POL - You're doing a heckuva job, Bushie
 

hxxp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192468,00.html

Let's see, he's managed to lose all of the "political capital" he had shortly after 9/11, has allowed the borders to remain unsecured. Hasn't addressed the illegal immigration problems (which will probably be an epidemic in the near future). Started a war based on a lie. Has surrounded himself with people who are out of touch.

Wow, are people finally waking up to this?

Don't forget making much of the world hate us.

Don't worry - Dutch will be in here claiming its the "liberal media" to blame. :D

That being said, I'm actually more of a fan of some of Bush's recent actions - doing the right thing, as opposed to the populist thing.

Let's see... the Dow Jones is at a five-year high, unemployment is down, interest rates are still low, and inflation is in check - in spite of record oil prices.

The immigration "problem" is no better, worse, or even any different than it has been in decades - it's just getting more airplay because of congress and resulting protests.

Despite your disapproval of the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism, we haven't had any further attacks on US soil since 9/11/01. What, exactly, do you use to measure success here? I say if there are no suicide bombers blowing up buildings in the US, then we're winning the war.

But, I guess we're all upset that France doesn't think we're cool anymore...

I think he has quite often done upopular things. See Stem Cells and the Schiavo case.. as examples of things where he apparently believes he is doing the "right" thing against public opinion. Even though he often does things I don't approve of, I consider his "principled stands" on issues to be a strength.

Of note "starting a war based on a lie", wasn't one of the things I didn't approve of. I feared that if I attempted to change the spin on Rex's volley, that the whole thread might have unravelled.

Also of note, while I was 100% behind dealing with Saddam and Iraq, I wish we had taken care of business in Afghanistan before Iraq.

I forgot to mention this. Immigration isn't any more of a problem than it has been in the past. Not to mention that it would be difficult to imagine it worsening to the point that it would be called an epidemic.

Approval polls are just so damn lame and their airplay to significance ratio is astronomical. Are there really people out there who approved of Bush two weeks ago, but don't now? How 'bout the week before?

The bottom line is - vote Democrat if you feel differently. The people had their chance - they bitch and complain - and then still vote the same way.

I've said this ad nauseum - Harry Truman's approval ratings were absolutely awful through his presidency and yet he was a damn good president. Do what's right - if Joe and Josephine Blow don't get it, they can vote differently next election.

If Bush is responsible for the Dow being at a 5-year high, then he's also responsible for its crash in 2001, right?


Again, compared to the heights they reached under his administration.


Which is an attempt to stimulate a moribund economy.



Yes, let's talk about this....


The Londoners and Madrilenos say "hi".

6 hospitals closed in Los Angeles last year.


No further attacks doesn't mean much to be, to be honest. Hell, there were 8 years between attacks the first time. I think it's clear that these guys have no problem waiting.

As far as the War on Terror, I think it's pretty clear that we've failed in Afghanistan (not only is the Taliban creeping back in, but their poppy fields are reaching an all-time high in production). The War on Terror seems to be functioning much like the War on Drugs. Bloated and ineffective.

Wait a second - it's Bush's fault these occurred?

Was the Achille Lauro the president's fault? The Lockerbee bombing?

Yeah, what is happening to California hospitals and schools - not a problem at all.

Well - we can attempt to move all illegal aliens out of the country. However, that would be likened to "criminalizing Jesus". So...we can make all the illegal aliens suddenly legal, and have non-citizens dictate American policy. Take your pick.

1. The crash in 2001 had nothing to do with Bush. It was a combination of things, the two biggest of which were:

A. 9/11 - And if you wanna get partisan, blame Clinton for not doing anything about Bin Laden after the embassy and Cole bombings.

B. Accounting fraud - Again, you can blame the fast-and-loose business policies allowed by Clinton.

2. Unemployment... see above.

3. Low interest rates - what the hell is wrong with that? Are you actually COMPLAINING about the Fed's attempt to stimulate the economy and put money in your pocket?

4. Oil prices - Hmm... when did all the oil company mergers happen? Remind me...

5. Sorry... I love Spain and Great Britain, but London and Madrid aren't on US soil... read what I said.

Legal. Reform of the guest worker program. People want to come here and work. Fine with me. You just have to pay your fair share, like the rest of us.

Also, non-citizens have dictated American policy for a while now, unfortunately.

Bush is not without blame for the London bombings, but it is not completely, or even mostly, his fault. If Blair hadn't been trying to shove his head so far up GWB's arse to try and look through his mouth, we wouldn;t have been attacked.

But at the same time, if GWB & the US hadn't initiated the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, I don;t believe the London bombings would have occurred. However, the attack on Afghanistan was understandable, and that may well have been enough to prompt our 7/7, even without the highly controversial Iraq war.

So IMHO Bush had one of many causal effects on the London bombings, but if we had done things differently, they wouldn't have occurred.

As for Lockerbie - it was an attack on an American plane by Libyans as a direct response to US actions: therefore yes, this can be directly attributed - the fact that the plane exploded over Scotland does not reflect that it was an attack on the Scots or British.

It amazes me that people try to make perfect causal connections between Presidents and the economy or even terrorist attacks. I judge a President by the same criteria I vote for him - underlying philosophy. That's why I voted Republican and why Gore/Kerry were not viable options for me.

On that criteria, though, Bush has been a disappointment. He's a fiscal liberal, and it sickens me. I'd probably think even less if him if his socially conservative beliefs really meant anything to me. Regardless of who is in office, economies ebb and flow, things could be done better, there are going to be lapses in intelligence, etc. That's all pretty meaningless to me. But Bush abandoned and/or gave lip service to the underlying fiscal philosophies of the Republican Party, and for those of us who don't vote based on politicians' abortion/homosexual/social cause platforms, he let us down.

That said, I can't imagine voting Democrat next time, so I'll probably be in line for the next disappointment in 2008.

Oh, and whoever above used the tired "he lied to start a war" argument. Sheesh, give it a rest. You can criticize the administration's policies since the first 100 days or so, but the decision to go o war was based primarily on faulty intelligence gathered by the previous Republican and Democrat administrations and widely believed by the rest to the world to be true. Even Clinton has said as much. They may have underestimated what it would take to finish the job, but going in still seems like a no-brainer to me based on what we thought we knew.

I guess it's too much to ask for a President to be absolutely sure of the intel before invading another country.

hxxp://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm

What Ksyrup said.

Yeah, pretty much, when that's next to impossible. There weren't 10 people in office back then who didn't believe Iraqz had WMD. The only argument was over whether to give them more time to come clean. Everything since then is shoulda would coulda hindsight BS.

What about the falling dollar? As for financial policies, I believe that the president has some control over in regards to tax cuts, but it's the Fed that is the "director".

Have Bush's actions quelched the Al-Qaeda threat? London, Madrid and countless Al-Qaeda actions around the world (but not in the U.S... yet) seem to suggest not.

For st.cronin:

Huh?

Remember all the talk of the tubes and "Yellow cake"?


So there were doubts. By people and by departments. But GW went ahead with it anyways, stating that they were clearly for WMD.

So Bush isn't responsible when the stock market crashes, but it's his work when the stock market goes up? You can't have it both ways.


Yeah, either the President has an effect on the economy or he doesn't. Take your pick. Or keep flip-flopping. Your call.


It's all about short term "money-in-your-pocket" thinking with you Republicans. The Fed lowers interest rates to stimulate the economy. Sure, it's nice for the consumer in the short term, but as a macro indicator, it suggests that all is not well with the economy.


Hmm... when did the oil companies post record profits? Could it be when their former comrade was in control of the White House and Congress? I'm sure there's no favoritism there. And letting them help set energy policy behind closed doors was just icing on the cake.


Yeah, you don't care about non-Americans. We get it already.

What you said he said

You have some commentary on this or are you going down with the Titanic here?

Hard for me to imagine Republicans being proud of this guy.

No he's not. He's simply fiscally irresponsible.

A fiscal liberal is someone like FDR, who believes in using government money to directly achieve specific ends (usually social and economic).

Describe for me Bush's coherent fiscal policy. I'd argue that he doesn't have one, and his fiscal policy is essentially a collection of whims.


So Dick Cheney goes on national television days after 9/11 and says Hussein is "effectively controlled" and then less than 6 months later the same Dick Cheney is describing Hussein as the biggest threat to the free world and you don't see something fishy there?

How about the fact that Colin Powell said he didn't trust the Pentagon's data on Iraq, to which Rumsfeld's aides simply created more slanted memos? Plus the fact that a lot of the "data" behind these memos consisted of hearsay from dingbats like Ahmed Chalabi, who hadn't actually lived in Iraq for years and stood to gain financially from Hussein's overthrow (nevermind the fact that Chalabi was also convicted of bank fraud in Jordan).

Or the fact that El-Baradei and Blix weren't convinced that Hussein was still a threat? Or the fact that the State Department's internal intelligence agency disputed the CIA's findings on Iraq?

How much more proof, exactly, do you people need here?

My commentary is this:

When are you going to quit harping over this shit? You have brought nothing and I mean NOTHING new to the table for discussion. Great, you don't like Bush and the way he has handle his presidency. Are you going to keep bringing it up over and over and over again like you are going to magically change their opinions?

Truth is that I see you are a bigger political troll than Jesse ever was. You keep bringing this tired shit back up over and over and over again because you like to get a rise of people. Sure, you post some facts and figures to make these "discussions" look legit, but reality is that you are just stirring the kettle some more. There hasn't been a civil discussion on this issue ever, yet you keep brining it back up. It's pretty obvious what you are doing in my mind.

And before you start in on my political leanings, I would like you to know that I disapprove with Bush's record on domestic issues. He is one of the most fiscally irresponsible US Presidents in history. I'm also not a fan of his handling of post-war Iraq. The laundry list is too long for me to even name what I felt he did wrong over there.

Now, go do us all a favor and go back to bitching about your XBox 360 not working and let this shit die already.

I probably will keep bringing it up, yes. I think it's a pretty important topic.


Tired? This is a brand new article. I don't think it's necessarily "tired" to bring up a guy who I feel has really set this country back in a big way.

I'm certainly not trolling, and if you disagree, that's fine. You can put me on your ignore list.


I think this is a very important topic in our country right now (if not the most important), and I don't think there's anything wrong with discussion of it. You're certainly well within your rights to skip over it.

Anyone catch the Iraqi general they had a daily show a few weeks back? He was the head of the Iraqi Air Force and he said he knew for sure Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and they were moved to syria before the war began. Very interesting story. Very interesting story, which really took Jon Stewart back...

Yup, I did see that. Interesting. Something that should definitely be looked into.

Doesn't really change things in regards to the aluminum tubes or the Niger yellow cake, though.

Here's the relevant part of the transcript:

STEWART: This is obviously the most controversial part of the book. In it you say that right before the invasion of Iraq Saddam had his weapons of mass destruction taken to Syria.

SADA: That’s true. He had them there before Americans came and liberated the country. The weapons were transported to Syria by air and by ground.

STEWART: That would seemingly get the Bush administration off the giant hook that it appears to be on. Why wouldn’t they pursue that line of evidence? Or have they? It seems like for us it would be hard to understand that that really happened. Given that the whole world was looking for those.

SADA: I am sure in the coming days the authorities are going to tell the public and tell all Americans after they will have all the evidence in their hands and they can verify everything to the Americans.

STEWART: You still feel, now this is first-hand knowledge of yours? Somebody told you this? You’ve seen it in documents? You’ve seen it on video.

SADA: Oh yes, the weapons of mass destruction I have seen them myself because you see I was the number two man in the air force. Then I know how they were used against our nation. Of course—

STEWART: But in the later ‘90s after they thought they had rid them of it, you still saw them.

SADA: After the ‘90s they were there. How I knew they were there, after they were transported the pilots who transported they told me.

STEWART: The guys that flew them …

SADA: The guys who were responsible.

STEWART: How do you fly a weapon? Isn’t that a large thing or do you put it….

SADA: No. They are raw materials; some of them are like barrels, yellow barrels, of course, with skulls and cross bones on them.

STEWART: You think if you’re going to hide that stuff you think you might paint something like you know, spam.

Let's try and keep this civil, folks. You each know how inflammatory things are to the other side of the aisle.

That makes you a troll.


New article. Same tired subject matter. It's not new. It's the same "I hate Bush and so should you" tripe.


Why would I put you on ignore when I can post those smileys for all to enjoy?!


I'm also within my rights to make fun of you too for thinking people can't see through the real meaning of this "discussion" (flamewar is more like it). What do you really think this accomplishes? Nothing if you listen to most people's opinions. People have better things to do than worry about somebody who is going to a lame duck President in the next few months. All you are doing is creating divisions on this board and not making this place where people can relax and enjoy hearing reasonable opinions about reasonable subject matter. Again, you are my definition of a troll.

I think the article's important for two reasons:

1. Bush's 33% approval rating is very relevant when you consider he's thinking about attacking Iran in our name.

2. It's a Fox News poll. Seriously, who would have thought a Fox News poll would have put Bush at 33%? Who do they think they are, Le Monde?

The only one engaging in a "flamewar" is you, and if you want to "make fun" of me, go ahead. I'm not going to get into that with you, though.

You're right, some people do have better things to do than to talk about the President on a message board. Those are the people who skip the thread. For the people who feel like discussing it, this is the thread to do it.


I'm not interjecting my opinions of George Bush in other threads. I think it's clear that I can engage in discussion in other topics just fine, and can discuss these things with people whose political beliefs I completely disagree with without a problem. I also think it's pretty clear what this thread is about, and if it's going to fill your trip to the board with anxiety, maybe it would be best if you didn't read the threads that involve George Bush?

I hate to get into this thread, but I really disagree with this.

Bush and this congress are not fiscally liberal. They are fiscally irresponsible. It is often easy (and I admit I am guilty of this, as well) to assign political shortfalls as characteristics of the opposing party, but it is incorrect in this case. You can say they (Bush and Congress) are liberal in that he has increased government spending with additional projects and funding (although I would probably object to that, based on the manner of spending), but the tax cuts don't really jive with a liberal policy.

Basically, he has cut government income and increased government spending. Irresponsible, not liberal.

Blix stated about two months before the invasion that the Iraqis hadn't even come to grip with fundamental conclusion that they need to disarm. They didn't know that Saddam had any WMDs, but it was certainly not unreasonable to believe that he did based solely on his actions.

The rest of the stuff quoted here is cherry picking through the dozens of reports on pre-war intelligence.

You simply CAN'T prove that the war was entered into under any sort of false pretenses. When are you people going to come to grips with that. The funny thing is, I have the feeling most of you would have been on the other side of this thing had Clinton gone into Iraq. I can definatively say, that my position wouldn't have changed one iota. Saddam needed to be dealt with.

I'm not going to put a ton of input in here other than the stock market stuff.

Yes, it is entirely possible for Bush to not be at fault for the collapse and have credit for the recovery. Bush didn't create 9/11, the Xerox, Enron, MCI World accounting errors. He didn't create or do anything with the .com collapse.

There isn't a specific policy that could have been there to prevent any of that. I'm not putting the blame on anyone there. It just happened. Again, you cannot point to a single thing Bush could have done to prevent any of those issues.

Now, can we point to any specific thing he did to reverse the process? I'll let other people debate that one.

It isn't surprising to me that Bush has low approval numbers. Most dems hate his guts and always have. Short term support after an attack isn't surprising in the least, it's expected. Nor is the reversal.

As for the people who voted for him, many voted on what they felt was the lesser of two evils. They didn't vote FOR their candidate they voted AGAINST the guy they despised. So is it really shocking many of those voters would have a low approval of Bush? They never were really thrilled to begin with.

Personally, it already has been proven. They had the info that the yellow cake and tubes were either false or not used for what they said it was. That's enough for me.

As far as Clinton, if he went on the same grounds I'd be saying the same thing. It's funny, I didn't like Clinton at all - thought he was the worst kind of Politician. Unfortunately (really unfortunately), Bush trumped him.

Because one piece of information was questioned, or not given the appropriate weight in other people's estimation of the facts, you are willing to say they are bold faced liars. That's mighty open minded of you.

I noted at least two pieces of information, and I'm sure there's more.

But yes, I'm willing to say that they're liars, but don't let that bother you - I think about nearly every politician. This isn't exclusive to GW's administration.

That's a pre-requisite for the role isn;t it ;)

There's a view that if somebody wants to be a politician, they should immediately be barred from doing so. Kinda reverse logic, but there's an elemnt of truth to it.

I give up. I just gotta start putting people on ignore.

Blix also stated that he felt the inspection regime needed more time.


I disagree. This is a classic case of "you're going to believe what you want to." I don't see how anyone can look at the Downing Street Memo, for instance, and the supporting documentation for it that has come out since, and come to any other conclusion.

And no, I wouldn't have supported Clinton invading Iraq, and I base that upon my lack of support for him sending in troops into Somalia and Bosnia.

At the (major) risk of being flamed, isn't this the attitude that has led to sections of the world being upset by the US?

i.e.: I don't like/agree with what I'm hearing, therefore rather than accept that other people have alternatives that I may not agree with, I am going to bury my head in the sand/force my way upon others.

IMHO, the world needs to recognise that what works in one place is not necessarily what should be attempted/imposed unilaterally.

As a side note (and FN: please don't take this as a personal/theological attack) this is my opinion as an atheist. I mention this only as the majority of wars through history have been based on religion, although granted in more recent times, economics have been a far more prevalent factor.

Either that, or start backing up some of your statements with facts and logic.

Troy said it best, along with Ksyrup. Too many believe that because you voted against someone it meant that you voted for the other. I think you will many here (as indicated by the several polls we've had over the last 5 years) have never been enamored with Bush, it was just voting for the other guy was more evil.

By the way, it always been funny to see the blame for liberal fiscalness or fiscal irresponsibility (same thing, even in FDR's day) solely with the Executive Branch when it is the Legislative Branch that holds the purse strings. The Executive Branch does not have the balls anymore (it's been that way for a while or will be for years to come) to veto. Clinton, Bush, President 2008, President 2012, et al have and will go along with whatever Congress shovels and hope that there's another PC or Dot Net revolution.

Vote for libertarians next time, esp. for Congress. See below.

Two ignore adds, and suddenly the thread gets a lot easier to read.

I suppose I'll miss some cute diagrams as a result, but on balance, I think I've improved my overall FOFC experience.

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.