Bush Good, Bush Bad...

- Powell would not have gone back to the U.N. without clearance from the the top. Since he did go to the U.N., seems like GW finally sees that we alone cannot get this "Iraq business" under control.

- I exaggerated my point to make a point. You yourself said that the Patriot Act was "the biggest attack on personal liberties ever launched by our govt since Abe Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War." Yet, you would readily suspend those same liberties for an entire people because of their religion?! The majority of which are law abiding, U.S. citizens?!

*AND I NEVER called you a Nazi or even implied that. Like I said before, I was only exaggerating my point to make a point, that's all.

 

Okay I hear that pretty clearly. Even though I lean to the left, I have been so besieged by numbers that I don't know what to believe. (And it's not that I dislike mathematics, mind you).

I've seen everything from total tax burden, to burden after "loopholes," and it gets difficult to parse.

Would you agree with the following? Bush and some of his advisors, (in addition to the motivation of maybe stimulating the economy), are not really opposed to deficits because it will necessitate future belt tightening that will trim a lot of perceived fat from our government expenditures. In fact, it is possible that this scenario, in part, motivated the tax cuts.

I sincerely believe that's the case.

 

Thanks, Cohen. And coming from you, it's worth a lot.

What I quoted from you, about "starting from a different baseline", is one of the most intelligent posts I've seen in a while around here. That's the basis for discussion, not some inflammatory "sound bite" that some around here like to throw around. That's how I was responding to you, and wish more would look for something of substance to say (or humor ) about the different issues that come up. The attacks, from both sides, without any attempt at adding to discussion and only illiciting an angry response, gets tiresome beyond belief.



bnb, don't worry about it. I didn't take it personally at all. I thought the "puppy" comment amusing to me, that's all. Some of my attempts at humor are really aimed at myself. Hell, I laugh at myself all the time!

(ask my wife... uh, on second thought, don't!)

 

Yes, although they also felt Democrats would otherwise spend it on new entitlements.

 

Cohen:

I'm curious about one aspect of your argument about Bush's general honesty.

When he was first elected, I actually appreciated that aspect of him more than anything else. I thought we'd managed to elect a conservative but honest man... not too bright, but I figured he'd do what he thought was right.

I've retreated from that opinion of him. I don't think he so much lies, as that he's very disingenuous. One thing that I've noticed in particular, is that he makes expressions of support for various movements with some popular support... but that he never actually follows through.

One example, of course, is in my signature. During the State of the Union, he promised to provide funds to expand the Peace Corps and Americorps. Then when the bill was before him, he supported congressional Republicans in defeating it. He didn't have to veto it - but he did express support against it, when the vote was close and if he'd come out in favor of it, it would probably have passed.

Another obvious example is the environment. He seems to generally advocate a general policy of balance. Ok, fine. I can accept that; while we may all like having pristine lakes and air... one has to understand that what's important is quality of life. Having a pristine world, but lacking a high standard of living isn't a preferable situation.

But look at who he wants to appoint to be the director of the EPA. My wife is from Utah. She's beyond appalled that Leavitt is his candidate. During gubernatorial elections in Utah, he's made some really appalling comments to to effect that he doesn't care at all about the environment. 1/10 of his campaign contributions came from companies on the polluters list.

Moreover, Bush consistently undermined the determinations of his own initial EPA appointees. These aren't raging leftists: but his own chosen few. And he reversed their decisions and criticized their ideas about the environment. Now, he's decided he can't afford to appoint even a moderate Republican to direct the EPA, because any right-centrist will encourage policy he detests. So he comes up with Mike Leavitt.

Oh, and amusing enough... Bush supports states rights. Guess what? He doesn't really. He supports federalism when the states happen to agree with him. Several left-leaning states from New England attempted to enforce stricter environmental standards within their own borders - Bush quashed the attempts.

Bush isn't particularly honest. Whether you think he means well, of course, is a different matter entirely. I'm entirely open to the idea that Machiavellian people can have just as good intentions as anyone else. But Bush peddles this "honest" image, and it's not accurate.

 

Bush is generally honest, and believes he does the right thing for the United States. Most of the time he tells the truth. Sadly he doesn't tell the truth sometimes on some important issues like the war on Iraq, the environment and the budget. We really shoud expect the president to be honest more than most of the time.

Bush may be somewhat savvy, but he's not overly bright. He's also ignorant of international politics and thus lacks a vision for the US in global policy (could be considered a serious concern as he is the leader of the Hyperpower); This is true and because of his lack of info it is often difficult to know if his statements are based on knowing falsehoods or lack of knowlege.

I still have hope that the tax cuts will help spur the economy somewhat. I don't think that they were hands-down 'unfair', but I'm still open to the argument that the uber-rich may have recieved too much of a cut. I think many eoncomists, even Krugman believe that the few hundred bucks, received by many families would give a temporary boost for a onth or two to the economy when they are spent.. Did you read the Krugman article?

let me take the opportunity to voice my disdain over the far-left viewpoint that all thing 'corporate' are evil. How simpleminded is that? Very simple minded. That is why claiming that there is this large mass of people who simple mindedly hate all things corporate, isn't really very effective, even as a red herring.

I am not worried about the Halliburton crap. In business, we give important contracts to those we know and trust. That said, it would still have been preferable to have presented some measure of impartiality. It is important in government to follow a code of ethics. Usually that involves not doing things that obviously look like a conflict of interest. It weakens faith in government. Honest government requires openness and Cheney's refusal to be open about his meetings with energy officials when drafting energy policy is not healthy for democratic government. As of yet we don't know if energy policy is based on this apparent conflict of interest. If Cheney finally loses his legal appeals perhaps we will find out.

Kennedy's claim of 'bribe' is a way to reframe something that we do ALL of the time.... OK "bribe" is an unfortunate word. Call it paying their expenses to fight in Iraq. If it is merely business, we should acknowlege this. Did we get a good deal? Or did we pay extra billions, for relatively little help just so Bush could claim the political cover of another coalition member?

Should we have invaded Iraq? I believe that Bush honestly felt it would make the world safer for the US and remove one more country that terrorists could use. I also believe that it will be best for the Iraqi people. .I'm sire Bush believed it would make us safer. As you know close to half of the American people feel otherwise. Bush's mistatements an dishonesties trying to get support for the war would naturally cause you much less concern that for those who disagreed and yet whose children and tax money are going over there.

Teddy's claims of 'ignoring' the terrorist war are rubish "ignoring: is a bad word. OK, how about this?. Bush misguidedly started a war with Iraq while implying or stating over and over again that Iraq was behind 9/11. Even to this day he claims the war in Iraq is "central in the fight against terrrorism." Intelligence sources, not connected to the politically oriented defense group set up by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld seemed to think that Iraq was not sponsoring terrorist attacks against the US.

This action seem to have diverted resources from locating Bin Laden and fighting Al Qaeda. As you note, his policies, primarily a near unilaterlal Iraq war hurt international ties. These ties were useful in fighting terror. Did Bush purposely hinder anti-terrorist activities? I think not. See your point above about ignorance.

In sum if you supported, the war, Bush's misstatements and falsehoods in support of going to war are not going to be as upsetting to you. You will tend to be more comfortable with Bush, even if you disagree in other areas. It is easy to be calm and moderate about his presidency if you agree with him on the most divisive issue of his presidency.

Feeling more comfortable does not mean, however, that you see things more objectively than those who are upset about Bush's mistatements.

 

Two legs good, four legs bad.

 

Agreed

When broken down into smaller demographics (that the right word?), some have a tax cut, others an increase...but my point is that overall, the top 1% get an unfair decrease when compared to everyone else

but biggest problem with the tax cuts are that Bush claims it will spur economic recovery without sacrficing the future

“We will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations.”
-GWB SOTU 2003

this is CLEARLY not the case

The Joint Committe on Taxation found that

"the positive business investment incentives arising from the tax policy are eventually likely to be outweighted by the reduction in national savings due to increasing Federal government deficits"

http://www.cbpp.org/5-13-03tax.pdf

 

I'd be in favor of throwing Mons. De Villepin in a Big Mac internment camp with nothing to drink nothing but Boone's Farm with a MD20/20 chaser. Add Teddy to the pile too...

 

1. Specifically about the peace corps issue... it wasn't like he issued a general statement about how he liked such programs.

He suggested increasing it by a quantified %. He made the statement in the State of the Union, the speech of the President that the most people will listen to you.

This year, the idea came up. When it cost money (and when the cameras weren't looking) he rejected it. The money wasn't all that substantial, really.

If you're going to peddle feel good ideas in your own Nationally Televized Speeches... you'd better be prepared to follow through 8 months later.

2. Generally speaking, if you only listened to Bush's speeches, you'd think he was a moderate, wouldn't you? Just slightly right of center.

Do you actually think this is where he lies on the political spectrum? He's not Rush Limbaugh. He's also not as conservative as the very most conservative Republicans in congress. But he's also certainly not a moderate Republican, as evidenced by the alienation experienced by moderate Republicans (such as his own appointees in the EPA) or a few others in the Senate.

Do any politicians accurately give their views without the "soft" rhetoric designed to ease the impact of controversial views? A few, I think. Russ Feingold is the most obvious example of a relative moderate who espouses only the positions he'll also vote for. McCain is also up there. And then, of course, the real extremists leave things out in the open. You'll never catch Kennedy or DeLay spinning deceptively moderate positions that they don't really hold.

I don't know. Bush just seems to be much more to the right than his talk suggests - more so than most politicians. Perhaps that merely means he's more skillful... and that he can sell sugar-coated manure without getting caught like others have.

 

Just like you didn't respond to the numbers in Krugmans article a week ago where he showed (with numbers) that the rich have seen their overall tax bill go significantly DOWN over the past 50 years where the tax bill for other Americans has remained almost absolutely flat. Krugman's article was a refutation of the numbers and you ignored it.

Try again.

 

I am personally an independent and had many problems with some of Clinton's policies. I have not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in over a decade, but would have if McCain had been nominated.

I do have some pretty serious problems with Bush and his policies, but on further reflection, I may have big problems only with Bush's team. Bush may be a lot like Reagan in that no matter what the policy, you have to admire their ability not to be directly involved in them .

My support for Bush is on the wane, but there have been a few instances where I agreed with his stance.

1. War in Afghanistan was needed and was swift and merciless. We went in, kicked Taliban butt, and took names. We put all those al-Qaeda f***s in the brig at Gitmo and will hopefully see less worldwide terrorism because of it.

2. Tax cuts WERE a good idea to try to stimulate the economy. I had issues with the slant toward the rich and was more than a bit upset when I personally did not receive one thin dime as a result.

3. I supported war in Iraq when I thought that it was an absolute certainty that there were WMDs littering the desert and that Saddam had tried to buy uranium.

4. Putting all of the intelligence agencies under the same umbrella to try to increase their cooperation and interoperability was a very good idea, although I think the airport workers should be under the direction of the Secret Service.

5. Bush did extend unemployment benefits once to help some of the people left behind in the economy.


There were also a number of things that I have disagreed with.

1. Most of the environmental changes.

2. Giving misinformation to help drum up support (including mine) for a war in Iraq.

3. Not rescinding the tax cuts once we found out we were going to have to spend over a hundred billion dollars there.

3. Building up an estimated trillion dollars worth of debt in two years.

4. Patriot Act.

5. Lack of recent responses to try to help the record number of unemployed folks out there.

6. The farm bill .

I am sure I could continue that list for quite some time. The point is that I am a moderate independant. i am definitely further to the left than some, but I am not a "tax and spend" Democrat, either. I am a fiscal conservative who is very, VERY concerned that our government has gone on a major spending spree with no sense of responsibility whatsoever. We have increased spending an amazing amount, and in an act of blatant politics, have not taken back the tax cuts that could make this much more palatable to people like me.

Maybe my problem is with Bush's team, but it is that team that has pulled Bush WAY to the right and turned him off to people like me. I voted Green last time because Gore didn't do it for me, but I may very well vote Dem for the first time in over a decade as a result of the current administration's antics.

 

Bush had to work with a Democratic House in Texas. And, while he had many of the same people working on his staff then that he has now (those who haven't left), he didn't have Cheney (who you mentioned), Wolfowitz and others who seem to have pulled him far to the right (as Andy mentioned in his post). Or did they? He had to have consensus in Texas to get his tax cuts passed (several... contributing today to the state's budget nightmare, but I digress) and he was very popular, so he was able to get his agenda through.

Now he doesn't have to worry about consensus. At least, he doesn't govern like he worries about it. So, is he really as "far right" as he appears to many? Or is he "captured" by those who surround him. Which leads me to a point which I think is critical in understanding Bush...

He's just not that smart. He's not stupid, by any means, but he can't think "outside the box" or come up with his own ideas. He heavily depends on his advisors. And he's now surrounded by bad ones. As in B-A-D... bad. Bush takes their advice, being dependent on it, and he makes bad decisions. In my opinion.

He needs to clean house. And I don't think he will.

 

I don't know Deckard, he might...

<i>Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has become the scapegoat for all that has gone wrong in Iraq and is paying the price for disdaining from establishing good relations with U.S. senators for more than two and one-half years.

Those senators get an earful about Rumsfeld from the uniformed military, whose criticism in private echoes what retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni has declared publicly. The unconfirmed rumor mill from the Pentagon to the Senate has Rumsfeld leaving early next year.</i>

Interesting article from, of all people, Robert Novak

Bush's 'perfect storm'

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/11/column.novak.opinion.storm/index.html

 

I find what I dislike about both sides recently is the tenor of debate, not so much the substance. It feels like we get so little done because of the fierce loyalty to a particular party or ideology.

During Clinton's first weeks as president, there were "Impeach Clinton" bumper stickers made and distributed. Democrats made a point at the time to gloat over their newfound success.

The exact reverse happened in 2000. The GOP used words like "mandate" and said things like "finally, the grown-ups are back in charge." So, the Dems reacted, predictably, by verbally assaulting Bush and his administration from every angle. That is clear in the success of the most fervent anti-Bush democratice presidential hopefuls.

As a taxpayer - and, oh HELL did I pay taxes this year - I find this level of bickering to be really frustrating. It just gets old hearing about the evil conservatives or the damn hippie liberals while the vast majority of us sitting somewhere in between try to figure out what the hell is going on.