Amazing. Bush a fiscal liberal? I forgot when Bush raised taxes, strengthened social security, enacted a nationalized health care plan, lowered corporate welfare, and cut the defense budget. In fact, in my world, I seem to remember Bush cutting taxes for the wealthy, trying to dismantle social security, demonizing national health care, giving $9 billion to oil companies at a time when they were having record profits, and creating the largest defense budgets in the history of mankind. You know why all these policies that you want weren't enacted by Bush, even though the GOP controls the congress? He wasn't for a lack of ideology. I don't think Bush is a Grover Norquist type, but he is definitely conservative. It's because he wouldn't be in office right now if he had passed them. They are extremely unpopular in practice. Remember when the GOP tried cutting social services in the '90's and almost lost congress?

What is happened is that the fiscal policies of Bush and the majority in congress have absolutely failed. That's what happens when you govern in accordance to who gives you the most from K Street. Maybe it's not conservative, but it's definitely not liberal.

This paragraph is one of the most revisionst things I have ever read. Karl Rove loves you, you believe anything that fits your worldview. Here is a list of 8 major items that the administration manipulated the intelligence on:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._11/007556.php

Glen, Ksyrup, you can't close your eyes to reality forever.

Glen, I was on the other side. I was a huge Iraq war supporter. But then I saw through the Potemkin village. You can too, it's all right in front of you. Just look at the evidence.

It's unfortunate that you can't tolerate people with viewpoints different from your own.


That's the spirit!

Someone flew a freaking plane into a freaking building.

What the hell is wrong with you?


Its people like you that make me avoid threads like this..... you see everything from ONE side. Try to be neutral for 2 seconds and not look at everything from such a slanted perspective.

I've put a couple of people on ignore.

It's never about just me disagreeing with their opinions, it's the complete lack of respect for mine or the ability to admit when they are off base.

There are certain people on both sides who hate the other side so badly they lose objectivity. When that goes overboard, I quit arguing and find it best to just throw them on ignore.

As far as the rest of the world hating us, I just don't give a damn anymore. At the same time the US was starting this "illegal" war that everyone wants to talk about, the UN was involved in a multi billion dollar scam using the plight of the Iraqi people as the hook.

There is nothing this government can do, short of denouncing Israel, sending slave laborers to China and sending uranium to Iran and South Korea that's going to make everyone like us.

The fact is, we could get Kermit the Frog as the president, he could nod his head in agreement with everyone and bankrupt the country sending a gajillion dollars to whoever wanted it and we'd still be hated by someone. And in five years, we'll be liked.

As a person I can't live my life wondering who does and doesn't "like" me. I sure as hell hope our COUNTRY never thinks in that fashion.

I have a couple already.... some people are so far to one side they can't have a rational discussion.... period. My aunt is like that, so far to the right its frightning. Now im more right then left, but i 'try' to look at issues without bias and make up my own mind and thats caused me to butt heads with my family on more then one occasion.

I hate people who just pump out useless rhetoric about how one side is so EVIL and everything thing is their fault!

So dam lame

Most of world's countries have hated us in the past 200 years. Their leaders were jealous of many of their citizens leaving them for the US unless they had undesireables to get rid of.

As a very fiscal conservative and card carrying member of the Republican Party, I'd have to agree here. Bush is neither conservative nor liberal but just off.

So is the Republican led Congress. A new leadership has come up that was not part of the Contract with America, which, agree or disagree with, was an honest attempt at a clear and consistent ideology. Where are those leaders now? Gone (mostly). We have a new generation of power brokers in Congress who are no true believers but power brokers.


-Anxiety

Whoever is at the top is there to be shot down. And doing the above will appease many, and outrage a whole new group. You're right: it's a no win situation.

I just hope that most people have the right mindset, and at least listen to counter-arguments. After all, let's face it: the US, as a nation, largely shapes world policy

My logic behind the decision is pretty simple. There are a few people on this board whom I will simply never agree with, politically, and they also happen to post, quite prolifically, in political threads. I'm not going to be able to change their way of thinking. They're not going to be able to change mine. Rather than waste my breath responding to them, I figure I can ignore them and save EVERYBODY the aggravation.

I've resisted doing this, because sometimes, these guys post non-political stuff that's worth reading, but at this point, the bad outweighs the good. It’s not personal – I’m sure I could get together with any one of them at a barbecue or a football game and get along just fine. But the majority of what they want to bring to this particular table is their special brand of political thought, and I’ve had enough of it.

Havok, I don't think he said anywhere in what you quoted that the planes flying into a freakin' building didn't have an effect on the stockmarket. What he was saying is that you can't give too much credit to Bush for the stockmarket being at a 5-year high because the market crashed on 9/11. After a crash, of course it is going to gradually trend towards where it was before. So if you give credit for the inevitable upswing, you have to detract credit for the initial crash.

Creating strawmen, slaying the strawman, and then personally attacking someone for having an opinion that they do not have is a much more neutral way to go about discussing things.

The stock market was already starting to tank in early 2001. Now, I don't remember Bush trying to do a lot about it. One can counter that there isn't much a President can do about the stock market, but then one can't make the claim that he's responsible for its recovery to date.


Quite.

Ah, that old chestnut:



Can you go through life if various people with whom you have to do business dislike you so much that they'll hardly deal with you all, and will certainly not work with you in a fair and equal manner?

i think im gonna be sick

On topic, I find it odd that just 33% of the public approves of Bush, and all of them appear to post at FOFC.

I threw my hands up with this administration pretty much from its inception and yet, the Democrats have done nothing to convince they are any more capable of running the country, other than to say "Well, he's messing everything up."

Right. So what?

Short of telling me how much we need to raise taxes, pour money into failing schools and continue the boondoggle known as social security...I haven't really felt any sort of new "agenda".

I'm just so digusted with politics right now, not just with the folks running the country (into the ground) on both sides of the aisle, but with my own generation and our mass apathy.

If from England...


Word

well i aint got no flying shoes!!!

Agree with you on the oil companies and defense budget. What is "demonizing" national health care? Your in favor of HIGHER taxes?

Interesting point. I really haven't see Democrats step with a real gameplan. I'm no Bush fan, but I'm no Democrat fan either.

should spending go up, and no fixed tax code to increase revenues or cut lost revenues, the increased revenues are a necesiity IMO....one way or the other.

we go to war (new cost) and cut taxes? that just doesnt seem intelligent to me.

Pretty strange position when the only way you can hope to prevent terrorism or military action against the U.S. is to receive help from other countries. In case you haven't realized it, the U.S. cannot keep attacking countries that pose a threat. I think Iran and North Korea are good examples here. Of course, I half expect the response to this to be, "well, we'll just nuke 'em all."

Things went pretty well in the '90's, that doesn't convince you?

EDIT: But I agree, a lot of the Dems were lame prior to the last election. I don't like a lot of the Dem presidential hopefuls, and I'm as sick of the current GOP control as anyone.

He's campaigned against national healthcare since Gore was in favor of it in 2000. My taxes may go up, but my health insurance of $400 will disappear. And I'll get better care. No downside for me.

Just curious, what exactly went well in the 1990's that were directly acclaimed to Clinton?

Good foreign relations, budget surplus, loosening of social conservatism, his tax increases in 1993 helped out the economy, started a policy of military invervention to stop ethnic cleansing, trade deals with China and NAFTA...off the top of my head.

What went well under Bush? Ummm...the Do Not Call list was pretty cool. That is the only thing that I can think of that is more or as popular now as when it was implemented. I guess starting a prescription drug plan was good, but the actual plan is horrendous.

There will be higher taxes.

It is only a question of whether we have moderately higher taxes now, or massively higher taxes later. We have $8.4t in federal debt now, with something around $42t in unfunded liabilities (primarily social security and medicare) over the next 40 years. So we're $50 trillion (in current dollars) in the hole. The federal government collected about $2t in revenues last year. So it would require a 50% tax hike today to maintain current spending rates and cover past and future debt. We can cover some of that with reduced spending (although it's pretty clear that there is no political will to do that, even with Republicans controlling both houses of congress and the presidency), but there is no way we can do it all with spending reduction. There will be tax hikes, and the longer we wait the more painful it will be.

So, yes, I would prefer to see tax increases sooner rather than later.

Hmmm...I just realized that the national healthcare / taxes thing Galaxy said wasn't related. Anyway, if you are going to massively increase spending, you don't cut taxes. The majority of the tax breaks also went in dumb places. I think you stimulate the economy more by giving tax breaks to the middle classes than the upper classes. But anyway, the point that I was refuting was that Bush is a fiscal liberal, and the fact that he cut taxes for the wealthy underscores my point there. I wasn't making a value judgement on it, just saying that it wasn't a liberal thing to do.

You know, it's funny. I just looked at your age, Mr. Bigglesworth, and I think it explains a lot (as does mine).

You grew up and turned 13 when Clinton took over - therefore your ideology is based on the (I'll say "fortunate") good-times of the Clinton administration. I grew up in the Carter era and its absolute malaise. Every day I'd see Iranian students burning our flag, chanting "death to America" and we'd just sit there and do nothing. I remember gas lines, double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates. I remember the Soviet threat in Afghanistan and seeing the charts showing the number of tanks/planes/ships we had in comparison to the USSR. While I think Carter is a good man, he was a horrible President. Unfortunately, when I think of Democrats, I think of him and the absolute rotten times we lived-in during that era.

Being 10 years younger than myself, I can see how you think Democrats = good time, rockin' sax-playin' President. Republicans = lying, cheating, out of touch, jerk.

I'd say a lot of our perspective is based on age. You weren't there when I saw absolute grief, and I wasn't "there" when you saw great times during your formative years.

I really can't stand politics!!

I tend to disagree. I grew up during the heart of Reagan's years, and, uh, look at my politics....

I would say that still makes sense. You were too young to remember the "before the Reagan years". Of course, this demographic isn't going to hold true for everyone, but I think it explains a lot about how the mid-20's think vs. the mid-30's.

What happened to freedom of choice in America? Oh, money.

If it weren't for the majority of the world being so full of greedy and selfish people looking to get ahead at any cost, maybe we would have more to choose from than choice A, and choice B.

It seems as though it has become accepted by society that there will either be a Republican president, who stands for republican beliefs, or a Democratic president, who stands for Democratic beliefs.

Why can't there be a president who prescribes to the peoples beliefs, or to be less grandiose and sound less delirious.. Why can't there just be someone with a reasonable chance for the presidency who doesn't prescribe to the aforementioned Red or Blue "pill"?

Because almost everyone wants more money.

I've come to basically accept it as a part of life myself. I just don't really have faith that any well-off American politician who gets funded by big businesses who are pushing for their own agenda will be able to adequately govern a country made up of mostly working class people, who he and his cabinet probably have very little in common with.

I simply don't believe things will ever get better, so I kind of close my eyes and hold on tight. Its clear that eventually the attacks of 9/11 did more to seperate this country into factions than it did to bring us together as one.

I thought we were indivisible when I used to say the pledge every morning at school, and I was really proud and felt lucky to be an American. Now all I can say is that I have no allegiance to this country if (seemingly) 90 percent of the ones left here (especially those who are and who will eventually be in power) can't get their head around greed and corruption. There can't be liberty or justice (especially not for all) when everything has a price.

Problem is, what will stop the wealthy, from funneling money into offshore accounts, or move to tax-friendly countries (Monaco, Bermuda, UK, Switzerland, Hong Kong, ect). If you look at other countries, they are aggressive in cutting taxes. I rather see spending cut to meet our revenue. We have a lot of pork and unneccessary expenses that could be booted.

Galaxy: Please show me an industrialized country with lower tax rates than the U.S. I'm sure there is an example, but the majority of the world's industrialized nations have a far higher tax burden than the U.S.

Just pointing out to any mods watching.... I might be subconsciously posting as Omnivore.

Well okay that last phrase wasn't me for sure, but up to that point it could have been.

Look at France, Germany, Italy, which are having economic struggles. Japan is pretty much in par with the US in terms of tax cuts, expect they have a 2 points higher rate (37% vs. our 35%) for the top income tax bracket, but have lower corporate rates (30% vs. our 35%). The UK has a higher personal income tax and a slightly higher VAT tax (a "sales" tax), but have lower corporate rates. I should have noted, that many of rising countries, are aggressively making cut taxes (Russia, Czech Republic, Ireland), ect., both in terms of corporate and personal income categories. Australia is looking towards to an aggressive tax-reduction policy.

I was just commenting on your statement that other countries are aggressively cutting taxes remark.

I know, but that wasn't my point. My point was tax "havens" exist, such as Monaco, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Bermuda, among many others. The question was, what is going to stop the rich from expanding themselves through these havens, including permenant residency.

This I agree with. I think Newt Gingrich was a great man. I believe the Democratic party demonized him, and very effectively marginalized him. The impression at the time, was that he was every bit the prince of Darkness that Tom Delay was. The reality was that he put in layers of reforms in the House to clean up the politics, to take some of the more questionable money out of politics. Interestingly enough Delay and company have managed to remove almost all of the reforms that Gingrich put in place.

That the Downing Street memo is given as much weight as it is, still stuns me. It was the opinion of a single individual. This wasn't some document providing the careful analysis of facts, it is the opinion of a single critic of the war.


Interesting about you opposing action in Somalia and Bosnia. I was an ardent supporter of both. I guess we're about as far apart ideologically as I can imagine.

I don't have a problem with Blix's opinion about wanting more time to do the inspections. In hindsight, I wish he had been given more time. Not because of anything found or not found In Iraq, but rather because I wish we had taken care of business in Afghanistan before dealing with Iraq.

woah, wait up a sec. How in the heck do you call the Downing St memo the "opinion of a single individual"? What are you talking about?

This is insane. It's the type of attitude I can't stand.

We WILL NOT stop terrorist attacks with anything less than pulling our support for Israel. That's the big rub with the Muslim terrorists. They can state all of the other reasons, the main reason is we support the Jewish people.

Am I willing to throw away the support for Israel because I'm scared of Al-Queda? NO.

Let me repeat that just in case you missed it. NO.

So we support Israel. They hate our guts. Got it. Understand it. Don't give a DAMN.

France, a country who voted in an anti-semite, do I care about what they think? NO. NO. NO.

Again, I don't care if France likes us or doesn't.

Do I care about some countries and their opinion of us? To a point. But not overly. We cannot ever get to a point where our decisions are based soley on if someone else or ANYONE else likes who we are. We can compromise a little bit, we can negotiate, we can talk. But we can't just bend over to the rest of the world because, well, we just want people to LIKE us.

As I said above. I can't live my life that way. I sure as hell don't want my country to live that way.

And... I'm done with this thread.

Who states other reasons besides our government ("They hate our freedoms..." -GWB)?

I think what they've always said is the support for Israel and the US in their land in general.


Personally, I would let Israel fend for themselves if it meant no more terror attacks. They're a liability at this point.


So why not make decisions based on the best interests of the US as opposed to the best interests of Israel?

That is so not true for the UK - we are taxed far higher than most.

Edit: I see you qualified it in a later post. Fair enough. Should note that personal taxation is way OTT here: 40% top income rate, 17.5% VAT, immense tax on petrol, cigarettes, beer, etc. High capital gains tax, stamp duty, inheritance tax... the list goes on

It would help if the US stopped carrying out military action in third world countries as well ;)

So you think we are held hostage from doing what we fiscally need to do because rich people might leave? Let the bloody turncoats go. We need to do what we need to do, waiting doesn't make the problem go away. It will only get worse. And rich people who want to fuck this country over for their own monetary benefit can leave any time. I'll buy 'em a ticket.

Glen: You do realize that Newt was killed off by his own party? The Democrats may have helped define him personally, but it was his refusal to play along with K Street that cost him the support of his party and eventually his power.

I have mixed feelings on this. I genuinely liked the Contract with America. I mean I liked a few of the bullet points and disagreed with a bunch more, but I feel that it was definitely good politics and it was good government as well. It created a more meaningful political dialogue between voters and their elected representatives. I kind of wish politicians had continued more in that fashion. So to the extent that Gingrich was a key player in all that, I have some respect for him. Additionally he is far more the academic and intellectual than Delay, so some credit is due there. As much as he gets sucked into partisan hackery on a regular basis I think he has a commendable level of sincerity in trying to do the right thing.

But on the other hand he really got caught up in the dirty underbelly of personal politics and character assassination and largely earned his prince of darkness reputation. I mean the guy is an asshole, it's hard to get around that.

Thanks for clarity, I was actually thinking about the lucrative tax laws for foreigners that call UK home. They are only taxed on income earned in UK, not worldwide. Which is why you a big Russian immigrant to London (such as Chelsea's owner), as well as other European nations. I have read they are looking at closing (Switzerland as well, though they are based on a pre-determined tax payment) these loopholes.