006, 11:10 AM

Wait. I thought Democrats didn't have a plan.

I thought at least one person would get the irony.

Nick

SDW2001

11-08-2006, 11:12 AM

And here I was going to congratulate you for good sportsmanship!

That was a little backhanded wasn't it?

No, I wasn't trying to be actually. I really hope they do/don't do the above as listed.

jimmac

11-08-2006, 11:13 AM

I thought at least one person would get the irony.

Nick

I knew it all along.;)

And I didn't have to use ESP!

trumptman

11-08-2006, 11:17 AM

jimmac, I may not be right 100% of the time, but you sir are the proverbial clock that happens to tell the correct time twice a day.:lol: ;)

Nick

jimmac

11-08-2006, 11:34 AM

jimmac, I may not be right 100% of the time, but you sir are the proverbial clock that happens to tell the correct time twice a day.:lol: ;)

Nick

Sorry sir but I was more than right on this time!

Hows that ESP?:lol:

Ps.

Most of these votes were a vote against Bush and a republican presidency.
Just watch how right I am about the next election!;)

SDW2001

11-08-2006, 11:55 AM

Sorry sir but I was more than right on this time!

Hows that ESP?:lol:

Ps.

Most of these votes were a vote against Bush and a republican presidency.
Just watch how right I am about the next election!;)

Oh, you're probably right to an extent. But I wouldn't count on 2008. I will all but gurarantee a Republican win. It's going to be McCain and either Rice or Guiliani. Mark my words.

BTW, it's not hard to be right when every pundit in the country says the same thing. The conservatives pundits were all calling for this too. It wasn't a surprise.

dmz

11-08-2006, 11:57 AM

I'm surprised the polls were nearly dead-on. That's unusual.

Gilsch

11-08-2006, 12:01 PM

Nice predictions Trumpet. Your predictions are as good as yor financial advice. :D

trumptman

11-08-2006, 12:06 PM

Sorry sir but I was more than right on this time!

Hows that ESP?:lol:

Ps.

Most of these votes were a vote against Bush and a republican presidency.
Just watch how right I am about the next election!;)

I'll be watching buddy.;) :D

BTW, my ESP is projecting a donation to kiva.org soon on behalf of BRussell.

Nice predictions Trumpet. Your predictions are as good as yor financial advice. :D

No problem with your statement. My financial advice has me in a very good position. No one is correct 100% of the time. I'll get ya the next time though.

Nick

MacRR

11-08-2006, 12:12 PM

Oh, you're probably right to an extent. But I wouldn't count on 2008. I will all but gurarantee a Republican win. It's going to be McCain and either Rice or Guiliani. Mark my words.

BTW, it's not hard to be right when every pundit in the country says the same thing. The conservatives pundits were all calling for this too. It wasn't a surprise.
I used to like McCain until he abandoned his values. Significant personal values at that. I'd have a hard time voting for someone who'd compromise himself in such a fashion- and up until a few years ago I'd have casted a vote for him in 2008. IMO, McCain has become to republicans what Kerry has become to democrats.

trumptman

11-08-2006, 01:58 PM

I agree. I'd love to see Bill Richardson versus Mike Huckabee.

Nick

jimmac

11-08-2006, 02:25 PM

I'll be watching buddy.;) :D

BTW, my ESP is projecting a donation to kiva.org soon on behalf of BRussell.

No problem with your statement. My financial advice has me in a very good position. No one is correct 100% of the time. I'll get ya the next time though.

Nick

We'll see!;)

jimmac

11-08-2006, 02:26 PM

11-08-2006, 03:24 PM

SDW2001

11-08-2006, 03:31 PM

I wouldn't hold your breath on that one ( unless you're fond of the color blue that is )!;)

Huh? The Democrats have some problems and the Republicans have major advantages:

First, McCain and Guiliani are strong candidates. McCain is right where most of the electorate is politically, and is generally a popular guy. He waited for his turn, and it's coming. Guiliani is socially pretty liberal, and very popular in a huge blue state...Hillary's state. ;) This, IMO, is the best choice for the Republicans. Rice might work, but she'll be tarnished by the war and Bush Admin fatigue.

The Dems still have a serious problem. Their party's power base (read: money) comes from the hard left. The hard left controls the party's purse strings and dominates the House and Senate leadership. However, the electorate is right of center. They're not where Santorum and Bill Frist are, but they're still right of center. To win, the Dems need to nominate a moderate. This is why Hillary has spent six years trying to bridge the gap and move to the center. At heart she is a far left as they get, but she's politically savvy enough to know she's not going to win like that. The last liberal President we had was Jimmy Carter. Mondale and Dukakis were slaughtered running as liberals, and Clinton ran as "new Democrat." The Clinton people don't run the party anymore though. Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Schumer, Dean, Rangle and Conyers do.

Let's look at the candidates. Hillary will face huge conservative opposition and opposition among men. Her numbers among white men will be laughable. But that's not the problem. Hillary's real problem is with women...yes, women. The first female President is going to need 75% (perhaps) of the female vote to win. With her disapproval in the 40s amongst women, she has a serious problem.

Kerry is finished, this much we know. Dean is finished too. Clark won't catch on, just as he didn't last time. John Edwards is too much of a pretty boy (not a technical analysis I know, but it's true). Barack Obama hasn't done anything worth mentioning. And let's face it, the name is a killer for him. Bill Richardson comes across as sloppy, and Evan Bayh is too unknown.

That leaves us with Mark Warner and perhaps, just perhaps Ed Rendell, though I think he comes across as too unpolished as well.

Now I'm leaving out one, and you know who that is. It's my prediction that Al "ManBearPig" Gore is going to run again. I think he has a chance of beating McCain if he picks the right running mate and runs a better campaign. Pair him up with Obama or Warner, maybe even Hillary and you have a good ticket. Gore is pretty "left" too, but he does care about US business interests and knows how to look like a centrist. He'll also tackle global warming head on...whether it needs to be tackled or not.

Nominating Hillary would be a disaster in my opinion. The only way she can win would be like her husband did. If a third party candidate gets thrown in and splits the fiscal conservative vote, she's got a good shot.

Just my take.

11-08-2006, 03:37 PM

So you think Gore can pull a Nixon.

iPoster

11-08-2006, 04:47 PM

I for one welcome our new Democrat Overlords!

Oh, wait...

Well, at least we don't have a one-party system for the foreseeable future. Hopefully this will result in some changes in Bush Co.'s mismanagement of the country, the war and our civil liberties...

Though in the long term I agree with the view that the Democrats and Republicans are variations on a theme. To paraphrase Futurama, do you want to vote for John Jackson, or Jack Johnson in 2008?

shetline

11-08-2006, 05:53 PM

Though in the long term I agree with the view that the Democrats and Republicans are variations on a theme. To paraphrase Futurama, do you want to vote for John Jackson, or Jack Johnson in 2008?
I just don't buy this "they're all the same" (or nearly the same) meme.

It is highly, highly unlikely that Gore or Kerry would have gotten us into the Iraq war. And yes, I know a lot of Democrats authorized Bush to have the option, but that's very far from the same thing as deciding to do go into that war themselves. Even if you are kind, and generously discount that Bush willingly lied about or cherry-picked the evidence for WMD, only Bush's neocon-skewed perspective would have resulted in the environment where the available data would have been become as distorted as it did. Bush and his admin had been looking for an excuse to invade Iraq from day one of Bush's Presidency. They wanted this war, and were looking for any justification they could find to make it happen.

Yes, Republicans and Democrats both do a lot of cozying up to big business and monied interests. For those who look at the world through Socialist-colored glasses, that seems to be enough to declare them all "the same". But in my book, there's a HUGE difference between a big business suck-up who gets us into a TRILLION dollar war, with thousands of American casualties, tens to hundreds of thousands of foreign casualties, which fosters international animosity toward the US and actually promotes the terrorism is was supposed to combat, and a big business suck-up who doesn't do this.

There are plenty of other MAJOR differences between Democrats and Republicans, but that one single example should be more than enough reason to shatter any imagined great similarity between the two parties, and the differing consequences of putting one party or the other into power. I can't assure you we would be living in a better world right now if Gore had won in 2000, but I can say with great certainty say that we'd be living in a very different world right.

As far as I'm concerned, the "they're all the same" attitude is little more than a convenient excuse for disinterest, or an easy way to evince a world-wearly cynicism that one hopes will be read as studied wisdom, when all it really takes to say that is apathy and ignorance.

iPoster

11-08-2006, 06:21 PM

OK, you caught me in a generalization, there are some differences in the details between the parties and candidates. (I agree that if Bush wasn't in office we probably would never have invaded Iraq, etc.)

What I meant was, that in the 20 or so years since I started caring about politics, there have been no *significant* changes in the way things are run IMHO, be it Dems or Reps in 'charge'. Perhaps if I was in one of the special interest groups that get targeted (good or bad) by one party over the other I would have noticed more differences, but in the grind of my average, middle class, day to day life I can't honestly say I've been 'better off' with one party or the other, paid noticeably less or more taxes with one or the other, etc. I haven't been asked for my papers or had to be vetted to leave the country with Republicans in charge. (at least not yet! :rolleyes: )

For example, I was upset when my pay raises (miltary) in Clinton's first term were laughable, but Bush has been holding increases down almost as much as Clinton did. (have to pay for that war somehow)

Chris Cuilla

11-08-2006, 07:17 PM

There is some hope for congressional grid-lock!

This blog/article (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/11/08/bipartisan-baloney/) points out the most likely reality:

Because both parties know that either House or Senate could easily switch back over in 2008, they will do their best to deny the other side any legislative victories.

Another blog (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/11/parties_are_par.html) adds:

My real wish is that Pelosi would pursue impeachment, not because I think it is justified but because it would tie Congress up into a magnificently entertaining gridlock. Unfortunately, she has pledged she would not do so.

The first blog has probably the most realistic political analysis so far. The "we'll be friends" thing will likely last about 72 hours...perhaps less (with legal/political fights starting over a Virginia senate seat).

jimmac

11-08-2006, 07:57 PM

Huh? The Democrats have some problems and the Republicans have major advantages:

First, McCain and Guiliani are strong candidates. McCain is right where most of the electorate is politically, and is generally a popular guy. He waited for his turn, and it's coming. Guiliani is socially pretty liberal, and very popular in a huge blue state...Hillary's state. ;) This, IMO, is the best choice for the Republicans. Rice might work, but she'll be tarnished by the war and Bush Admin fatigue.

The Dems still have a serious problem. Their party's power base (read: money) comes from the hard left. The hard left controls the party's purse strings and dominates the House and Senate leadership. However, the electorate is right of center. They're not where Santorum and Bill Frist are, but they're still right of center. To win, the Dems need to nominate a moderate. This is why Hillary has spent six years trying to bridge the gap and move to the center. At heart she is a far left as they get, but she's politically savvy enough to know she's not going to win like that. The last liberal President we had was Jimmy Carter. Mondale and Dukakis were slaughtered running as liberals, and Clinton ran as "new Democrat." The Clinton people don't run the party anymore though. Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Schumer, Dean, Rangle and Conyers do.

Let's look at the candidates. Hillary will face huge conservative opposition and opposition among men. Her numbers among white men will be laughable. But that's not the problem. Hillary's real problem is with women...yes, women. The first female President is going to need 75% (perhaps) of the female vote to win. With her disapproval in the 40s amongst women, she has a serious problem.

Kerry is finished, this much we know. Dean is finished too. Clark won't catch on, just as he didn't last time. John Edwards is too much of a pretty boy (not a technical analysis I know, but it's true). Barack Obama hasn't done anything worth mentioning. And let's face it, the name is a killer for him. Bill Richardson comes across as sloppy, and Evan Bayh is too unknown.

That leaves us with Mark Warner and perhaps, just perhaps Ed Rendell, though I think he comes across as too unpolished as well.

Now I'm leaving out one, and you know who that is. It's my prediction that Al "ManBearPig" Gore is going to run again. I think he has a chance of beating McCain if he picks the right running mate and runs a better campaign. Pair him up with Obama or Warner, maybe even Hillary and you have a good ticket. Gore is pretty "left" too, but he does care about US business interests and knows how to look like a centrist. He'll also tackle global warming head on...whether it needs to be tackled or not.

Nominating Hillary would be a disaster in my opinion. The only way she can win would be like her husband did. If a third party candidate gets thrown in and splits the fiscal conservative vote, she's got a good shot.

Just my take.

But americans just don't like what the republicans have been doing any more. Don't you get that?

And I don't think that's going to change in just 2 years. The republicans have had their day in the sun and then some! This is just balancing things out. You know the other part of the cycle. I have been trying to tell you. And you know it could be someone who isn't on your current list for the democrats.

Here's food for thought : http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15624617/

After the last election the more conservative parties on this board ( no names please ) crowed " The democrats are so mixed up maybe they'll never elect another democrat again ". Well look at things now! Cyclic, cyclic, cyclic! 'Get it? That's why we have a 2 party system. I think you guys better start looking at 2012.;)

SDW2001

11-08-2006, 08:13 PM

shet:

It is highly, highly unlikely that Gore or Kerry would have gotten us into the Iraq war. And yes, I know a lot of Democrats authorized Bush to have the option, but that's very far from the same thing as deciding to do go into that war temselves.

That sir, is complete and utter bullshit. They voted to give him authority to invade. They did it because they were scared it would bite them in the ass in the 2002 midterms. Then they tried to run away from their vote. Period.

SDW2001

11-08-2006, 08:16 PM

But americans just don't like what the republicans have been doing any more. Don't you get that?

And I don't think that's going to change in just 2 years. The republicans have had their day in the sun and then some! This is just balancing things out. You know the other part of the cycle. I have been trying to tell you. And you know it could be someone who isn't on your current list for the democrats.

Here's food for thought : http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15624617/

After the last election the more conservative parties on this board ( no names please ) crowed " The democrats are so mixed up maybe they'll never elect another democrat again ". Well look at things now! Cyclic, cyclic, cyclic! 'Get it? That's why we have a 2 party system. I think you guys better start looking at 2012.;)

I really tend to disagree with that, cyclic or not. The Presidential race will not be about voter fatigue. It will be about the candidates, as it nearly always is. That's all it comes down to.

ronaldo

11-08-2006, 08:20 PM

shetline

11-08-2006, 08:39 PM

That sir, is complete and utter bullshit. They voted to give him authority to invade. They did it because they were scared it would bite them in the ass in the 2002 midterms. Then they tried to run away from their vote. Period.
How is it bullshit?

There were three main reasons for Democrats, or Republicans too for that matter, to vote for the authorization to invade Iraq:

1) They believed the evidence for WMD and/or Al Qaeda ties. But the so-called evidence which swayed members of Congress never would have been presented to them in the slanted way that it was, with dissenting views from within the intelligence community largely filtered out, and minimal evidence hyped up to look like more than it was, without the process that particular to the Bush administration and its built-in drive to look for an excuse to invade Iraq.

2) They wanted to give the present a tactical too with the threat of invasion, but had (very wrongly it turns out) had hoped he'd use the option to invade more judiciously, and if used, implemented more competently.

3) In the post-9/11 environment, they were afraid to look "weak on terror", and voted as they did as a political calculation. But here again, that's not a political calculation that would have existed in the absence of the Bush White House. It is incredibly unlikely a Democratic President would have put the Iraq option on the table, nor have used the same propaganda games to create a strong Saddam-9/11 connection in the public mind (always mentioning "9/11", "Al Qauda", and "terrorism" within a few words distance from and mention of "Saddam" or "Iraq" in every public address on Iraq done by Bush or any of his people) such that members of Congress would feel that political pressure to either go along or look weak.

You're looking at the narrow picture of lots of Dems voting for the authorization, deliberately or stubbornly jettisoning all possible nuance (a conservative trait if ever there was one!) about the reasons behind those votes, and totally ignoring the issue of whether the idea of invading Iraq would even have come up in a post 9/11 Democratic administration.

jimmac

11-08-2006, 10:04 PM

I really tend to disagree with that, cyclic or not. The Presidential race will not be about voter fatigue. It will be about the candidates, as it nearly always is. That's all it comes down to.

Yes but you have said they wouldn't take the senate. Well guess what?:smokey:

jimmac

11-08-2006, 10:07 PM

jimmac

11-08-2006, 10:30 PM

There is some hope for congressional grid-lock!

This blog/article (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/11/08/bipartisan-baloney/) points out the most likely reality:

Another blog (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2006/11/parties_are_par.html) adds:

The first blog has probably the most realistic political analysis so far. The "we'll be friends" thing will likely last about 72 hours...perhaps less (with legal/political fights starting over a Virginia senate seat).

This is called " Wishful Thinking ".

;)

Chucker

11-08-2006, 10:45 PM

I honestly want to see a Schwarzennegar Republican win in 2008...someone who will actually work together with the other side and end all this nonsensical bickering and ra ra team attitude that prevails in this country.

Agreed. Schwarzenegger is underrated.

Here's one thing I want from the Dems: make elections work more properly. Instead of bickering about who may have tampered whose election and how and who got shot for finding out, take the constructive approach and actually fix the election system's biggest woes. For instance:

1) Make proper laws to ensure standards for election machines. Enforce the hardware to be built on standard components. Enforce the software to be developed an open-source project. Enforce the operating system to only allow running digitally signed binaries. In other words, make the devices secure as well as open; safe as well as transparent. Make fraud completely impossible.

2) Make precincts verify identities better. A friend of mine walked in without having his identity checked at all; he could have easily pretended to be someone else; nobody cared to check.

thuh Freak

11-08-2006, 10:58 PM

That sir, is complete and utter bullshit. They voted to give him authority to invade. They did it because they were scared it would bite them in the ass in the 2002 midterms. Then they tried to run away from their vote. Period.

The president and his men flamed the fire by bringing Iraq to the spotlight. It's not like they were extra denying the UN resolutions. I don't even recall them flaunting anything. They'd been ignoring them for years. It took a republican to respond to that, and to create the situation we're in. Once the inferences and buildup was started, many dems, and much of the public, ate the bait.

SDW2001

11-08-2006, 11:36 PM

How is it bullshit?

There were three main reasons for Democrats, or Republicans too for that matter, to vote for the authorization to invade Iraq:

1) They believed the evidence for WMD and/or Al Qaeda ties. But the so-called evidence which swayed members of Congress never would have been presented to them in the slanted way that it was, with dissenting views from within the intelligence community largely filtered out, and minimal evidence hyped up to look like more than it was, without the process that particular to the Bush administration and its built-in drive to look for an excuse to invade Iraq.

2) They wanted to give the present a tactical too with the threat of invasion, but had (very wrongly it turns out) had hoped he'd use the option to invade more judiciously, and if used, implemented more competently.

3) In the post-9/11 environment, they were afraid to look "weak on terror", and voted as they did as a political calculation. But here again, that's not a political calculation that would have existed in the absence of the Bush White House. It is incredibly unlikely a Democratic President would have put the Iraq option on the table, nor have used the same propaganda games to create a strong Saddam-9/11 connection in the public mind (always mentioning "9/11", "Al Qauda", and "terrorism" within a few words distance from and mention of "Saddam" or "Iraq" in every public address on Iraq done by Bush or any of his people) such that members of Congress would feel that political pressure to either go along or look weak.

You're looking at the narrow picture of lots of Dems voting for the authorization, deliberately or stubbornly jettisoning all possible nuance (a conservative trait if ever there was one!) about the reasons behind those votes, and totally ignoring the issue of whether the idea of invading Iraq would even have come up in a post 9/11 Democratic administration.

1. There is no evidence that the intel was manipulated or cherry picked, as you put it. They saw what Bush saw. They saw what other agencies had too, inlcuding the Brits, the Israelis, the French, the Russians and the Germans. "They were lied to" doesn't cut it. They weren't lied to.

2. Oh come on. You cannot possibly believe that! The whole country laughed at Kerry when he said that. They knew what they were voting for. Really, this is one of the weakest, most pathetic arguments I've ever heard. The resolution didn't say "go threaten them" nor did the President need the resolution to do that. Please.

3. Now we're getting somewhere. Except then there is this:

nor have used the same propaganda games to create a strong Saddam-9/11 connection in the public mind

I am really sick of hearing this. I disagree this effort ever took place. What was said was that in the wake of 9/11, our view of threats changed.

I don't know whether or not a Dem would have invaded. I really don't see the point in debating it. The Dems were scared and didn't want to look bad in the midterms, which they did anyway. Then, when they had to go face people like you...their constituents....they cried "we were tricked" or "we were pressured by propoganda." It's really nothing that sophisticated though. They were just trying to keep their base and look tough on terror at the same time.

jimmac

11-08-2006, 11:40 PM

1. There is no evidence that the intel was manipulated or cherry picked, as you put it. They saw what Bush saw. They saw what other agencies had too, inlcuding the Brits, the Israelis, the French, the Russians and the Germans. "They were lied to" doesn't cut it. They weren't lied to.

2. Oh come on. You cannot possibly believe that! The whole country laughed at Kerry when he said that. They knew what they were voting for. Really, this is one of the weakest, most pathetic arguments I've ever heard. The resolution didn't say "go threaten them" nor did the President need the resolution to do that. Please.

3. Now we're getting somewhere. Except then there is this:

I am really sick of hearing this. I disagree this effort ever took place. What was said was that in the wake of 9/11, our view of threats changed.

I don't know whether or not a Dem would have invaded. I really don't see the point in debating it. The Dems were scared and didn't want to look bad in the midterms, which they did anyway. Then, when they had to go face people like you...their constituents....they cried "we were tricked" or "we were pressured by propoganda." It's really nothing that sophisticated though. They were just trying to keep their base and look tough on terror at the same time.

In view of what's happening good luck on that view.

SDW2001

11-08-2006, 11:43 PM

The president and his men flamed the fire by bringing Iraq to the spotlight. It's not like they were extra denying the UN resolutions. I don't even recall them flaunting anything. They'd been ignoring them for years. It took a republican to respond to that, and to create the situation we're in. Once the inferences and buildup was started, many dems, and much of the public, ate the bait.

The bait? I'll tell you what changed: 9/11. That's what changed. That is when the Administration decided that threats now were going to be looked at differently, inlcuding Saddam. They decided they weren't going to chance it. They thought...everyone thought that he had WMD. He openly praised 9/11. All of a sudden someone decided Saddam might just pass some of those WMDs on to a terrorist group. We consequently decided to take him out....to pre-empt him and not take the chance. Given the context of the times, I have to wonder if a Dem president would have come to a different conclusion. Maybe he or she sould have, but I wuld hope you could at least acknowledge that the decision Bush came to was reasonable and in the best interests of protecting the country at the time.

jimmac

11-08-2006, 11:48 PM

The bait? I'll tell you what changed: 9/11. That's what changed. That is when the Administration decided that threats now were going to be looked at differently, inlcuding Saddam. They decided they weren't going to chance it. They thought...everyone thought that he had WMD. He openly praised 9/11. All of a sudden someone decided Saddam might just pass some of those WMDs on to a terrorist group. We consequently decided to take him out....to pre-empt him and not take the chance. Given the context of the times, I have to wonder if a Dem president would have come to a different conclusion. Maybe he or she sould have, but I wuld hope you could at least acknowledge that the decision Bush came to was reasonable and in the best interests of protecting the country at the time.

Democrats would never have entered this war. Only a fool with a screwed up sense of direction would. Trying to say they would have is just silly at this point.

And no he didn't have country's best interest at heart. The voters just pointed that out.

SDW2001

11-09-2006, 12:04 AM

Democrats would never have entered this war. Only a fool with a screwed up sense of direction would. Trying to say they would have is just silly at this point.

And no he didn't have country's best interest at heart. The voters just pointed that out.

Your first statement is unsupported...utterly unsupported. You don't know that.

Ditto on your second statement, except that it's much nastier. On what do you base it? That's the kind of criticism I'm talking about. You're accusing the President of not having the interests of the country at heart. That goes way beyond appropriate political discourse. I wouldn't say that about Clinton, as much as I despised him. I just think he was wrong on many things, and a demonstrable liar. He still wanted to do what was right for the country....even if he was the ego to end all egos.

Lastly, the second half of your second statement is inaccurate. The voters didn't say "Bush didn't have the interests of the country at heart." They said they didn't like the Iraq war. They said they don't like corruption and sex scandals. They said they wanted to punish the Republicans for doing nothing about immigration and spending and more tax reforms. That's what they said.

11-09-2006, 01:52 AM

They will have to make an amendment to the constitution for that to happen. Thank God.
Feh, it wouldn't be bad if he did run but that's why I didn't say HIM specifically but someone LIKE HIM.

ronaldo

11-09-2006, 06:59 AM

Feh, it wouldn't be bad if he did run but that's why I didn't say HIM specifically but someone LIKE HIM.
My mistake . All I saw was Schwarzznegger.

jimmac

11-09-2006, 09:44 AM

Your first statement is unsupported...utterly unsupported. You don't know that.

Ditto on your second statement, except that it's much nastier. On what do you base it? That's the kind of criticism I'm talking about. You're accusing the President of not having the interests of the country at heart. That goes way beyond appropriate political discourse. I wouldn't say that about Clinton, as much as I despised him. I just think he was wrong on many things, and a demonstrable liar. He still wanted to do what was right for the country....even if he was the ego to end all egos.

Lastly, the second half of your second statement is inaccurate. The voters didn't say "Bush didn't have the interests of the country at heart." They said they didn't like the Iraq war. They said they don't like corruption and sex scandals. They said they wanted to punish the Republicans for doing nothing about immigration and spending and more tax reforms. That's what they said.

What do you think that was saying and why they were saying it SDW?

Geez!:rolleyes:

About the other two yes I can be very sure of that. The way this war started was unsupportable and not normal for the U.S.
I know the way democrats opererate and that's not it. No one but an idiot like Bush would have done this.

icfireball

11-09-2006, 02:28 PM

Not according to historical precedent. Trickle down tax cuts do work. Kennedy proved it. Reagan proved it. Bsuh proved it. Revenue has gone up dramatically. The rich create jobs and invest their capital in the market.

That said, I would not oppose an "uber wealthy" tax on those making over 1,000,000 a year, say an addtional 1% of earnings over that amount, so long as the revenue was dedicated to certain programs.

Bush did NOT prove it. He has shown this country the largest deficits since the great depression. Cliton had a very large surplus. The economy was booming under him.

SDW2001

11-09-2006, 03:13 PM

Bush did NOT prove it. He has shown this country the largest deficits since the great depression. Cliton had a very large surplus. The economy was booming under him.

With due respect, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Government revenue is UP, not down. It's the spending side of the equation that is utterly out of control. I say again: SPENDING. PORK. APPROPRIATIONS run wild. That is the problem.

Secondly, the deficit is coming DOWN. It was up to 413 B. It's now 248 billion. Not only is it not a record as a percentage of GDP (look it up, it was far higher in the 1980s for the same reason), it is currently not even the highest it has been in terms of current US Dollars. You are as wrong as could be. No offense.

In any case, what I said was that Kennedy, Reagan and Bush proved that tax cuts stimulated the economy and produce more revenue. You're going to get very frustrated arguing that point, because numbers don't lie. Federal income tax revenue when Reagan took office was just about $400 billion. When he left, after the top bracket went from 75% to 28% (a tax cut for the "rich"...cough, cough), Federal Revenue was over $900 billion. It doubled, sir. It doubled because the overall economy was better. It turns out tax cuts "for the rich" actually don't just benefit the rich, they benefit the economy.

shetline

11-09-2006, 04:46 PM

1. There is no evidence that the intel was manipulated or cherry picked, as you put it. They saw what Bush saw.
Most Senators don't have the clearance to see everything Bush saw. Those with higher clearance still ended up looking at a lot of redacted reports, and didn't have access to the raw information behind those reports. They didn't see every memo or hear every conversation in the White House in which warnings were made about the quality and veracity of much of the "evidence" presented to Congress, nor to the public in general.

One way of manipulating information is to control who you send to gather it, and what you tell those people you're looking for. Bush and the neocons made it quite clear that they were specifically looking for anything that could in anyway be tied to Iraq. They had an agenda to find some reason, any reason, to justify going into Iraq because they were breathlessly eager to find a pretext for implementing the PNAC dream of creating a democratic (and capitalist and business friendly!) Middle East, with Iraq as the starting point and centerpiece.

I could go point-by-point through the rest of what you wrote (a lot I could refute, regardless of whether you'd buy it or not), and if you really wanted me to come back to something specific I would, but this is the key issue:

I don't know whether or not a Dem would have invaded. I really don't see the point in debating it.

Remember what I was addressing... whether or not it makes a big difference if you vote for a Democrat or vote for a Republican, or if they're all so much alike that everything turns out the same anyway. No one can say anything incontestably true about a what-if hypothetical past, but I think I can very confidently say that no Democratic President would have done anything more in Iraq that maintain the no-fly zones and attempts at inspections and perhaps, should some special situation have arisen, run the occasional bombing raid.

Then again, any non-neocon Republican we might have gotten would have been more restrained than Bush as well, and would have stuck with Bush's pre-2001 stump speech rhetoric against "nation building" and in favor of a cautious, restrained foreign policy.

The point remains that there was an enormous, and devastating, difference in consequences between voting for a Republican over a Democrat, and especially in voting for a particular Republican over a particular Democrat. Even if you prefer to imagine some right-wing dystopian fantasy that, having put Gore in the White House instead of Bush, we'd have been taxed into depression and economic collapse just before the some radical Islamic dictator conquered America, cackling with glee over how easily the weak Democratic defenses were overrun, you'd still have to admit that's a big difference in outcomes.

People who say there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans are either blind to the important differences that (to them apparently too subtle) policy differences and leadership styles can make, and/or they're Illuminati-style conspiracists who think everything we see is no more than a big puppet show run by some shadowy Power behind the scenes, making everything always come out the exactly way They want it come out, no matter how we vote, no matter what we do.

Then, when they had to go face people like you...their constituents....they cried "we were tricked" or "we were pressured by propoganda." It's really nothing that sophisticated though. They were just trying to keep their base and look tough on terror at the same time.
I've already admitted that, at least for some Democrats, their support for Bush was essentially a craven political calculation. That doesn't obviate the point that I also made that having a Democrat in office in the Whitehouse would have very likely taken the whole Iraq invasion issue, and therefore any need or desire to play a vote on it for political gain, off the table.

Nor does the fact that some Democrats lost their spines mean that there wasn't propaganda going on. It was the power of that propaganda that made it hard to play against. It's hard to stand up for what you think is right when you know that you would have to explain a nuanced position to a country full of people hyped-up on fear with no patience for often important subtleties.

Go over speeches made by Bush and his allies back before the Iraq invasion. Note how often "9/11", "Saddam", "terrorists" and "Iraq" come up within seconds of each other whenever any of those terms were mentioned. There was a surface argument that "9/11 taught us we need to preempt trouble before trouble strikes", but that was merely verbal scaffolding for the deliberate and quite definitely intended effect of making people think that Iraq and Saddam were behind 9/11.

Look at opinion polls from the time before the invasion. Here's one from 2003:

Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 Attacks (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm)

69% thought it was likely that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11, 32% thinking it was very likely. That skewing of public opinion, despite the fact that it was impossible to pin down any definitive statement made by Bush clearly linking Saddam to 9/11 in a causal way, was almost completely the result of the propaganda technique that was used to link Saddam and 9/11.

SDW2001

11-09-2006, 08:01 PM

Shet:

Most Senators don't have the clearance to see everything Bush saw. Those with higher clearance still ended up looking at a lot of redacted reports, and didn't have access to the raw information behind those reports. They didn't see every memo or hear every conversation in the White House in which warnings were made about the quality and veracity of much of the "evidence" presented to Congress, nor to the public in general.

Can you support that somehow? Otherwise, it's just speculation.

One way of manipulating information is to control who you send to gather it, and what you tell those people you're looking for. Bush and the neocons made it quite clear that they were specifically looking for anything that could in anyway be tied to Iraq. They had an agenda to find some reason, any reason, to justify going into Iraq because they were breathlessly eager to find a pretext for implementing the PNAC dream of creating a democratic (and capitalist and business friendly!) Middle East, with Iraq as the starting point and centerpiece.

Well that may be true, I'll grant you. I don't think we know it's true...it's just a suspicion. However, even that would seem pretty understandable given the context of when that all happened. I don't think there was a secret "neocon" agenda that caused it though. I know you'll stick to that like glue.

but I think I can very confidently say that no Democratic President would have done anything more in Iraq that maintain the no-fly zones and attempts at inspections and perhaps, should some special situation have arisen, run the occasional bombing raid.

I fail to see where that confidence comes from. Actually, I think it comes from your unalterable belief that this was some kind of Necon Grand Scheme to Takeover the World. I look at it differently, in the context of the way threats were percieved after 9/11.

Then again, any non-neocon Republican we might have gotten would have been more restrained than Bush as well, and would have stuck with Bush's pre-2001 stump speech rhetoric against "nation building" and in favor of a cautious, restrained foreign policy.

Well you're certainly right in that Bush reversed course on nation building. That said, a lot happened to cause that reversal. But the first part of the statment is unsupportable and, I think, even unlikely to be accurate. Bush was quite restrained, especially in Afghanistan (I realize you're addressing Iraq). If he was really the Necon War Monger you make him out to be, he would have never bothered with inspections and the UN and all of that. He would have just said Saddam was a threat post 9/11 and he was pre-empting his ass. He also wouldn't have allowed the initial list of targets to be scaled back by 50% in the opening days of the war (just an example). So, saying that anyone but him or "the like" of him would have been somehow more moderate, is I think dubious and unsupportable. It's speculation.

The point remains that there was an enormous, and devastating, difference in consequences between voting for a Republican over a Democrat, and especially in voting for a particular Republican over a particular Democrat. Even if you prefer to imagine some right-wing dystopian fantasy that, having put Gore in the White House instead of Bush, we'd have been taxed into depression and economic collapse just before the some radical Islamic dictator conquered America, cackling with glee over how easily the weak Democratic defenses were overrun, you'd still have to admit that's a big difference in outcomes.

Oh, I agree there is a difference. I'm not saying they are one and the same. I'm saying that given what was going on at the time, another President might very well have invaded. Clinton bombed Iraq unilaterally....is it really that unreasonable to assume a Democratic President might have reached the same conclusion Bush did?

As for Gore, well who knows. But, I do think he would have left tax policy the same, which in my opinion would have prolonged the recession.

I've already admitted that, at least for some Democrats, their support for Bush was essentially a craven political calculation. That doesn't obviate the point that I also made that having a Democrat in office in the Whitehouse would have very likely taken the whole Iraq invasion issue, and therefore any need or desire to play a vote on it for political gain, off the table.

Well, perhaps. But you're operating from the standpoint of a Ted Kennedy there...that the President concocted a war for political gain. Do you believe that?

Nor does the fact that some Democrats lost their spines mean that there wasn't propaganda going on. It was the power of that propaganda that made it hard to play against. It's hard to stand up for what you think is right when you know that you would have to explain a nuanced position to a country full of people hyped-up on fear with no patience for often important subtleties.

It's too bad that you think about the American people like that. What interesting is that now that "the people have spoken," all of a sudden their wise and powerful. ;) In any case, I also take issue with the term "propoganda." the admin made their case to the people and to Congress. Why is that "propoganda?" It certainly didn't go unquestioned...as you like to pretend...by the media.

I also think you're ignoring the past statements of Democratic politicians...statements that don't jive with their eventual positions on the war.

John Kerry said this on 10/9/2002

With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? [/quote

Uhh...yeah. He voted for the threat of force. Now, let's look at some statements during a Democratic administration, before the "propoganda" and pressure was brought to bear.

[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 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 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

"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.

"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.

I'll stop there. The full list can be found here. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp It's hard to explain that with the term "nuance", hmmm?

Go over speeches made by Bush and his allies back before the Iraq invasion. Note how often "9/11", "Saddam", "terrorists" and "Iraq" come up within seconds of each other whenever any of those terms were mentioned. There was a surface argument that "9/11 taught us we need to preempt trouble before trouble strikes", but that was merely verbal scaffolding for the deliberate and quite definitely intended effect of making people think that Iraq and Saddam were behind 9/11.

That's interpretive on your part, despite the fact that many libs agree with you. They said pretty clearly there was no evidence Saddam participated in 9/11. Speaking of 9/11, of course it was mentioned, because it was part of the "surface argument" as you put it.

69% thought it was likely that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11, 32% thinking it was very likely. That skewing of public opinion, despite the fact that it was impossible to pin down any definitive statement made by Bush clearly linking Saddam to 9/11 in a causal way, was almost completely the result of the propaganda technique that was used to link Saddam and 9/11.

I have always thought that claim of yours was really weak. First, I think the poll may be flawed. First, it's a huge issue to only survey 1,003 people on. What was the sample like? Who were these people? Secondly, read the questions. It says somewhat and very LIKELY, not "do you believe Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks?"--- yes or no. Wording and even the answers have a lot to do with it. Asked that question, I may have answered "somewhat likely" if I didn't follow the situation as much as I did. "Somewhat" and "Very" are subjective terms. In other words, people that didn't follow what the President and his Admin were saying may have been more....cough...LIKELY to answer in the affirmative (69%) column. Think about it.

Beyond the poll itself, it's highly dubious to suggest that because the public thinks something, the Admin "made" them think it. That's more speculation on your part.

jimmac

11-10-2006, 11:31 AM

SDW2001

11-10-2006, 02:04 PM

SDW to go from what we had in the late 1990's to what we had in the early part of this century is inexcusable and beyond what I would have guessed.:no:

" First, I think the poll may be flawed. "

Uh. Yeah. Right.

What are you talking about? What exactly is "what we had" and "what we have now?" Please define so we can begin to have a discussion.

icfireball

11-10-2006, 04:34 PM

With due respect, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Government revenue is UP, not down. It's the spending side of the equation that is utterly out of control. I say again: SPENDING. PORK. APPROPRIATIONS run wild. That is the problem.

Secondly, the deficit is coming DOWN. It was up to 413 B. It's now 248 billion. Not only is it not a record as a percentage of GDP (look it up, it was far higher in the 1980s for the same reason), it is currently not even the highest it has been in terms of current US Dollars. You are as wrong as could be. No offense.

In any case, what I said was that Kennedy, Reagan and Bush proved that tax cuts stimulated the economy and produce more revenue. You're going to get very frustrated arguing that point, because numbers don't lie. Federal income tax revenue when Reagan took office was just about $400 billion. When he left, after the top bracket went from 75% to 28% (a tax cut for the "rich"...cough, cough), Federal Revenue was over $900 billion. It doubled, sir. It doubled because the overall economy was better. It turns out tax cuts "for the rich" actually don't just benefit the rich, they benefit the economy.

Don't patronize me. You're not looking at the whole picture.

The current US deficit as of 10 Nov 2006 at 09:22:25 PM GMT is: $8,593,072,464,824.13, or in other words, 8.5 trillion dollars. That us HUGE. And knowing how to balance a budget is not just about getting money into the government, it is about spending it wisely.

Take your own personal budget for instance. You would not spend more than you made, and to some extent the government can be excused, but really, they should try as hard as possible to not spend more than they are making.

That being said, Clinton did a damn good job with the economy. Under Clinton, the deficit started going down as there was a very very large budget surplus.

Budget is about both SPENDING and REVENUE. Not just one or the other. Bush has also done various other things which have stifled the economy compared to Clinton (although I will give him a little credit for also do some things for some sectors which have helped them). But anyways, the economy was better with Clinton, and Bush did a shitty job with the economy, and a major part of that was the bad decision to go to war with Iraq. That had nothing to do with threat or terrorism, that had everything to do with geopolitics and oil.

midwinter

11-10-2006, 06:26 PM

Take your own personal budget for instance. You would not spend more than you made, and to some extent the government can be excused, but really, they should try as hard as possible to not spend more than they are making.

While I agree with you in principle, I think it's worth pointing out that people do spend more money than they make all the time: they buy cars and houses. This, as you say, is the kind of exception that can be made for government (i.e. just as people run a deficit, so can the gov't). But this bunch's determination to run massive deficits and pay the interest to China and Japan is unconscionable.

icfireball

11-10-2006, 08:02 PM

While I agree with you in principle, I think it's worth pointing out that people do spend more money than they make all the time: they buy cars and houses. This, as you say, is the kind of exception that can be made for government (i.e. just as people run a deficit, so can the gov't). But this bunch's determination to run massive deficits and pay the interest to China and Japan is unconscionable.

Agreed.

groverat

11-10-2006, 08:08 PM

12 years is a long time. I don't think the Democrats have much of a mandate, but it is pretty clear that America is very tired of the current administration. It only took them 6 years to figure it out... no one has ever accused Americans of being quick on the uptake.

Chris Cuilla

11-10-2006, 09:56 PM

Bush did NOT prove it. He has shown this country the largest deficits since the great depression.

Untrue. In fact, his deficits as a percentage of GDP are on par with Clinton's.

Cliton had a very large surplus.

The largest surplus Clinton had was $236B. This is great mind you (given our general history of deficits)...and as a very staunch fiscal conservative, I was quite pleased. However, it should be noted when his surpluses began...1998...and his deficits started going down sharply after 1994. Hmmm...I wonder what happened there. The economy boomed during the Clinton years for a variety of reasons...not the least of which is that he had a Republican congress for most of that time.

Chris Cuilla

11-10-2006, 10:04 PM

The current US deficit as of 10 Nov 2006 at 09:22:25 PM GMT is: $8,593,072,464,824.13, or in other words, 8.5 trillion dollars.

You are talking about the national debt (the accumulation of all deficits minus all surpluses)...not the (annual) budget deficit.

Take your own personal budget for instance. You would not spend more than you made,

Well, most people do. The annual budget of the federal government is approximately $2.2T. The total outstanding debt is only about 4X that. What is your outstanding debt to annual expenses/income ratio?

While I am a staunch fiscal conservative, I also realize the need to put these numbers into perspecive.

That being said, Clinton did a damn good job with the economy. Under Clinton, the deficit started going down as there was a very very large budget surplus.

President Clinton and the Republican congress did a great job with the economy and under President Clinton and the Republican congress the deficit started going down as there was a moderate budget surplus.

Chris Cuilla

11-10-2006, 10:07 PM

That worked out really well for Bush, didn't it?

You miss the point (somehow I am not surprised).

We had a Republican Congress that despised the Democratic President. Perhaps that's what worked so well. Divided, grid-locked government. Perhaps that they spent more time fighting one another that they got out of the way of the rest of us and the economy boomed.

Just a thought.

addabox

11-10-2006, 10:23 PM

You miss the point (somehow I am not surprised).

We had a Republican Congress that despised the Democratic President. Perhaps that's what worked so well. Divided, grid-locked government. Perhaps that they spent more time fighting one another that they got out of the way of the rest of us and the economy boomed.

Just a thought.

Yeah. Good thing the "grid-locked" government spent all of its time worrying about Clinton's crimes, as it kept them out of such mischief as, oh, I dunno, taking the threat of terrorism seriously, dealing with an ever more dysfunctional health care system, making common sensical adjustments to Social Security, crafting sustainable and rational immigration reform, implementing any kind of national energy policy whatsoever or addressing the shameful decay of our national infrastructure.

Because the free market puts magic fairy dust on everything, if we would just believe!

Chris Cuilla

11-10-2006, 10:33 PM

On second thought,

I did miss your point. It does seem pretty out there though: inaction resulting from gridlock somehow led to budget surpluses (as one purported benefit of an adversarial relationship between congress and the president).

Yeah...

OK. Fine. Whatever. But...don't give Clinton credit for the surpluses when it is Congress that controls the purse strings.

:rolleyes:

hardeeharhar

11-10-2006, 10:36 PM

OK. Fine. Whatever. But...don't give Clinton credit for the surpluses when it is Congress that controls the purse strings.

:rolleyes:
But the administration preps and approves the budget...

Chris Cuilla

11-10-2006, 10:43 PM

Yeah. Good thing the "grid-locked" government spent all of its time worrying about Clinton's crimes, as it kept them out of such mischief as, oh, I dunno, taking the threat of terrorism seriously, dealing with an ever more dysfunctional health care system, making common sensical adjustments to Social Security, crafting sustainable and rational immigration reform, implementing any kind of national energy policy whatsoever or addressing the shameful decay of our national infrastructure.

And, of course, the government is the solution to all problems large and small. Why don't you do a study of vast number of socialistic failures before pontificating about how we should try even more socialistic programs and plans.

addabox

11-10-2006, 10:54 PM

And, of course, the government is the solution to all problems large and small. Why don't you do a study of vast number of socialistic failures before pontificating about how we should try even more socialistic programs and plans.

Because dealing with things like terrorism, national energy policy, balance of trade and immigration are "socialist"?

It's fun talking to angry 85 year old men from 1956!

addabox

11-10-2006, 11:01 PM

Because our only options lie on a continuum with two extremes and no middle ground...

Correct. Either admit that the federal government is entirely illegitimate or confess to be being a Stalinist monster.

Declare yourself!

Chris Cuilla

11-10-2006, 11:05 PM

Because dealing with things like terrorism, national energy policy, balance of trade and immigration are "socialist"?

Well "national energy poplicy" is, and you forgot about the "dysfunctional health care system" (which implicitly must be fixed by the government). Yes. Those are.

Terrorism will sort itself our when our country stops interfering with the affairs of other nations. Immigration...well...let's just open the borders (as they have been for most of our history) and let people who desire work, come and get it. And what exactly is the balance of trade problem? Should we close the borders to immigration and goods?

BRussell

11-10-2006, 11:11 PM

I have to say something about this idea that divided government is a good thing.

We have an institutionally divided government. It's the basis of our system. The principle of checks and balances in our system is supposed to be built-in, it's not supposed to occur only when the branches are from different parties. That's what broke in 2000-2006, when Republicans put party loyalty above all, even in the face of irrational actions on the part of the executive branch. We don't necessarily need different parties controlling different branches, we just need the branches of our government to function as they should.

Our government has never operated like it did the past 6 years. Congress has always felt itself to be independent of the executive branch, even when they were of the same party. Other presidents whose parties controlled Congress never would have gotten away with the insane stuff Bush has done.

Chris Cuilla

11-10-2006, 11:40 PM

Because our only options lie on a continuum with two extremes and no middle ground...

Now quit pretending that things like the government stepping in to "fix" health care and defining a "national energy policy" are in the "middle ground".

icfireball

11-10-2006, 11:48 PM

You are talking about the national debt (the accumulation of all deficits minus all surpluses)...not the (annual) budget deficit.

Well, most people do. The annual budget of the federal government is approximately $2.2T. The total outstanding debt is only about 4X that. What is your outstanding debt to annual expenses/income ratio?

While I am a staunch fiscal conservative, I also realize the need to put these numbers into perspecive.

President Clinton and the Republican congress did a great job with the economy and under President Clinton and the Republican congress the deficit started going down as there was a moderate budget surplus.

Under Clinton there was not a republican congress... there was a republican house of representatives starting in 1994. The Democrats still had the Senate until 2000. So the Democrats were deff in the majority. At any rate, I agree with you on a lot of the stuff you said, but I'm making the point that the economy and US budget was better under Clinton, and Bush did have a lot to do with the recession.

Chris Cuilla

11-11-2006, 12:05 AM

Because any government intervention in those areas is "socialism?"

Explain exactly what "fixing" health care and implementing a "national energy policy" involves?

Chris Cuilla

11-11-2006, 12:15 AM

Is any government intervention in that area "socialism?"

Socialism is the direct or indirect control of the means of production. In order to accomplish these things ("fixing" health care and implementing a "national energy policy") will require the direct or indirect control of these areas of the economy. Therefore, I believe that they are.

P.S. If it makes you feel any better, I believe that the variety of corporate welfare that you would likely decry are also socialistic in their basic nature.

addabox

11-11-2006, 12:20 AM

Now quit pretending that things like the government stepping in to "fix" health care and defining a "national energy policy" are in the "middle ground".

The government doesn't "step in" to "fix" these things because the lines between "government" and "private industry" aren't nearly as sharp as you apparently imagine. The question is whether the government "gets involved", its how it executes on what is already an elaborate interdependence.

As far as "middle ground" goes, I'm sure in the well thumbed Big Book of Free Market Absolutists that you have over there in the compound, "government involvement" is filed under "extremist"; however, in any context that provides a reasonable metric for possible levels of government involvement in matters of national interest (other countries in the industrialized west, polling of American opinion, our own history in the twentieth century), having a national energy policy and some kind of government involvement in the delivery of health care resources (we'll leave your startling position of laissez faire national security alone for now) is most assuredly "the middle".

Chris Cuilla

11-11-2006, 12:24 AM

I'm sure in the well thumbed Big Book of Free Market Absolutists that you have over there in the compound,

I guess it is easier for you to argue against the caricature of me that you have fabricated in your imagination than to actually think about what I have said (or what you have for that matter).

however, in any context that provides a reasonable metric for possible levels of government involvement in matters of national interest (other countries in the industrialized west, polling of American opinion, our own history in the twentieth century), having a national energy policy and some kind of government involvement in the delivery of health care resources (we'll leave your startling position of laissez faire national security alone for now) is most assuredly "the middle".

Of course it is.

:rolleyes:

addabox

11-11-2006, 12:25 AM

Socialism is the direct or indirect control of the means of production. In order to accomplish these things ("fixing" health care and implementing a "national energy policy") will require the direct or indirect control of these areas of the economy. Therefore, I believe that they are.

P.S. If it makes you feel any better, I believe that the variety of corporate welfare that you would likely decry are also socialistic in their basic nature.

You're saying that the United States, as well as every other developed nation on earth is socialist.

Whatever primal capitalism free market utopia that you are apparently using as a frame of reference doesn't exist. Never has.

So you want to argue the efficacy of a rigorous fantasy system against real world ambiguity and compromise in order to find the real world to be a crime against nature, nature being defined as your fantasy.

That is neither tenable nor particularly sane. You sound like the mirror inversion of an old line Marxist decrying the evils of capital and confidently contrasting its depredations to the obvious advantages of a workers paradise.

Chris Cuilla

11-11-2006, 12:28 AM

I think you're mistaken here.

I know you do. No surprise there.

Sure, full-blown universal health care coverage would characterize one aspect of a socialist government, but that's not the only option governments have in intervening in health care policy. For example we could cover more people under certain income or under or over certain age thresholds.

Which is socializing health care. It is only a matter of degree that you are arguing. "But it's only a little bit socialist!"

You're saying that any intervention in that area is "socialist"

Well, to be more truthful, I was jumping on the "fixing" health care thing. How the government does that short of a broad socialistic plan is quite unclear (and you have made no less so).

It's nonsensical.

Of course you think so.

addabox

11-11-2006, 12:30 AM

I guess it is easier for you to argue against the caricature of me that you have fabricated in your imagination than to actually think about what I have said (or what you have for that matter).

You're very clearly arguing (and have argued before) that the United States ought not to have a Federal Government, or one so truncated as to be rendered nearly powerless.

That is an off-the-charts extremist position, one shared by a vanishingly slight percentage of the population.

It is the position, however, of the kind of people who declare their little subsistence farms in Idaho to be "sovereign nations" and reserve the right to shoot at Federal agents should they "invade".

No caricature necessary.

Chris Cuilla

11-11-2006, 12:32 AM

Your saying that the United States, as well as every other developed nation on earth is socialist.

Of cousre I am not. Now who is talking in extremes. That is a straw man. What I have said is that the government stepping in to "fix" health care and to implement a "national energy policy" are necessarily socialistic. You (or ShawnJ) haven't proved they are not...you've only retreated to the position that it is OK.

You sound like the mirror inversion of an old line Marxist decrying the evils of capital and confidently contrasting its depredations to the obvious advantages of a workers paradise.

Again...your imaginative caricature of me is mildly entertaining but hardly effective in supporting your argument.

Chris Cuilla

11-11-2006, 12:34 AM

You're very clearly arguing (and have argued before) that the United States ought not to have a Federal Government.

No. Not really. But if that's the straw man you want argue against, enjoy yourself.

addabox

11-11-2006, 12:42 AM

Of cousre I am not. Now who is talking in extremes. That is a straw man. What I have said is that the government stepping in to "fix" health care and to implement a "national energy policy" are necessarily socialistic. You (or ShawnJ) haven't proved they are not...you've only retreated to the position that it is OK.

Again...your imaginative caricature of me is mildly entertaining but hardly effective in supporting your argument.

Dude. How can I put this. The United States Federal Government already is deeply involved in health care delivery and energy policy. And land use. And worker's relationship to employers. And manufacturing processes. And standards of weights and measures. The flow of capital. Interest rates. Regulation of industry. Prohibition of substances. I could go on like this for a while.

Ergo, by your lights, the United States is a socialist country, and every other first world democracy must be some kind of super-duper king hell socialist country, which is surprising seeing how they don't appear to be in flames or sending their citizenry off to work camps.

The idea that using the federal government to improve the allocation of health care resources crosses a line that precipitates socialism is just silly, and I don't think you really want to arguing that.

That's the trouble with being an absolutist, you work yourself in to a corner every time.

franksargent

11-11-2006, 12:57 AM

:smokey:

CC is an ideologue, and you can't win a debate against an ideologue, since it can never exist, in the real world! :wow:

Inotherwords, arguments based on ideologies, are specious at best!

Nothing to see here, move along!

:smokey:

Chris Cuilla

11-11-2006, 01:10 AM

Ergo, by your lights, the United States is a socialist country,

In many aspects it is. Yes. Not entirely...yet.

The idea that using the federal government to improve the allocation of health care resources crosses a line that precipitates socialism is just silly, and I don't think you really want to arguing that.

I am not. What I have said is that it is socialistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) (it is). When the government steps in to begin controlling or managing (directly or indirectly) how private resources are used and allocated, it is socialistic. I note again that you haven't denied this, you have only taken the position that it is OK.

I am also of the view (unlike you) that government is not the best way to solve those problems (health care and energy).

Chris Cuilla

11-11-2006, 01:18 AM

CC is an ideologue, and you can't win a debate against an ideologue, since it can never exist, in the real world!

Your lame attempt at ad hominem by attempting to use "ideologue" in pejorative sense does nothing to further debate in an useful way.

Inotherwords, arguments based on ideologies, are specious at best!

Everyone is arguing based on some ideology. Arguing from the position that government can and should be used as a tool of societal betterment is arguing from an ideology. It is foolish to suggest otherwise.

I realize that because you don't agree with (or like) a particular ideology, you'll simply dismiss it (and its promoters) without any further thought.

Nothing to see here, move along!

I assume you are referring to your post.

Chucker

11-11-2006, 01:20 AM

Ergo, by your lights, the United States is a socialist country, and every other first world democracy must be some kind of super-duper king hell socialist country

I think you are under the misconception that "socialist == bad", or "socialist == has the goal of abolishing democracy and setting up communism".

You shouldn't be confusing socialism in a democratic context with Marxist socialism.

To an extent, the US is indeed a democratically socialist. So are most first world countries.

addabox

11-11-2006, 01:44 AM

In many aspects it is. Yes. Not entirely...yet.

I am not. What I have said is that it is socialistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) (it is). When the government steps in to begin controlling or managing (directly or indirectly) how private resources are used and allocated, it is socialistic. I note again that you haven't denied this, you have only taken the position that it is OK.

I am also of the view (unlike you) that government is not the best way to solve those problems (health care and energy).

OK, I have no problem with that.

As Chucker says, however, I think the way you are using "socialism" is calculated to speciously evoke the totalitarian and authoritarian movements of the twentieth century, as if "national health care" is but a stepping stone to "gulag".

That kind of linking is not useful for policy discussions, because it presumes a terrible end point for relatively benign increments in a way that is completely illogical. The "failed socialist experiments" of the twentieth century did not piggy-back on national energy policies or health care strategies, nor do the far-more-socialist-than-the-US governments of Europe appear to be in danger of totalitarianism.

You can be against government participation all you like but the world presents little to no evidence that it leads to disaster, which seems to be your organizing notion.

franksargent

11-11-2006, 01:44 AM

I realize that because you don't agree with (or like) a particular ideology, you'll simply dismiss it (and its promoters) without any further thought.

:smokey:

Call it what you will, but I've seen enough of your arguments, TO IF FACT, call YOU an ideologue!

And since, I'm a pragmatist, a realist, an observationist, an empiricalist, I'm not in the habit of taking on ideologues, since their viewpoint, can by it's nature, NEVER EXIST!

:smokey:

Chucker

11-11-2006, 09:06 AM

As Chucker says, however, I think the way you are using "socialism" is calculated to speciously evoke the totalitarian and authoritarian movements of the twentieth century, as if "national health care" is but a stepping stone to "gulag".

Are you sure that's what he is saying, as opposed to what you read into what he is saying?

And since, I'm a pragmatist, a realist, an observationist, an empiricalist

Bwahaha.

So when will you quit smoking?

SDW2001

11-11-2006, 10:11 AM

Don't patronize me. You're not looking at the whole picture.

The current US deficit as of 10 Nov 2006 at 09:22:25 PM GMT is: $8,593,072,464,824.13, or in other words, 8.5 trillion dollars. That us HUGE. And knowing how to balance a budget is not just about getting money into the government, it is about spending it wisely.

Take your own personal budget for instance. You would not spend more than you made, and to some extent the government can be excused, but really, they should try as hard as possible to not spend more than they are making.

That being said, Clinton did a damn good job with the economy. Under Clinton, the deficit started going down as there was a very very large budget surplus.

Budget is about both SPENDING and REVENUE. Not just one or the other. Bush has also done various other things which have stifled the economy compared to Clinton (although I will give him a little credit for also do some things for some sectors which have helped them). But anyways, the economy was better with Clinton, and Bush did a shitty job with the economy, and a major part of that was the bad decision to go to war with Iraq. That had nothing to do with threat or terrorism, that had everything to do with geopolitics and oil.

I'm sorry if you are insulted, but honestly...you really don't understand how the economy and budget works. You also don't unerstand what our current situation looks like as compared with historical precedent. Further, you're speaking in platitudes that cannot be supported and in fact, can be counteracted. Allow me to get more into detail:

I am looking at the whole picture. That is, ironically, what you are not doing.

The US National Debt is 8.5 Trillion, some say 9 Trillion. That is unquestionably a very big, almost inconceivable number to most people. Let me say this: We should balance our budget and begin to pay this debt down. I fully agree. I don't like being a debtor nation anymore than you do. However, "huge" is a subjective term and really has no meaning in terms of economics. The fact of the matter is that our debt is quite managable because of the size of our economy.

Take a look at this link:

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2186.html

Our national debt is 64.7% of the size of our economy, expressed in terms of GDP. Japan's is a whopping 158%. Germany, France, Israel and even Canada all have more debt than we do as a percentage of GDP. In other words, it's all relative. While I agree we should reduce this figure, it is not something to go berserk over.

Personal Budget Analogy: Actually, people spend more than they make all the time. You buy a house, a car, etc. Almost everyone spends more than they make. In any case, governments often deficit finance. While I don't support it except in times of extreme need (and there have been times where it has been needed), it's again nothing to blow your fuse over. It's just not that uncommon.

That being said, Clinton did a damn good job with the economy. Under Clinton, the deficit started going down as there was a very very large budget surplus.

No.

1. The economy wasgenerally very good towards the end of Clinton's Presidency, say from 1996/1997 onwards. It wasn't fully recovered from recession of 1991-92 until the middle of 1995.

2. By comparison, the economy now is very similar to "Clinton's booming economy." Look at the numbers for unemployment, GDP, the market, etc.

3. Most importantly: Since you claim Clinton did a "damn good" job on the economy, would you please name, say, THREE things that he did specifically to make that boom happen? Really, I'm curious. Can you even name one?

4. The deficit/surplus situtation and "managing the economy" are really not the same thing. They are nearly separate issues, except for the fact that state of the economy affects revenue. In any case, Clinton did not "create surpluses" magically as if he was some sort of fiscal genius. It was the Republican controlled Congress that began to implement it's Contract with America, coupled with good economic times that created such surpluses. Clinton signed some bills that he would not normally have, because to win reelection he took the advice of his advisor Dick Morris and began to govern in more conservative fashion. A prime example of this is welfare reform, which was a Republican proposal that Clinton had to sign.

5. "Budget is about both SPENDING and REVENUE. Not just one or the other. "

-Interesting, because that's exactly what I'm saying. However, in this case it's not the revenue that's causing our deficits, it's our expenditures. It's not the revenue because it's going up pretty dramatically. But so is spending.

6. Bush has also done various other things which have stifled the economy compared to Clinton (although I will give him a little credit for also do some things for some sectors which have helped them).

Such as what? I'd like to know. He's been extremely pro-business and pro-tax cut. His tax cuts stimulated the economy. What action...what ONE action has he taken to "stifle" the economy, which by the way is in excellent shape to begin with? Even if you rip on "tax cuts for the rich" (not smart to do anyway, but let's assume) that's not the same thing as doing a shitty job with the overall economy.

7. But anyways, the economy was better with Clinton, and Bush did a shitty job with the economy, and a major part of that was the bad decision to go to war with Iraq.

A. Not really. By just about every measure, the economy was not that much better. In some ways it's even better today, because we don't have the artificial tech bubble. The market is at record levels. Unemployment is at a 30 year low of 4.6%. GDP growth, while slowing a bit last quarter, is expected to rebound next quarter is and is steady and sustainable in 3-4% range. It's extremely strong by an objective measure. It's actually the opposite of what you were implying: Only certain sectors[/] that aren't doing well, such as domestic autos (their own fault, IMO) and housing (the result of big bubble bursting).

B. Again, you need to support this statement. He inherited a recession and now the economy is essentially booming and certainly, unquestionably can be described as "very healthy." You've laid out an unsupportable position.

C. Huh? There is no evidence the Iraq war has harmed our economy. That assertion of yours doesn't even make sense. It's like saying (since you like personal analogies) that I ran up my credit cards too much last year and now I'm doing a shitty job of managing my Morgan Stanley account as a result. It's cost money to go to Iraq, more than it should have and more than I've wanted it to, but it has not harmed the economy. If anything, it's helped the defense industry, which is something that left wingers love to scream about. How, exactly, has Iraq harmed our economy? You can certainly say that it has cost us money and impacted our [i]fiscal policy and budget, but that is about all.

Again, I'm sorry if you're insulted, but you're really not being logical here. You're speaking in platitudes and making statements in direct contradiction the facts at hand. I'd appreciate an answer tot he questions I asked when you have a chance. Thanks.

SDW

SDW2001

11-11-2006, 10:20 AM

Under Clinton there was not a republican congress... there was a republican house of representatives starting in 1994. The Democrats still had the Senate until 2000. So the Democrats were deff in the majority. At any rate, I agree with you on a lot of the stuff you said, but I'm making the point that the economy and US budget was better under Clinton, and Bush did have a lot to do with the recession.

That's patently false. The economy was not better and may have actually been worse. And the recession had it's beginning right as Bush came into office. Even if we put that aside and we change history so that it started, say, two years later (the amount of time it takes for economic policy to take effect according to the Lag Theory, what, specifically did he do to cause it?

SDW2001

11-11-2006, 10:23 AM

:smokey:

Call it what you will, but I've seen enough of your arguments, TO IF FACT, call YOU an ideologue!

And since, I'm a pragmatist, a realist, an observationist, an empiricalist, I'm not in the habit of taking on ideologues, since their viewpoint, can by it's nature, NEVER EXIST!

:smokey:

He's the idealogue? :lol: You guys can't even have a dicussion of how "socialized" our system is or isn't without using straw men tactics, telling him he's an absolutist, etc.

Bergermeister

11-11-2006, 12:19 PM

The national debt actually declined under Clinton, when compared to GDP:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Go back and analyze Reagan.

icfireball

11-11-2006, 01:18 PM

The national debt actually declined under Clinton, when compared to GDP:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Go back and analyze Reagan.

Thank you!

Tax cuts do not always stimulate the economy. In some cases they do, but in other cases they just stagnate the economy because the government is not as effective. For instance, when the very wealthy are receiving the majority of the tax cuts and the average middle class worker is not receiving barely any of that tax cut, there is no increased spending. The rich will continue to spend and invest the same, and the working class will not have the extra cash to put into the economy. With Bush's tax plan, the middle class has received very little tax cuts and the very wealthy have received a lot of tax cuts.

Also, let's talk about the way the government has been using our money. The Iraq war has cost the US over $325 billion dollars in raw costs, and each year it costs us more. War taxes the economy as well. And when it comes down to it, we are spending US tax dollars and big bucks at that to fix someone else's problems. And that means we are spending less money on the US which would could be spending on health care, stimulating the economy, and the environment. And it's not just Iraq's problem, it's George Bush's problem because he wants Oil and an easy access portal to the Middle East. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism; the administration lied about that. All it had to do with was big business and geopolitics.

And speaking of oil, the current price of addiction to foreign oil is: $3,442,122,401,117.59

Clinton was able to balance the national budget, reduce crime and poverty, and under his presidency, there was one of the greatest economies of US history.

Take a look at this webpage (http://paulkienitz.net/reagan-vs-clinton.html) to see a comparison of Clinton vs. Reagan economics.

Also take a look at this webpage (http://zfacts.com/p/519.html) to see how Bush's "Pro growth" policies were not ACTUALLY affective in cutting the deficit or stimulating the economy.

To give bush SOME credit, the real-estate market boomed during his presidency. The flipside of that is, that its crashing now, and the real-esate market is often good during times of recession.

Chris Cuilla

11-11-2006, 01:31 PM

Tax cuts do not always stimulate the economy. In some cases they do, but in other cases they just stagnate the economy because the government is not as effective.

This is simply wrong. This is a largely Keynesian idea (more taxes, deficit spending and expansionary monetary policies) that has been more or less discredited by now. It isn't governments that make economies flourish...except to the extent that the protect individual liberties, property rights and the rule of law...and to the extent that they get out of the way.

For instance, when the very wealthy are receiving the majority of the tax cuts and the average middle class worker is not receiving barely any of that tax cut, there is no increased spending.

What do you think the rich do with the extra $?

it's George Bush's problem because he wants Oil

Of course it is just GWB that wants the oil. :rolleyes:

jimmac

11-11-2006, 01:58 PM

This is simply wrong. This is a largely Keynesian idea that has been more or less discredited by now. It isn't governments that make economies flourish...except to the extent that the protect individual liberties, property rights and the rule of law...and to the extent that they get out of the way.

What do you think the rich do with the extra $?

Of course it is just GWB that wants the oil. :rolleyes:

I found his web page links right on the money ( no pun intended of course ).

Chris Cuilla

11-11-2006, 03:08 PM

Take a look at this webpage (http://paulkienitz.net/reagan-vs-clinton.html) to see a comparison of Clinton vs. Reagan economics.

As usual, things are not always what they seem, and are a bit more complicated as well.

First, economies are long-run processes. Let's keep that firmly in mind.

Second, the author of the linked article clearly goes off the tracks with his obvious misunderstanding of inflation:

It's true that inflation was beaten... but what we ended up with was an economy in which some inflation would have been an improvement! It would have done little to harm working people, whose wages would have moved up with prices, it would have stimulated employment, and it would have provided major relief to debtors, and particularly to the national debt. There would have been costs for some, but the costs we were already suffering were at least as bad. The people it would have hurt, and who therefore tried to convince us all that the stopping of inflation as a more important goal than employment or prosperity for the majority, were anyone who had loaned out funds at a fixed interest rate -- in short, the holders of capital.

Inflation is not a good thing at all. While it is true that it harms those holding notes/bonds/loans at fixed interest rates (incidentally, this includes many people who are retired or naring retirement and have larger percentages of their investment portfolios in things like lower-risk, fixed-rate bonds), it will also hurt those on fixed incomes (again retirees). Further, wages rarely rise as fast as other prices do when inflationary policies have been implemented.

It is important to understand here that inflation is not rising prices. Inflation is an increase in the supply of money...basically the government printing new money, causing the value of all existing money to deflate. Rising prices are a symptom of inflation. What is also important to realize that some people, sectors, areas or industries will benefit (at first only) from this policy of the government pushing new money into the economy, but everyone else get screwed and, in the end, it all levels out because we simply have more dollars bills floating around in nominal terms, but they are all worth less and the short-term "boost" provided by the inflationary policy has vanished. This is why Reagan's (decidely non-Keynesian) monetary policy was so important (for the short and long run).

P.S. Monetary inflation is a sneaky little government tactic to essentially "tax" its citizens without actually...well taxing them (openly).

From this (http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXV/Issue_7/Opinions/opinions3.shtml) article:

Some would argue that Clinton’s 1993 tax hike was what changed the economy, but the Wall Street Journal provides evidence to the contrary. The economy continued to decline in the aftermath of the Clinton’s cut, and then “…both the stock and bond markets turned upward precisely on Election Day in 1994, beginning a whirlwind six-year rally. By 1998, growth and fiscal restraint delivered a budget surplus for the first time in nearly 30 years. In 1997 President Clinton signed a further reduction in the capital gains tax, which propelled investment and the stock market to even greater heights.”

All of this is consistent with the view that Clinton's "boom" was largely toward the end of his 2nd term (not his entire presidency)...and likely the result of a Republican congress operating as a balance.

This study attempts to cut through the fog created by this partisan dialogue and spotlight the real economic record of the 1980s--sticking to "just the facts." (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-261.html)