2004 election

[clk]

I'd like to understand some reasoning from people who will be voting for Bush next year.
I don't know why anyone will vote for Bush again in a year...to me, it's a simple question: Am I better off now than I was when Clinton was in office? And the answer is no. Basically, when Bush Sr. was in office, it was war and recession. Clinton gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity. Bush Jr. seems to like war and recession better. I'm sure the republicans will argue that it's just some kind of a strange coincidence.
Bush Sr. had a huge deficit when he left ($292 billion). It took 8 years, but dammit, Clinton turned it around. Here's an excerpt from an article written in late 2000:

President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

"Eight years ago, our future was at risk," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Economic growth was low, unemployment was high, interest rates were high, the federal debt had quadrupled in the previous 12 years. When Vice President Gore and I took office, the budget deficit was $290 billion, and it was projected this year the budget deficit would be $455 billion."

Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

If you guys don't like to look at numbers, I have attached a visual indicator of unemployment from 88 to 03 to the bottom of this message.

Anyways, it took Dubya less than two years to turn Clinton's surplus into a monstrous deficit. And what do we have to show for it?

Here's my summary:
Bush Sr: war, deficit, recession
Clinton: peace, prosperity, low unemployment, world leaders loved him
Bush Jr: war, deficit, recession, turned unprecedented US support after 9/11 into hatred by starting war on false pretenses, doesn't think it's necessary to prosecute his friend Ken Lay, etc., etc.

So, as I said, is there a good reason to vote for Bush?

Here's the unemployment chart. Hmm... the unemployment steadily declined from 92 to 00. Who was president then? I seem to forget....and then it starts going back up after 2000. I wonder why? Must be some kind of a weird coincidence

[American]

Are you better off? Small-minded question, and very selfish. Why don't you try looking out for yourself and those around you, and stop begging government to take more of my paycheck that I earned while lazy asses drank and played Nintendo64.

The country is better off and important events have been set in motion. There is no stopping them. They are vital to secure the free world from terrorism. That's far bigger than your puney existence, so if you're not "better off", then screw you. Work harder, get qualified, and keep good values. Have some pride, for christ sake.

[clk]

Originally posted by American
Are you better off? Small-minded question, and very selfish. Why don't you try looking out for yourself and those around you, and stop begging government to take more of my paycheck that I earned while lazy asses drank and played Nintendo64.

The country is better off and important events have been set in motion. There is no stopping them. They are vital to secure the free world from terrorism. That's far bigger than your puney existence, so if you're not "better off", then screw you. Work harder, get qualified, and keep good values. Have some pride, for christ sake.

So what should I ask myself instead? Are Iraqis better off now then they were when Clinton was in office? Is that broad enough? What "important events" have been set in motion, by the way? The search for WMDs? Oh wait, Bush lied about those.
Every American needs to ask themselves whether they are better off now then they were 5 years ago. They shouldn't base their decision solely on that, of course, but they also need to look at the economy, US diplomacy, etc.
BTW, I noticed you didn't address any specific points about the economy under Clinton. What do you think about it? I'm curious to know.

[Tony]

Originally posted by clk
Am I better off now than I was when Clinton was in office? And the answer is no.

And I assume Bush is to blame for all your ills? Damn dude, take responsibility for your own life.

[Brown]

Originally posted by clk
I'd like to understand some reasoning from people who will be voting for Bush next year.Well, there are those who will vote for Bush no matter what: die-hard Republicans will prefer any Republican over any Democrat; gun-rights advocates know that Bush is a friend of the NRA and other firearms groups; born-again Christians see Bush as one of their own.

These people are unlikely to be swayed from voting for Bush.

I recently heard a certain leading Republican announce that the loss of the surplus, the increase in unemployment, the recession, etc. are all Bill Clinton's fault. Basically, the argument was that Bush inherited Clinton's mess. (This echoed a tactic of Ronald Reagan, who blamed many of his problems on Jimmy Carter, and who continued to do so well into his second term, when he had been in office longer than Carter.)

I predict we will be hearing more rhetoric like this. As I have said before, the 2004 election is shaping up to be the nastiest in recent history.

Oh, and the same commentator also blamed Clinton for the terrorist activity of September 2001. The "reasoning" behind this was that if Clinton hadn't been such a p*ssy, the terrorists would not have gotten the idea that they could mess with us.

[clk]

Originally posted by Tony


And I assume Bush is to blame for all your ills? Damn dude, take responsibility for your own life.

:rolleyes:
I did not blame Bush for any specific problem in my life. I take full responsibility for all of my actions. However, I believe the President is responsible for fixing the economy in case of a recession. Bush has neglected to do so. His decision has affected millions of Americans. If they were smart, they'd figure out that the economy was soaring under a democratic president, and they will vote Bush out in favor of someone who has an economic plan similar to Clinton's.

edited to add: I was expecting a few decent rebuttals from the republicans on this board, but I've only received a couple of lame personal attacks so far...

[Tony]

Originally posted by clk


However, I believe the President is responsible for fixing the economy in case of a recession.


The president has no constitutional authority to solve the economy’s problems.

[clk]

Originally posted by Tony



The president has no constitutional authority to solve the economy’s problems.

Are you saying that he assumes no responsibility for the economy?

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Tony



The president has no constitutional authority to solve the economy’s problems.



No constitutional authority ehhhh....:rolleyes:

[SRW]

Originally posted by clk
I'd like to understand some reasoning from people who will be voting for Bush next year.
I don't know why anyone will vote for Bush again in a year...to me, it's a simple question: Am I better off now than I was when Clinton was in office? And the answer is no. Basically, when Bush Sr. was in office, it was war and recession. Clinton gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity. Bush Jr. seems to like war and recession better. I'm sure the republicans will argue that it's just some kind of a strange coincidence.
Bush Sr. had a huge deficit when he left ($292 billion). It took 8 years, but dammit, Clinton turned it around. Here's an excerpt from an article written in late 2000:


http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

If you guys don't like to look at numbers, I have attached a visual indicator of unemployment from 88 to 03 to the bottom of this message.

Anyways, it took Dubya less than two years to turn Clinton's surplus into a monstrous deficit. And what do we have to show for it?

Here's my summary:
Bush Sr: war, deficit, recession
Clinton: peace, prosperity, low unemployment, world leaders loved him
Bush Jr: war, deficit, recession, turned unprecedented US support after 9/11 into hatred by starting war on false pretenses, doesn't think it's necessary to prosecute his friend Ken Lay, etc., etc.

So, as I said, is there a good reason to vote for Bush?

Here's the unemployment chart. Hmm... the unemployment steadily declined from 92 to 00. Who was president then? I seem to forget....and then it starts going back up after 2000. I wonder why? Must be some kind of a weird coincidence


Very cute, but you have the facts wrong, employment always lags behind recovery, so by your very chart you show that the economy was improving prior to Clinton taking office, also as unemployment is a precursor to recession we can see that the economy started to falter with Clinton.

What you fail to take into account is that the economy really has little to do with the president. The recession we are currently in started with Greenspan raising interest rates 8 times in early 2000, while at the same time the stock marked started to tank due mainly to the dot com bust. Non of which was Clintons fault by the way.

All in all Clinton deserves the praise for not screwing up the economy and Bush deserves the barbs for not turning things around. Of course Bush did have a little help from 9/11 which
took the sails out of any recovery.

Just out of curiosity what do you think Bush should have done to "Fix the Economy".

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by SRW



Very cute, but you have the facts wrong, employment always lags behind recovery, so by your very chart you show that the economy was improving prior to Clinton taking office, also as unemployment is a precursor to recession we can see that the economy started to falter with Clinton.

What you fail to take into account is that the economy really has little to do with the president. The recession we are currently in started with Greenspan raising interest rates 8 times in early 2000, while at the same time the stock marked started to tank due mainly to the dot com bust. Non of which was Clintons fault by the way.

All in all Clinton deserves the praise for not screwing up the economy and Bush deserves the barbs for not turning things around. Of course Bush did have a little help from 9/11 which
took the sails out of any recovery.

Just out of curiosity what do you think Bush should have done to "Fix the Economy".


Raise the TAXES!!!


That would have prevented the huge defecits that we have today!

[billydkid]

Originally posted by American
Are you better off? Small-minded question, and very selfish. Why don't you try looking out for yourself and those around you, and stop begging government to take more of my paycheck that I earned while lazy asses drank and played Nintendo64.

The country is better off and important events have been set in motion. There is no stopping them. They are vital to secure the free world from terrorism. That's far bigger than your puney existence, so if you're not "better off", then screw you. Work harder, get qualified, and keep good values. Have some pride, for christ sake.

What kind of logic is that? That is precisely the question everyone should asking themselves. Should they be asking themselves "Is somebody other than me better off?"? So it is our mission to look out for each others welfare, but not for our own? I don't expect and am pretty well certain that there in nobody looking out for my welfare other than myself. There has been this myth perpetrated, generally by people much better off in all respects than most of us, that it is "selfish" for us to be concerned about our own welfare. That is, frankly, idiotic. Do you think all the movers and shakers of the world are movers and shakers because they were looking out for the welfare of others? I'm, but it is utterly asinine to ask and expect people not to care about themselves. The best thing anyone can do for another person is to take responsibility for one's own well being and happiness.

[clk]

Originally posted by SRW



Very cute, but you have the facts wrong, employment always lags behind recovery, so by your very chart you show that the economy was improving prior to Clinton taking office, also as unemployment is a precursor to recession we can see that the economy started to falter with Clinton.

What you fail to take into account is that the economy really has little to do with the president. The recession we are currently in started with Greenspan raising interest rates 8 times in early 2000, while at the same time the stock marked started to tank due mainly to the dot com bust. Non of which was Clintons fault by the way.

All in all Clinton deserves the praise for not screwing up the economy and Bush deserves the barbs for not turning things around. Of course Bush did have a little help from 9/11 which
took the sails out of any recovery.

Just out of curiosity what do you think Bush should have done to "Fix the Economy".

Finally, a decent rebuttal. Thank you for your post. I gave Clinton credit for the economic boom during his adminstration, so I think that he also should share the blame for the recession that followed. However, I don't think there was much that he could have done, because an action by him to prevent a bust would have been viewed as an attack on the prosperous economy.
You asked what I think Bush should have done to "Fix the economy". I think that Greenspan's lowering of interest rates would have led to an eventual recovery. However, Bush's Iraq rhetoric a year ago caused alot of apprehension. I believe the the economy was ready to recover at that time, and that the Iraq war stalled the recovery. Many analysts predicted that the war would be good for the economy, but so far, that has not been the case. Also, I think that Bush's tax cut did nothing for the country except to raise the deficit. How is giving most of the tax cut to rich people help the economy? I think Bush should have given more tax breaks to small businesses instead.

[corplinx]

"Clinton gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity."


Evidence?
Haiti, Kosovo, Multiple Iraq attacks, Strict enforcement of no-fly zones, lobbed bombs at Afhanistan........ where is this mythical world where Clinton was a "peacetime" president?

As for the economy, it was all a sham. However, Clinton had little to do with the VC/tech bubble. I don't give him credit for it and to be consistent I don't blame him for it crashing in 1999.

[SRW]

Originally posted by clk


I think Bush should have given more tax breaks to small businesses instead.



I agree with you 100% on this point, however when we start talking about small business and the rich you generally are talking about the same group.

Now if by rich you are talking about the top 1% then I agree they should pay higher taxes. However under that 1% you quickly start getting into the small business sector. It can be quite thorny to come up with a tax on one group that does not hurt the group that creates the most jobs.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by clk
I'd like to understand some reasoning from people who will be voting for Bush next year.
I don't know why anyone will vote for Bush again in a year...to me, it's a simple question: Am I better off now than I was when Clinton was in office? And the answer is no. Basically, when Bush Sr. was in office, it was war and recession. Clinton gave us 8 years of peace and prosperity. Bush Jr. seems to like war and recession better. I'm sure the republicans will argue that it's just some kind of a strange coincidence.
Bush Sr. had a huge deficit when he left ($292 billion). It took 8 years, but dammit, Clinton turned it around.


Ok, first of all, if you are asking whether "I am better off", then why should war have anything to do with it? (Unless you yourself are the one doing the fighting, most people are unaffected at this point in time.) Also, are you one of the unemployed you quoted in your statistics?

If neither of those points applies to you, then you have just contradicted your original statement "Am I better off".

Secondly, Bush has not even completed his first term yet, and you are assuming you are 'worse off'. Maybe you should wait until closer to the end of the term. (The economy may be on the upswing, and while things like the deficit won't be solved by the end of his term, other things will look a lot better.)

Thirdly, although Bush has made mistakes, many of the problems attributed to him probably weren't his fault; the economy was going to fail anyways. Much of the prosperity under the Clinton years was the result of over-hype, such as the .com boom and Enron. 9/11 was also going to negatively affect the economy regardless of who the president was.

You should also keep in mind that while Clinton was in power, the Republicans held a lot of power in Congress and the Senate.

I'm not in the U.S., so obviously I can't vote for or against Bush. If I was, I don't know who I would vote for; I think the Repubicans have done some good things, and some really bad things. (The dumbest thing he's done is letting Microsoft get away with their anti-trust practices, and I might consider voting against Bush simply on that basis.) I'd wait and see who his opponent would be and what their policies are. Basing your election choices soley on who you don't want in power is generally a bad idea. Would you really vote against Bush if the democratic candidate were, oh, lets say Hannibal Lector?

[clk]

I'll try to reply to everyone in the same post.
posted by corplinx
Haiti, Kosovo, Multiple Iraq attacks, Strict enforcement of no-fly zones, lobbed bombs at Afhanistan........ where is this mythical world where Clinton was a "peacetime" president?

Ok, so Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles around every once in a while. Did any one of those missiles cost $87 billion? Did 306 US soldiers die because he lied about why he was going to war? Did his wars strain US relationships with major countries all around the world? I believe our Kosovo commitment was part of a larger UN force. Did Bush incorporate the UN into the Iraq war? If the war on Iraq had actually been legitimate, then I wouldn't complain. In fact, I think Bush Sr.'s war on Iraq was legitimate.

posted by Segnosaur
Ok, first of all, if you are asking whether "I am better off", then why should war have anything to do with it? (Unless you yourself are the one doing the fighting, most people are unaffected at this point in time.) Also, are you one of the unemployed you quoted in your statistics?

If neither of those points applies to you, then you have just contradicted your original statement "Am I better off".

Secondly, Bush has not even completed his first term yet, and you are assuming you are 'worse off'. Maybe you should wait until closer to the end of the term. (The economy may be on the upswing, and while things like the deficit won't be solved by the end of his term, other things will look a lot better.)

Thirdly, although Bush has made mistakes, many of the problems attributed to him probably weren't his fault; the economy was going to fail anyways. Much of the prosperity under the Clinton years was the result of over-hype, such as the .com boom and Enron. 9/11 was also going to negatively affect the economy regardless of who the president was.

I gave the impression that the decision to elect a president should be based solely on that one question, which was not my intention. I think other factors should be taken into account, such as how the president handled diplomacy, how he managed the budget, how the managed the economy, etc. However, opinion on these factors is usually subjective. Yes, Bush hasn't completed his second term, but I don't think the economy is going to pick up to where it was in 2000 by the end of Bush's term. Call me skeptical. Yes the economy was going to fail anyways, but, as I said before, Bush stalled it's recovery by going to war with Iraq. I blame him for that. Also, I don't blame him for scandals such as Enron, but I do blame him for not prosecuting his good friend Ken Lay.
I'd like to write more but I have to go for now :(

[Tony]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita



Raise the TAXES!!!


That would have prevented the huge defecits that we have today!


No one is stopping you from giving the government more of your money.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita




No constitutional authority ehhhh....:rolleyes:



I see you have difficulty structuring complete thoughts.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by clk

Ok, so Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles around every once in a while.

But then, isn't the 'result' important too? Clinton lobbed a few cruise missles around, but didn't really accomplish much in doing so. (Remember after the bombing of the Cole, he launched missles at al Quaeda bases in Afghanistan, but the bases were long since empty.) I'd rather have military action (even when its expensive) that accomplishes a goal (even if it is expensive) than have cheaper action which does nothing.

And remember, there are people who believe that some of Clinton's actions (which did kill some innocent people) were as a result of him trying to deflect attention from his impeachment.

Originally posted by clk
Did his wars strain US relationships with major countries all around the world?

Yes it did, but keep a few things in mind. The effect has been negligable if anything; Yes, relations are strained with France, etc., but the US still conducts diplomancy with pretty much every country thoughout the world, deals are still being negotiated and alliances formed. (It should also be noted that many of the countries the US had problems with are actually more willing to be friendly since the war.

If you believe (as I did) that the war was unfortunate but necessary, then the effects on relations should be irrelevant. (What if, for example, Britian decided to unilaterally stop Germany before they invaded poland; even if people would not like Britian, it would have stopped a much bigger problem from occuring.)

Originally posted by clk
I believe our Kosovo commitment was part of a larger UN force.

I believe the initial fighting in Kosovo was a NATO operation. (Clinton could never get the United Nations on side for the initial bombing.)

Originally posted by clk
Yes the economy was going to fail anyways, but, as I said before, Bush stalled it's recovery by going to war with Iraq. I blame him for that.

The war may have negatively affected the economy, but I felt it was necessary. I also think that it will have a positive effect in the future.... Eventually, the situation in Iraq will stabilize, they will have more freedom (knock on wood), contribute more to the global economy, and with fewer terrorist-supporting countries in the world, things will be a more peaceful place.

I also believe the tax cuts will have a stimulative effect on the economy, but it will take a while for those effects to be felt.

Originally posted by clk
Also, I don't blame him for scandals such as Enron, but I do blame him for not prosecuting his good friend Ken Lay.


I'm not supporting his stance on the presecution of Lay, but remember, Clinton also had dirty hands when it came to dealing with certain people. (Remember the pardons given out when he was leaving office.)

Remember, after the scandals started appearing, Bush started to take steps to try to avoid them in the future, such as trying to get executives to be responsible for their companie's accounting practices.

[Tony]

Originally posted by clk


Are you saying that he assumes no responsibility for the economy?

Yes that's what I’m saying, unless you can show me constitutional evidence to the contrary.

[Shinytop]

We can argue all day long about the results of Iraqi freedom.

We can argue all day long about the economy.

But to me the determining factor in my inability to vote for George W. Bush a second time is his complete scorn for the American people. When he stood up and said they had tons and tons of WMD and that we had proof I did not doubt him. Why not, you ask? Because no president would stand up and lie to the American people about the cause for taking our country to war, about the reason to sacrifice our children. Yet in September of 2003 we have found no WMD's, no tons and tons of material ready to be deployed within 45 minutes. And those who would defend the president say it has been hidden by the evil dictator, it was shipped elsewhere. I have to ask, if we have such proof why did we not track the material? But if one were to suspend common sense and say it really has been hidden or it really has been shipped elsewhere, it still leaves one question, "Where is the proof, Mr. President, that you claimed you had?"

No, the president lied or at best exaggerated the truth. Either way such dishonesty is not acceptable when you are asking your people, your Congress to support a war. There is no conduct between nations or for a single nation to undertake more costly than war. You do not treat your citizens as children and lie to them to take them where you want them.

Now add to that the AG and the President's contempt for the rights of Americans as expressed in our Constitution and you have a man who does not deserve to hold the post of dog catcher, much less POTUS.

The following is a portion of an email I sent to the White House on February 25th, 2003. My opinions have not changed.

We have elected you to lead our nation. One of your biggest assignments is to defend our country from enemies, both foreign and domestic. But it would appear you are missing one vital part of your task. You are tasked with defending our lives, certainly, but also our freedoms. You are not allowed to operate a slide and nudge it over to the security side one day if it leaves our freedoms unprotected. You are not allowed to eliminate our protections from unreasonable search and seizure in order to protect our lives. For over two centuries American fighting men have laid down their lives to defend our country and its freedoms. I did not go to Vietnam just because I was ordered. I went with the beliefs that I was helping defend the idea of liberty.

The Bill of Rights of our Constitution is not just pretty words to be admired. They are the bounds that the people of our country have placed on the government of our country. The Bill of Rights is the contract between the people and the government.

If your AG and the crime enforcement agencies of our government cannot defend us within our Bill of Rights we need to replace them, not the Constitution. If you cannot provide the leadership to defend our country and our freedoms we will replace you. You are not given the choice of which to protect. You have obligations to me and 250 million other Americans and if you support the Enhanced Security Act of 2003 you will be forfeiting my support and millions like me who place our freedoms above temporary security measures and the convenience of Mr. Ashcroft.

[clk]

Originally posted by Tony


Yes that's what I’m saying, unless you can show me constitutional evidence to the contrary.

Just because the constitution doesn't state it explicitly doesn't mean the President can ignore the economy. Why do you think a candidate's economic policy is so important during elections?
It would be irresponsible for any President to not do everything in his power to improve the economy in times of recession. Even if the President were able to ignore the economy, it doesn't mean he should.

[clk]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

And remember, there are people who believe that some of Clinton's actions (which did kill some innocent people) were as a result of him trying to deflect attention from his impeachment.


Yes, that is true. You could also say that Bush started the war to deflect attention from the economy or his ties with Enron, etc.


I believe the initial fighting in Kosovo was a NATO operation. (Clinton could never get the United Nations on side for the initial bombing.)


Whoops. I stand corrected.


The war may have negatively affected the economy, but I felt it was necessary.


I guess this is just a difference of opinion between you and I. I believe it was not necessary since Saddam did not pose an imminent threat to the US. I also believe that it was not a good idea to adopt a pre-emptive strike policy, because this policy can now be used by other nations when they think that an enemy nation might be out to get them.


I also believe the tax cuts will have a stimulative effect on the economy, but it will take a while for those effects to be felt.


Just about any form of taxs cuts will have a positive effect on the economy. It's just the scale of the positive effect that is different. Bush's tax cuts went mostly to the wealthy. This will not stimulate the economy as much as giving small business tax cuts. Yes, some people that are rich own small businesses, but there are many middle class families that own small businesses as well. I don't mind giving tax cuts to the wealthy, but it should be done when we have a large surplus and in good economic times.


I'm not supporting his stance on the presecution of Lay, but remember, Clinton also had dirty hands when it came to dealing with certain people. (Remember the pardons given out when he was leaving office.)

Remember, after the scandals started appearing, Bush started to take steps to try to avoid them in the future, such as trying to get executives to be responsible for their companie's accounting practices.

Bush needed to set an example by prosecuting Ken Lay and throwing him in a federal prison. Doing this would have sent the message: "If you incorporate any dirty accounting tricks into your business, you will be prosecuted". Bush has neglected to do this.

[Charlie Monoxide]

It'd be nice to see a Bush supporter respond along the lines: "I will vote for Bush in 2004 because ________". I promise not to attack their reasons, just interested.

Charlie (speaking for myself only) Monoxide

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by clk

Yes, that is true. You could also say that Bush started the war to deflect attention from the economy or his ties with Enron, etc.


Possibly, but remember, many of the anti-war people are claiming Bush was planning on invading Iraq before he was elected (before the economic down turn.) I guess you'll have to decide which conspiricy to believe in.

Originally posted by clk

I guess this is just a difference of opinion between you and I. I believe it was not necessary since Saddam did not pose an imminent threat to the US. I also believe that it was not a good idea to adopt a pre-emptive strike policy, because this policy can now be used by other nations when they think that an enemy nation might be out to get them.


Thing is, the 'bad' countries were probably going to engage in preemptive strikes regardless of whether there was a precident set by Bush. Remember, Russia invaded Afghanistan, China invaded Tibet, Iraq invaded Kuwait, North Korea invaded South Korea, etc., all before Bush came to power.

You also have to be careful in assigning moral equivalency where none should exist. It may sound arrogant, but I believe democracy is a better form of government than a dictatorship, and activities that support the establishment of a free democracy should be viewed differently than activities that support dictatorship.

And I agree, Iraq did not provide an immediate threat to the US. (It did pose a terrorist threat, but that was mostly to Israel, although Americans were killed in resulting terrorist activities too.) However, I believe any problems would be long term. There are a lot of dictators in the middle east; failure to address the problems have allowed negative attitudes to fester (in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.) Things 'look' peaceful, but the underlying culture produces regular support for terrorism. By invading Iraq, not only do you eliminate one of the problems, but neighbouring countries may decide to change their attitudes based on what happens there. (How do you think the average Iranian or Syrian will react when they talk to an Iraqi who has just voted in their first election?)

Originally posted by clk

Just about any form of taxs cuts will have a positive effect on the economy. It's just the scale of the positive effect that is different. Bush's tax cuts went mostly to the wealthy. This will not stimulate the economy as much as giving small business tax cuts. Yes, some people that are rich own small businesses, but there are many middle class families that own small businesses as well. I don't mind giving tax cuts to the wealthy, but it should be done when we have a large surplus and in good economic times.


Tax cuts went to the wealthy because, well, they're the ones that paid the most tax to begin with. (Overall, the marginal tax rate is still higher for wealthy people than it is for the middle class or poor.)

And there were tax cuts that were aimed at the poor people too.

Originally posted by clk

Bush needed to set an example by prosecuting Ken Lay and throwing him in a federal prison. Doing this would have sent the message: "If you incorporate any dirty accounting tricks into your business, you will be prosecuted". Bush has neglected to do this.

I have to admit, not being American, I'm not that familiar with all the players in the Enron scandal. What exactly did Ken Lay do? (Remember, there could have been loop holes which, although perhaps not morally right, may still have been legal.)

[clk]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Thing is, the 'bad' countries were probably going to engage in preemptive strikes regardless of whether there was a precident set by Bush. Remember, Russia invaded Afghanistan, China invaded Tibet, Iraq invaded Kuwait, North Korea invaded South Korea, etc., all before Bush came to power.


You are right about that. However, what if a country like India were to use a pre-emptive strike policy against Pakistan? It could start a nuclear war (although it is highly unlikely to happen). That is the type of situation I am worried about.


And I agree, Iraq did not provide an immediate threat to the US. (It did pose a terrorist threat, but that was mostly to Israel, although Americans were killed in resulting terrorist activities too.) However, I believe any problems would be long term. There are a lot of dictators in the middle east; failure to address the problems have allowed negative attitudes to fester (in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.) Things 'look' peaceful, but the underlying culture produces regular support for terrorism. By invading Iraq, not only do you eliminate one of the problems, but neighbouring countries may decide to change their attitudes based on what happens there. (How do you think the average Iranian or Syrian will react when they talk to an Iraqi who has just voted in their first election?)


I agree that it was a good thing to bring democracy into Iraq and to get rid of Saddam. However, Bush handled the situation in a very bad way. I believe we would have been better off if we built a true international coalition and cooperated more fully with the UN.


Tax cuts went to the wealthy because, well, they're the ones that paid the most tax to begin with. (Overall, the marginal tax rate is still higher for wealthy people than it is for the middle class or poor.)


That is true. But as I said before, tax cuts to the wealthy should be given when we have a decent surplus and a strong economy. I don't agree with the timing and magnitude of Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy.


And there were tax cuts that were aimed at the poor people too.


Bush did give decent tax rebates to middle class families and even some poor families. I'll give him credit for that.


I have to admit, not being American, I'm not that familiar with all the players in the Enron scandal. What exactly did Ken Lay do? (Remember, there could have been loop holes which, although perhaps not morally right, may still have been legal.)

Ken Lay was the CEO of Enron and a good friend of Bush. There is no way that Lay could have been ignorant of the company's accounting practices, seeing as how he was the CEO.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by clk

You are right about that. However, what if a country like India were to use a pre-emptive strike policy against Pakistan? It could start a nuclear war (although it is highly unlikely to happen). That is the type of situation I am worried about.


I am worried about that too. (Although the fact that India is a democracy, and Pakistan's leadership seems to be fairly reasonable reduces the chances somewhat.)

However, it still doesn't address the issue... Will India use the US's experience in Iraq as justification to invade Pakistan? I personally doubt it... The situations are totally different.

Originally posted by clk

I agree that it was a good thing to bring democracy into Iraq and to get rid of Saddam. However, Bush handled the situation in a very bad way. I believe we would have been better off if we built a true international coalition and cooperated more fully with the UN.


Hey, I agree... he made mistakes. He put too much emphasis on the WMD issue and not enough on human rights and terrorism. Unfortunately, if given a choice between a leader who does a bad job at achieving a good goal (invasion of Iraq), and a leader who does a good job ad achieving a bad goal (letting Saddam continue in power, maintaining the status quo), I'd have to go with the one with the better goal.

Like I said, not being American, couldn't vote anyways, but if I could, my decision on whether I vote for Bush would depend at least in part on what the Democratic challenger had for their policy on Iraq.

As for the UN and the 'international coalition', I doubt Bush would ever have been able to do that. (Remember, not even Clinton, whom supposedly the world loved, could get the UN on side to stop genocides in Europe.)

The UN was just not going to act. Some countries (such as France, Russia and Germany) had reasons to oppose intervention, and lets face it, the UN hasn't really done much to stop genocides in its history.

Originally posted by clk

Bush did give decent tax rebates to middle class families and even some poor families. I'll give him credit for that.


Actually, I'd say this was one thing he may have made a mistake at... he gave tax relief to the wealthy and the poor, but I don't think he changed the tax rate for much of the middle class. (Not sure about that; its been a while since I saw the new and the old tax brackets.)

[clk]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Actually, I'd say this was one thing he may have made a mistake at... he gave tax relief to the wealthy and the poor, but I don't think he changed the tax rate for much of the middle class. (Not sure about that; its been a while since I saw the new and the old tax brackets.)

So far, I think both of us have been using the term "tax cut" when we should have been saying tax rebate. Bush's program gave rebates to almost everyone who paid taxes. Most middle class families got rebates for atleast several hundred dollars, which is a good thing. But like I said, I still think too much went to the wealthy, who are less likely to spend their rebate than middle class people.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by clk

So far, I think both of us have been using the term "tax cut" when we should have been saying tax rebate. Bush's program gave rebates to almost everyone who paid taxes. Most middle class families got rebates for atleast several hundred dollars, which is a good thing. But like I said, I still think too much went to the wealthy, who are less likely to spend their rebate than middle class people.

Not being American, I'm not familiar with all the details of his tax plans. I do remember seeing the tax brackets before and after his tax cut, and the marginal tax rate was lower for most groups (except part of the middle class). Didn't know it was in the form of a rebate. (Or is that just a first year thing?)

Now, on the the wealthy... Many will spend some or all of their rebate. However, even if a rich person doen't spend their rebate, it does not mean the money is necessarily 'lost'; it will often get invested (which also improves the economy), given to charity, or even kept in the bank (where it can be used by the bank to give loans to people).

Instead of looking at it as "giving" tax cuts, the issue should be "is the amount we are taking in taxes fair", regardless of how well the economy is doing. (To draw an anology, if you steal from someone, it is still stealing even if you are poor.)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
It'd be nice to see a Bush supporter respond along the lines: "I will vote for Bush in 2004 because ________". I promise not to attack their reasons, just interested.

Charlie (speaking for myself only) Monoxide

I will vote for Bush in 2004 because he has the most qualified team of people to lead the west. When Bush ran for president the first time I really wasn't impressed with his credentials (in fact, they were awful) but his cabinet turned out to be a dream team (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, Rice). It was a refreshing change from 8 years of black tokens in unimportant positions and token women nominated more for what was between their legs than their expertise. (lets not even bring up the Arkansans stuck in the executive branch out of cronyism).

We _lead_ the free world. You don't put people in the cabinet just because they are white/black/asian or have tits.

Now, if a democrat can put together a better cabinet than Bush, that will be the only way they get my vote. I don't care if the president is pro-choice, prays, looks like a chimp, or screws his intern. What I care about is if competent people are in charge of steering us through a dangerous world.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


....Would you really vote against Bush if the democratic candidate were, oh, lets say Hannibal Lector?

Very possibly. I thought Hannibal was an imaginary figure in a book. Even if imaginary, chances are he would be several times more competent than any of the current 10 circus clowns/dems "in the race".

If he were a real person he'd be far and away more qualifed than Bush for the Presidency imho. ;)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita

Raise the TAXES!!!

That would have prevented the huge defecits that we have today!
Can you cite the study that disproved the Laffer Curve? I missed seeing it.

[clk]

Originally posted by corplinx


I will vote for Bush in 2004 because he has the most qualified team of people to lead the west.

I would make the choice based 50% on the candidate's credentials and 50% on the supporting team of the candidate. It seems that many republicans don't mind electing a person who is not qualified to hold public office (i.e. Bush, Arnold, etc.). They say that as long as the team around the candidate is solid, then it is ok to elect them. The problem with this is that once elected, the candidate can make any decision they feel is necessary. They do not have to take the advice of their team. And if the person isn't too bright to start out with, and they don't want to take the advice of their team....well, things can get messy. That is why I think it is important to always elect someone with solid, unquestionable credentials who also has a strong supporting team. It shouldn't be just one or the other.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by hammegk

Very possibly. I thought Hannibal was an imaginary figure in a book. Even if imaginary, chances are he would be several times more competent than any of the current 10 circus clowns/dems "in the race".


Call it lack of imagination... I was trying to pick the name of someone whom everyone would consider as a 'bad choice'.

Originally posted by hammegk

If he were a real person he'd be far and away more qualifed than Bush for the Presidency imho. ;)

Yeah, but I don't think as many foreign leaders would be happy to be invited to the White House for 'State Dinners'.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by clk


I would make the choice based 50% on the candidate's credentials and 50% on the supporting team of the candidate. It seems that many republicans don't mind electing a person who is not qualified to hold public office (i.e. Bush, Arnold, etc.).

Most americans feel the same way. Over half that voted in the last election, voted for gore.

I would contend Gore had not shown any better qualifications for the job than Bush. At least Bush had the experience of being a governer.

[clk]

Originally posted by corplinx


Most americans feel the same way. Over half that voted in the last election, voted for gore.

I would contend Gore had not shown any better qualifications for the job than Bush. At least Bush had the experience of being a governer.

I think that it is vital that the candidates elected President be very intelligent and eloquent. They also need to have excellent qualifications, i.e. extended experience in government or the military. I feel embarrassed when some foreign leaders come to visit Bush and have a better command over English than Bush. I feel even more embarrassed when Bush tries to speak in Spanish. The man can't even speak English properly, and he's trying to speak Spanish?? Come on! He is ruining the reputation of the US by doing these kinds of things.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Props to corplinx for following instructions! Great post. Good points.

Charlie (give credit, break legs if abused) Monoxide