POL - You're doing a heckuva job, Bushie

[rexallllsc]

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

04/20/06 FOX Poll: Gloomy Economic Views; Bush Approval at New Low
Thursday, April 20, 2006
By Dana Blanton


Click image to enlarge
STORIES ARCHIVE
•
Bush, GOP Approval Ratings Hit New Lows
NEW YORK — More Americans disapprove than approve of how George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Congress are doing their jobs, while a majority approves of Condoleezza Rice. President Bush’s approval hits a record low of 33 percent this week, clearly damaged by sinking support among Republicans.

[rexallllsc]

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?

[Kodos]

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

[Crapshoot]

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.

[Franklinnoble]

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...

[Glengoyne]

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.

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.

[Glengoyne]

...
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.

...

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.

[CraigSca]

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Let's see... the Dow Jones is at a five-year high

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

unemployment is down

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

interest rates are still low

Which is an attempt to stimulate a moribund economy.

record oil prices.

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

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.

The Londoners and Madrilenos say "hi".

[rexallllsc]

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.

6 hospitals closed in Los Angeles last year.

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.

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.

[CraigSca]

The Londoners and Madrilenos say "hi".

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

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

[rexallllsc]

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.

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

[CraigSca]

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.

[Franklinnoble]

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".

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.

[rexallllsc]

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.

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.

[AlexB]

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

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

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.

[Ksyrup]

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.

[rexallllsc]

Oh, and whoever above used the tired "he lied to start a war" argument. Sheesh, give it a rest.

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

[Glengoyne]

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.

What Ksyrup said.

[Ksyrup]

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

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.

[Galaxy]

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...
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".

[flere-imsaho]

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

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

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.

[duckman]

http://www.fof-ihof.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_deadhorse.gif (javascript:emoticon(':deadhorse:'))

For st.cronin: http://www.fof-ihof.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_banghead.gif (javascript:emoticon(':banghead:'))

[rexallllsc]

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.

Huh?

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

Hadley was particularly concerned that the public might learn of a classified one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, specifically written for Bush in October 2002. The summary said that although "most agencies judge" that the aluminum tubes were "related to a uranium enrichment effort," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence branch "believe that the tubes more likely are intended for conventional weapons."
---
The previously undisclosed review by Hadley was part of a damage-control effort launched after former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV alleged that Bush's claims regarding the uranium were not true. The CIA had sent Wilson to the African nation of Niger in 2002 to investigate the purported procurement efforts by Iraq; he reported that they were most likely a hoax.
---
Most troublesome to those leading the damage-control effort was documentary evidence -- albeit in highly classified government records that they might be able to keep secret -- that the president had been advised that many in the intelligence community believed that the tubes were meant for conventional weapons.
---
The President's Summary was only one of several high-level warnings given to Bush and other senior administration officials that serious doubts existed about the intended use of the tubes, according to government records and interviews with former and current officials.

In mid-September 2002, two weeks before Bush received the October 2002 President's Summary, Tenet informed him that both State and Energy had doubts about the aluminum tubes and that even some within the CIA weren't certain that the tubes were meant for nuclear weapons, according to government records and interviews with two former senior officials.

Official records and interviews with current and former officials also reveal that the president was told that even then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had doubts that the tubes might be used for nuclear weapons.


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

[flere-imsaho]

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.


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.

2. Unemployment... see above.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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

[Desnudo]

What Ksyrup said.

What you said he said

[rexallllsc]

http://www.fof-ihof.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_deadhorse.gif (javascript:emoticon(':deadhorse:'))

For st.cronin: http://www.fof-ihof.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_banghead.gif (javascript:emoticon(':banghead:'))

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.

[flere-imsaho]

He's a fiscal liberal, and it sickens me.

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.

Oh, and whoever above used the tired "he lied to start a war" argument. Sheesh, give it a rest.

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?

[duckman]

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.

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.

[rexallllsc]

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?

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

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.

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.

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 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.

[Blade6119]

Started a war based on a lie.
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...

[rexallllsc]

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.

[flere-imsaho]

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...

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.

[WSUCougar]

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

[duckman]

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

That makes you a troll.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

[flere-imsaho]

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?

[rexallllsc]

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.

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.

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'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?

[Swaggs]

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.

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.

[Glengoyne]

...
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?


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.

[TroyF]

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.

[rexallllsc]

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.

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.

[Glengoyne]

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.

[rexallllsc]

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.

[AlexB]

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.

[Franklinnoble]

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

[flere-imsaho]

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.

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

You simply CAN'T prove that the war was entered into under any sort of false pretenses.

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.

[AlexB]

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

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.

[flere-imsaho]

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

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

[Buccaneer]

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.

[Franklinnoble]

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

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.
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.

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.
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/archives/individual/2005_11/007556.php

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

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.
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.

[flere-imsaho]

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

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

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

That's the spirit!

[Havok]

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.


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.

[TroyF]

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.

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.

[Havok]

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.


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

[Buccaneer]

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.

[Abe Sargent]

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.



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

[AlexB]

(snip) 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...

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

[Franklinnoble]

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

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Someone flew a freaking plane into a freaking building.

What the hell is wrong with you?
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.

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.
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.

[flere-imsaho]

Someone flew a freaking plane into a freaking building.

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.

What the hell is wrong with you?


Quite.

[flere-imsaho]

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.

Ah, that old chestnut: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html)

The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.
A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.

The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.

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.

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?

[Havok]

i think im gonna be sick

[MrBigglesworth]

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

[Young Drachma]

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.

[AlexB]

If from England...

I threw my hands up with this administration pretty much from its inception and yet, the Conservatives 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 reduce 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.

Word

[chinaski]

well i aint got no flying shoes!!!

[Galaxy]

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.



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

[Galaxy]

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.

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.

[Flasch186]

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.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

As far as the rest of the world hating us, I just don't give a damn anymore.

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."

[MrBigglesworth]

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."
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.

[MrBigglesworth]

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

[Galaxy]

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.

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

[MrBigglesworth]

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.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Your in favor of HIGHER taxes?

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

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.

[CraigSca]

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.

[CleBrownsfan]

I really can't stand politics!!

[flere-imsaho]

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

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

[CraigSca]

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.

[Julio Riddols]

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.

[Galaxy]

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.

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.

[JPhillips]

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.

[Glengoyne]

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.

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.

[Galaxy]

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.


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.

[JPhillips]

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

[Galaxy]

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.

[Glengoyne]

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

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.

[Glengoyne]

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.


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.

[chinaski]

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.


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?

[TroyF]

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."


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.

[Swaggs]

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

[rexallllsc]

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.

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.

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


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

But we can't just bend over to the rest of the world because, well, we just want people to LIKE us.

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

[AlexB]

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.

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

[AlexB]

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...

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

[-Mojo Jojo-]

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.

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.

[JPhillips]

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.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

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.

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.

[Galaxy]

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

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.

[Galaxy]

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.

No, but the wealthy provide an extremely large tax revenue. And most of them control/own businesses. What's going to stop them from taking that with them, along with potential jobs and tax revenue?

[JPhillips]

No way enough rich folks leave the US to matter unless the marginal rate tops 50%. Going back to the rate during the nineties will make no difference in who calls the US home.

[ISiddiqui]

The problem with Gingrich is that he never moved away from the 'minority' mindset, and by that I mean he undermined his policies (which I thought were pretty good and would LOVE to have him in the House right now, where I'm sure he'd but heads with the Prez, because, well, he's Newt) by his negative attacks. It was his undoing. So while the Dems demonized him (most likely because they were stung by his personal politics), the people didn't like his style either... and it consumed him so much that he went after impeaching Clinton (which was highly unpopular) instead of working out policy that cost his party seats... and him the Speakership.

[MrBigglesworth]

No, but the wealthy provide an extremely large tax revenue. And most of them control/own businesses. What's going to stop them from taking that with them, along with potential jobs and tax revenue?
Let's think about this logically. You own a business. Your business is making a tremendous profit, let's say $10 million a year. Which means you net something like $7 million a year.

Now, you are trying to tell me that these people, with supposedly good business sense, are going to take those companies giving them $7 million a year, close them down, and open them up somewhere else? That doesn't make any sense.

[Glengoyne]

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?

Read it.

It was essentially an individual's meeting(s) summary dissemenated to a slew of other people. It wasn't some sort of official document that gave careful analysis of the meeting's(s') content, it was this guy's opinion of what was discussed. His assessment that he shared with others.

[MrBigglesworth]

Read it.

It was essentially an individual's meeting(s) summary dissemenated to a slew of other people. It wasn't some sort of official document that gave careful analysis of the meeting's(s') content, it was this guy's opinion of what was discussed. His assessment that he shared with others.
No official sources, British or American, have denied it's accuracy, nor said that it was an incorrect representation of the meeting. Of course, it is entirely possible that what this individual thought was:
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
...was really the complete opposite of what really happened at the meeting. That is probably the more likely scenario, that things were exactly the opposite of what he thought they were. All this guy was was the minutes keeper of top secret meetings at the highest level of the British government. That's probably an entry level position. Most likely a high school drop-out earning minimum wage.

[Glengoyne]

... All this guy was was the minutes keeper of top secret meetings at the highest level of the British government. That's probably an entry level position. Most likely a high school drop-out earning minimum wage.
He wasn't the official anything except attendee. This was HIS summary of the meetings. HIS opinion. They reflect nothing more than that. These aren't the official meeting minutes for anyone.

[Solecismic]

Let's think about this logically. You own a business. Your business is making a tremendous profit, let's say $10 million a year. Which means you net something like $7 million a year.

Now, you are trying to tell me that these people, with supposedly good business sense, are going to take those companies giving them $7 million a year, close them down, and open them up somewhere else? That doesn't make any sense.

Let's put it this way. Would you rather invest in the government's clumsy, inefficient and nonsensical business, or would you rather invest in a business that needs to make money in order to survive?

Let's say you raise taxes on a business owner by $100k. It either comes out of his pocket or he reduces his work force by three jobs. A certain percentage will go one way, a certain percentage another. Let's call it 50/50.

So, are three jobs worth $200k in extra tax revenue? A welfare state enthusiast would say yes, a "teach a horse to drink" enthusiast would say no.

I side with the latter.

1) The government is inefficient. That extra $200k is not going to buy much.

2) If you aren't constantly creating jobs in the private sector, your economy will stagnate. Just look at France.

3) If you increase the public dole, you will create a higher crime rate. People don't steal out of necessity, they steal out of boredom and a feeling of disenfranchisement. Nothing enhances that more than a stagnant job market where business owners have little incentive to expand. This is a vicious circle. Ever wonder why Wal-Mart never puts a store in an urban area with zero growth?

4) We shouldn't punish the same people who are driving economic growth.

5) You shouldn't whine about someone "not paying his fair share" when he pays ten times the taxes you pay for the same services.

6) Any tax increase on the rich invariably nails the middle class squarely in the forehead. Rich people have good accountants.

[MrBigglesworth]

He wasn't the official anything except attendee. This was HIS summary of the meetings. HIS opinion. They reflect nothing more than that. These aren't the official meeting minutes for anyone.
Glen, c'mon now. You have to keep it real, and this isn't keeping it real. Your basic premise is that even though not a single person denies the authenticity of the memo, that it is completely the opposite of what the meeting really was. Your position is that the person, Matthew Rycroft, Tony Blair's private secretary on foreign affairs, got it completely wrong. That this memo, which was distributed to David Manning, the British Ambassador to the United States, and "Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell", marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY", deserves no more weight than the doodles on a note pad. Furthermore, it is your contention that this memo, being completely wrong on the issues surrounding the most important aspect of Blair's government's tenure, was sent to all these people that were all at the meeting and not ever corrected.

C'mon Glen, keep it real. That's ludicrous. You're entering Dutch territory.

[MrBigglesworth]

Let's put it this way. Would you rather invest in the government's clumsy, inefficient and nonsensical business, or would you rather invest in a business that needs to make money in order to survive?

Let's say you raise taxes on a business owner by $100k. It either comes out of his pocket or he reduces his work force by three jobs. A certain percentage will go one way, a certain percentage another. Let's call it 50/50.

So, are three jobs worth $200k in extra tax revenue? A welfare state enthusiast would say yes, a "teach a horse to drink" enthusiast would say no.

I side with the latter.

1) The government is inefficient. That extra $200k is not going to buy much.

2) If you aren't constantly creating jobs in the private sector, your economy will stagnate. Just look at France.

3) If you increase the public dole, you will create a higher crime rate. People don't steal out of necessity, they steal out of boredom and a feeling of disenfranchisement. Nothing enhances that more than a stagnant job market where business owners have little incentive to expand. This is a vicious circle. Ever wonder why Wal-Mart never puts a store in an urban area with zero growth?

4) We shouldn't punish the same people who are driving economic growth.

5) You shouldn't whine about someone "not paying his fair share" when he pays ten times the taxes you pay for the same services.

6) Any tax increase on the rich invariably nails the middle class squarely in the forehead. Rich people have good accountants.
I don't think this addresses the point I made at all about business owners not closing shop in the US and running away. I have not argued for or against higher tax rates. I'm moderate when it comes to fiscal issues, but I want to comment on this:
Let's put it this way. Would you rather invest in the government's clumsy, inefficient and nonsensical business, or would you rather invest in a business that needs to make money in order to survive?
That's a dumb argument, because if you answer B the logical conclusion is that we don't ever collect any taxes. We both agree that businesses should be taxed, an area we may disagree on is to what extent.

Let's say you raise taxes on a business owner by $100k. It either comes out of his pocket or he reduces his work force by three jobs. A certain percentage will go one way, a certain percentage another. Let's call it 50/50.
Taxes are usually percentages, so let's say it is raised two percentage pts, like what flere was talking about earlier. That means to increase his tax burden by $100k, that his total income is somewhere around $5 million.

Now, assuming he is a good businessperson, each of his workforce generates a profit, let's say 10%. So he cuts three jobs, profit goes down $10k. Now his total income is $4.99 million. So why does he cut the jobs? If the jobs are not generating profit, they should be cut anyway. If they are generating profit, they won't be cut because of a higher tax rate.

It also doesn't keep people from investing in their business. In fact, higher tax rates encourage investment in the business, because money put back into the business is tax free.

[JPhillips]

Jim: I hope you aren't working on Front Office Economist.

1) Do you have any proof that government is less efficient than the average private company? If you mean that money gets spent poorly due to laws I'll agree, but having worked in private industry I have a hard time believing the average company operates more efficiently than the average government agency.

2) We had higher taxes during the nineties and higher job growth. AFAIK job creation will generall only decline if taxes are clearly punitive. A couple of percentage points higher than the current level is unlikely to make any difference.

3) I won't even get into this, but do you have any evidence to back your claim?

4) Raising marginal tax rates a couple of percenatge points is hardly punishment and as Biggles says, why tax at allif this is true?

5) We can have an honest disagreement here. I believe that like insurance rates those with more should pay more for the protection of their assets. Also, according to recent studies the overall tax burden is almost flat across all income levels. (in percentage terms of course)

6) Here I agree wholeheartedly.

[Solecismic]

What's interesting is that both people who replied resorted to ad hominems right off the bat.

Once a business reaches a certain size, it can no longer tie its work force directly to output. When costs rise, layoffs result. That's how it works in real life, we've all seen it happen. Most recently in response to astronomical rises in health care costs.

Raise taxes on business and you'll be able to watch the results if you stake out the unemployment office the following Monday.

On the efficiency of government: there's absolutely no pressure on government to run itself properly. It's layer after layer of bureaucracy, often with France-like job security. It's often said that private industry can do things better.

On crime rates. Pretty easy to show that it peaks with males in their late teens. Yet this group is the least likely to suffer from the effects of poverty (they often still are supported by a parent) and least likely to take responsibility for children of their own. Yet they are among the most affected by unemployment and lack of educational opportunities. They're bored. Crime rates dropped both with lower unemployment and with demographic chance - the baby boom ended. Now, the population of teens is rising, and it would be disasterous to do anything that would increase unemployment.

I'm not sure businesses should be taxed at all. To me, at least, the fairest solution would be a sales tax on non-essentials (everything but food, clothing and health care). Get rid of all business and income taxes. Money is just paper until you purchase something with it.

The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes. The marginal tax rate increases the more you make. The curve of % paid in taxes to income is not flat - not until you get pretty high up. The bottom %s pay no taxes at all.

I'm not sure I get this "insurance" concept. Should the police, then, pay more attention to crimes that involve rich people? They tend to live in lower-crime areas, so you'd think they'd need less attention.

[Glengoyne]

Glen, c'mon now. You have to keep it real, and this isn't keeping it real. Your basic premise is that even though not a single person denies the authenticity of the memo, that it is completely the opposite of what the meeting really was. Your position is that the person, Matthew Rycroft, Tony Blair's private secretary on foreign affairs, got it completely wrong. That this memo, which was distributed to David Manning, the British Ambassador to the United States, and "Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell", marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY", deserves no more weight than the doodles on a note pad. Furthermore, it is your contention that this memo, being completely wrong on the issues surrounding the most important aspect of Blair's government's tenure, was sent to all these people that were all at the meeting and not ever corrected.

C'mon Glen, keep it real. That's ludicrous. You're entering Dutch territory.
Well now you are taking what I'm saying and stretching it to the extreme. I'm saying that the infamous Downing Street Memo isn't the smoking gun that people claim it is. If you really honestly read it, it is this guy's opinion. It isn't some official government document declaring that the UK felt that "the intelligence was fixed around policy". It was the author's opinion. It was an actual document. It was marked as top secret. There is no point in denying those things. It is what it is. What it isn't, is an official finding by a government declaring that intelligence findings were being skewed. It is a summary of a meeting or meetings, written by one individual.

[MrBigglesworth]

What's interesting is that both people who replied resorted to ad hominems right off the bat.
Jim, I read again what I wrote, and then read it again. Nary a personal attack was to be found. I have no idea what you are talking about. And this is the second time that you have accused me of 'attacking' you, when I have done nothing of the sort. I don't know where that is coming from.

Once a business reaches a certain size, it can no longer tie its work force directly to output. When costs rise, layoffs result. That's how it works in real life, we've all seen it happen. Most recently in response to astronomical rises in health care costs.

Raise taxes on business and you'll be able to watch the results if you stake out the unemployment office the following Monday.
You are confusing two issues. What you are talking about are the effects of a direct tax on a business, such as the sales tax that you reccommend later in your post, or a flat monetary tax on a business. Adding costs like that increase the cost of doing business, which decreases profitability. Income taxes have no effect on profitability. The former effects businesses because in all industries there are less successful businesses that operate with razor thin profit margins. But an increase in the income tax does not effect these businesses that are just making it, because if they are just making it they don't have much profit, and if they don't have much profit the extra couple of percentage pts don't matter much, if at all if the increases are only in the higher brackets. You can look at Britian, Scandanavia, and even the USA in the '70's and '90's as places with good growth with higher income tax brackets than we have now. And the long term capital gains tax was cut by 5% pts a couple of years ago and the job and wage market has been terrible.

What you are talking about has an effect at the extremes, but not on the 5-10% increase range. Again though, I'm not sure if it's a good move to raise taxes like that, but it wouldn't have the drastic effects that you are implying.

[MrBigglesworth]

Well now you are taking what I'm saying and stretching it to the extreme. I'm saying that the infamous Downing Street Memo isn't the smoking gun that people claim it is. If you really honestly read it, it is this guy's opinion. It isn't some official government document declaring that the UK felt that "the intelligence was fixed around policy". It was the author's opinion. It was an actual document. It was marked as top secret. There is no point in denying those things. It is what it is. What it isn't, is an official finding by a government declaring that intelligence findings were being skewed. It is a summary of a meeting or meetings, written by one individual.
Actually it wasn't the author's opinion, it was the opinion of the head of MI6, Britain's CIA, which was probably also then the opinion of the British government. You could argue that the British were wrong, at the very least you have to admit that it is a strong piece of evidence if our biggest ally was saying this at the time, not after the fact when the meme started to gain steam.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

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.

You're missing the point, but I will give up after this. My post had nothing to do with wanting people to like the U.S. because that would just be nice and sweet. Nor was I referring to wanting some Muslim terrorist to like the U.S. Nor was my point that by acting differently that it would eliminate terrorist attempted attacks. Nor was my point that we should stop supporting Israel. No my point was pretty clear. Caring about what other countries think about the U.S. means that we ensure other western countries (and yes, that includes France) will cooperate in the war on terror by sharing intelligence, and soldiers, and money. You should care what other countries think because it is in the U.S.'s direct interests to care. Unfortunately, I cant' stand the shortsighted attitude you share with the Bush administration. I am afraid you are sadly mistaken if you believe the U.S. can go it alone in the "war on terror" by not caring about those who can directly help in that war think. Not too mention helping in all other areas of diplomatic issues that are directly important to U.S. interests, whether its trade negotiations, etc.

[Glengoyne]

Actually it wasn't the author's opinion, it was the opinion of the head of MI6, Britain's CIA, which was probably also then the opinion of the British government. You could argue that the British were wrong, at the very least you have to admit that it is a strong piece of evidence if our biggest ally was saying this at the time, not after the fact when the meme started to gain steam.

I just went back and re-read the text of the memo, because it has been some time since I arrived at my assessment of it.

The "intelligence fixed on policy" tidbit is either the opinion of the individual referred to as "C", almost certainly Dearlove(as you described), or the opinion of the author I still don't believe this represents the "smoking gun" that the anti Bush admin folks claim it is.

[JPhillips]

Jim: Well I had bunch of things, but I lost the post. Suffice it to say that I think you tend to state thigs as facts without presenting the evidence that they are facts. I also don't think a joke based on your products is really an attack.

I did find the chart that shows that the overall tax burden for all Americans is pretty close to flat.

http://usera.imagecave.com/marsusw/Blog_Tax_All_Income.jpg

[IwasHere]

I think as soon as the President completes his promise to fire that Bush guy for leaking classified material to the Press, everything will be fine. :)

[Solecismic]

In this case, to the two dissenters, I was not using the word attack. I was using the milder term ad hominem, which indicates that both were making irrelevant personal remarks.

I was an economics major in college, among other majors, so I'm not completely ignorant to factors affecting the economy. I cringe every time idiots like John Edwards open their mouths. While I am a social liberal and want to support the Democrats, every time I listen to them I hear this populist gobbledygook that makes me want to vomit.

Your chart ignores quite a few important factors, such as employee health care benefits and government benefits, while cherry-picking specific taxes on booze and cigarettes, which poorer people tend to spend more on per capita.

Eight percent of all income is transfered from the middle and upper classes to the poor through government programs only half represented in your chart (money goes out). That has a huge effect on the numbers.

In addition, the chart does not count anything for the benefit of having your children educated at taxpayer expense. Dollar bills alone do not tell the entire story. Suffice it to say, I don't think you're looking at the big picture here.


The Census income distribution figures are the foundation of most class-warfare rhetoric. On the surface, these figures show a high level of inequality: The top fifth of households have $14.30 of income for every $1.00 at the bottom.

However, these figures are flawed by the exclusion of taxes and social safety net spending and by the fact that the "fifths" do not contain equal numbers of people. Adjustment for these factors radically alters the picture of income distribution: The top fifth of the population has $4.21 of income for every $1.00 at the bottom.

The remaining inequality in society is heavily influenced by the lack of work at the bottom. If working-age adults in the lower quintiles worked as much as their higher-income counterparts, the income disparity of the top to the bottom quintiles would fall to $2.91 to $1.00.

Still, the top fifth of U.S. households (with incomes above $84,000) remain perennial targets of class-warfare enmity. These families, however, perform a third of all labor in the economy. They contain the best educated and most productive workers, and they provide a disproportionate share of the investment needed to create jobs and spur economic growth. Nearly all are married-couple families, many with two or more earners. Far from shirking the tax burden, these families pay 82.5 percent of total federal income taxes and two-thirds of federal taxes overall. By contrast, the bottom quintile pays 1.1 percent of total federal taxes.12

In one sense, John Edwards is correct: There is one America that works a lot and pays a lot in taxes, and there is another America that works less and pays little. However, the reality is the opposite of what Edwards suggests. It is the higher-income families who work a lot and pay nearly all the taxes. Raising taxes even higher on hard-working families would be unfair and, by reducing future investments, would reduce economic growth, harming all Americans in the long run.

Obviously, the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank. But their analysis is sound here, aside from the editorializing about what's fair and what isn't. As someone who grew up in the middle class and hopes some day to leave it, I find populism - the Bart Simpson-Inspired Theory of Dragging Everyone Down to the Lowest Common Denominator - a bigger threat to American prosperity than anything.

[JPhillips]

I don't think the chart misrepresents anything. I wish it broke things down more than by 20% chunks, but its methodology is right there for everyone to see. The Heritage stuff you quote hides a good chunk of its methodology.

I'm very confused by the second paragraph of the Heritage piece. What does equal numbers of peoplehave to do with it and what exactly do they mean by "taxes and social safety net spending"? Knowing the picture they want to present, I'd like to see more about their methodology.

The third paragraph is a bit ridiculous. Since the unemployed are in the bottom quartile it seems to be saying, "If the unemployed weren't unemployed they would make more money." Without getting into any arguments on why people are unemployed, their statement is rather useless.

We can disagree on proper rates of taxation and still have an honest argument. What I can't let go unanswered are claims that there is a direct relationship between tax rates and employment/growth. There just isn't any evidence that they are directly related. As I've said before, if you can prove that a lower rate of tax will directly lead to higher employment please be sure to mention me in your Nobel acceptance speech.

[Oilers9911]

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.

Ignoring and shooting down anyone who disagrees with you, sounds familiar.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

On crime rates. Pretty easy to show that it peaks with males in their late teens. Yet this group is the least likely to suffer from the effects of poverty (they often still are supported by a parent) and least likely to take responsibility for children of their own.

That is a total non-sequitur. Living with one's parents has no impact on the likelihood of being in poverty. It only means that the relevant question is whether the parent is living in poverty..

And on the other hand, if you want me to start citing studies finding strong links between poverty and crime (and finding that poverty is, in fact, the best predictor of crime rates) I can list a bunch of them for you... Some people will dispute exactly how strong the correlation is or what the causal mechanism is, but no one doubts that there is a very definite correlation.

[MrBigglesworth]

The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes.
This is something that was pushed by Limbaugh, not the most reliable of sources. The bottom 50% of wage earners make less than $26k. That's it. They add up to 14% of income in the entire country. So, instead of saying "the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes", you could just as easily say that "those that earn 86% of the income pay 96% of the taxes".

But that is before you take away the standard deduction. Of the taxable income, the top 50% of wage earners makes about 95% of the income. So, the "top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the taxes" statement can be restated as, "those that earn 95% of the taxable income pay 96% of the taxes". Not really the inequity that you make it out to be.

And all of this is based off of "adjusted gross income", which means that the numbers are after the tax loopholes are already taken into account. As should be obvious, the tax code greatly benefits the more well-off.

[CraigSca]

Not really the inequity that you make it out to be.


I don't think Jim was saying this was an inequity. Others have said this, but only when taking the opposite viewpoint.

[Solecismic]

That is a total non-sequitur. Living with one's parents has no impact on the likelihood of being in poverty. It only means that the relevant question is whether the parent is living in poverty..

And on the other hand, if you want me to start citing studies finding strong links between poverty and crime (and finding that poverty is, in fact, the best predictor of crime rates) I can list a bunch of them for you... Some people will dispute exactly how strong the correlation is or what the causal mechanism is, but no one doubts that there is a very definite correlation.

I think you're missing my point, which is that kids in their late teens are least likely to have responsibility for supporting a family.

I would never question the link between poverty in an area and crime. I would, however, question anyone who says crime is directly caused by need in an individual. It's much more about whether or not the person feels connected to the community at large. Poverty creates disenfranchisement. Disenfranchisement creates crime.


Going back to other responses. Given my politics, invoking Rush Limbaugh is kind of like someone from the religious right confusing Joe Lieberman with Michael Moore.

This is the Heritage Foundation report from which I quoted:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1791.cfm

Again, they have their biases, but the research does point out why the common liberal misconstructions of census data don't fly.

It's a common belief that tax cuts spur jobs growth. After a minute of searching, I found one study from New York that talks about this. Of course, it was written in 1999 just as the tech bust was starting. There are other factors, completely unrelated to taxation, that affect the job market.

http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/99/may11_99.htm

Of course, New York remains the most overtaxed state in the country.

I think it's naive to assume that unemployment isn't related to taxation in any way. Businesses pass along their costs. There's no law that I know of that forces consumers to pay state sales tax. It's just accepted that businesses add that cost to your bill.

If a business has less cash, it will cut costs. That often means less hiring, as that's a very quick way to have an impact. No Nobel Prizes here, but I think this is pretty much a basic assumption among economists.

The Tax Foundation has their interesting annual report, which is just a good read on how taxes affect us.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr140.pdf

It's hard not to notice, looking at the charts in this report, the inverse relationship between Tax Freedom Day in a state and average income.

[Young Drachma]

I will say that I've truly appreciated my time living in states without state income taxes and it's really affecting the future decision of where I think I'll end up long term. I think there are some significant changes that need to be made across the board in terms of education, health care, etc., but it seems that pretty much everywhere people want neat answers to their choices or they simply want to make decisions based on what everyone else around the country is doing.

[Galaxy]

Jim, I read again what I wrote, and then read it again. Nary a personal attack was to be found. I have no idea what you are talking about. And this is the second time that you have accused me of 'attacking' you, when I have done nothing of the sort. I don't know where that is coming from.


You are confusing two issues. What you are talking about are the effects of a direct tax on a business, such as the sales tax that you reccommend later in your post, or a flat monetary tax on a business. Adding costs like that increase the cost of doing business, which decreases profitability. Income taxes have no effect on profitability. The former effects businesses because in all industries there are less successful businesses that operate with razor thin profit margins. But an increase in the income tax does not effect these businesses that are just making it, because if they are just making it they don't have much profit, and if they don't have much profit the extra couple of percentage pts don't matter much, if at all if the increases are only in the higher brackets. You can look at Britian, Scandanavia, and even the USA in the '70's and '90's as places with good growth with higher income tax brackets than we have now. And the long term capital gains tax was cut by 5% pts a couple of years ago and the job and wage market has been terrible.

What you are talking about has an effect at the extremes, but not on the 5-10% increase range. Again though, I'm not sure if it's a good move to raise taxes like that, but it wouldn't have the drastic effects that you are implying.

You don't think income taxes have a direct impact on what a business does? A higher income tax rate will reduce the capital on private businesses, and reduce investors flow to invest into public-traded corporations. As for companies moving out of the country, many companies incorporate in tax-friendly and legal-friendly companies. If a company has the ability to shift a workforce to a cheaper climate (outsourcing) with less government restrictions, they will. You may complain all you want about the ethical debate over outsourcing, but the reality is that Americans are still buying products from such companies.

As for Scandanavia, you cannot compare a country like Sweden vs. the US. The size, location, and culture are vastly differnet. I think a Sweden-type system in the US would be out-of-this-world costly and a huge failure. And remember, our growth from the economy came thanks to the .com boom. Did Clinton really reduce spending, or did he just have a big surge in taxable revenue? (Asking, not stating). The President is somewhat limited in what he can do in economic matters. Bush is a wreckless spender, I do agree with that.

Looking at this website, 50% of tax revenue comes from the top 5% (@$130,000+ in yearly income). http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

[JPhillips]

Jim: I'll freely admit that taxation is a factor in spending, but its not the only factor and its probably not even one of the most important factors. There has been a general trend each decade since the fifties, tax rates have declined and growth has also declined. I'm not saying the two are causal, but there just isn't much evidence that tax rates directly effect growth of business.

You also can't say taxation is always a net reduction for all business. What do the extra taxes get used for? Its possible that individual businesses or a whole category of businesses will come out ahead even if their taxes increase due to subsidies or improvements that benefit their bottom line.

Again, its just impossible to say a few points higher tax rate will lead to slower growth.

As for the Heritage report, I'd still like to see more of the methodology. Heritage has been known to fudge numbers in a way that sells their ideology.

Galaxy: Who cares if the top 5% pay 50%? What percentage of income does that top 5% have? They get taxed on income, not population.

[MrBigglesworth]

You may complain all you want about the ethical debate over outsourcing, but the reality is that Americans are still buying products from such companies.
I don't complain about outsourcing. I think it's fine.

Looking at this website, 50% of tax revenue comes from the top 5% (@$130,000+ in yearly income). http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1119720&postcount=125

[MrBigglesworth]

Galaxy: Who cares if the top 5% pay 50%? What percentage of income does that top 5% have? They get taxed on income, not population.
http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1119720&postcount=125

[flere-imsaho]

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.

That's just simply untrue.

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.

Let me clarify: I would have supported both Bosnia & Somalia if we went in with considerably more of a presence and more clear objectives. At the time, both operations seemed half-assed and wishy-washy to me.

To give examples, the half-assedness of the Somalia operation is what led directly to the events surrounding Blackhawk Down. Either go in with the proper amount of men and equipment to achieve your mission objectives, or don't. Clinton, so early in his Presidency, didn't want to commit so many troops - that was a mistake.

The wishy-washiness of the Bosnia operation(s) led directly to scenarios where genocide was happening under our noses and our troops either didn't have clearance to intervene, or weren't properly positioned to intervene.

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.

I feel very much the same way. I supported our invasion of Afghanistan and think it's a real tragedy that because we've diverted so much to Iraq, we've essentially left the mission unfinished there.

[Dutch]

I feel very much the same way. I supported our invasion of Afghanistan and think it's a real tragedy that because we've diverted so much to Iraq, we've essentially left the mission unfinished there.

There's 21,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. There was never many more than that and by all accounts, things are going relatively well.

Do you suspect Al Qaeda still trains there? If so, then I would be more inclined to agree. But I don't think that's the case anymore.

[Galaxy]

Jim: I'll freely admit that taxation is a factor in spending, but its not the only factor and its probably not even one of the most important factors. There has been a general trend each decade since the fifties, tax rates have declined and growth has also declined. I'm not saying the two are causal, but there just isn't much evidence that tax rates directly effect growth of business.

You also can't say taxation is always a net reduction for all business. What do the extra taxes get used for? Its possible that individual businesses or a whole category of businesses will come out ahead even if their taxes increase due to subsidies or improvements that benefit their bottom line.

Again, its just impossible to say a few points higher tax rate will lead to slower growth.

As for the Heritage report, I'd still like to see more of the methodology. Heritage has been known to fudge numbers in a way that sells their ideology.

Galaxy: Who cares if the top 5% pay 50%? What percentage of income does that top 5% have? They get taxed on income, not population.


Of course it has to do with the percentage of the population. The richest people in our country pay at least half our tax revenue. That seems fair? And you think they should pay more?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Of course it has to do with the percentage of the population. The richest people in our country pay at least half our tax revenue. That seems fair? And you think they should pay more?

According to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/2004/bull0206.pdf) from 2004, the top 10% income earners own 67.6% of the nation's wealth. I don't see what's so unfair about expecting them to pay a similar share of the taxes..

I've always thought that the income tax is used as a proxy for a wealth tax (which in certain respects would make more sense), and even though the tax is progressive with respect to incomes, it's actually regressive with respect to wealth.

[Galaxy]

According to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/2004/bull0206.pdf) from 2004, the top 10% income earners own 67.6% of the nation's wealth. I don't see what's so unfair about expecting them to pay a similar share of the taxes..

I've always thought that the income tax is used as a proxy for a wealth tax (which in certain respects would make more sense), and even though the tax is progressive with respect to incomes, it's actually regressive with respect to wealth.

Define "fair share".

[JPhillips]

Galaxy: By your reasoning every person should pay the same exact dollar amount of taxes? My bill and Bill Gates' bill should be dollar for dollar even?

[Galaxy]

Galaxy: By your reasoning every person should pay the same exact dollar amount of taxes? My bill and Bill Gates' bill should be dollar for dollar even?

What? You mean you should pay the same exact dollar amount, or the same % rate? I would be for a flat % tax. Why should people who have worked hard and taken huge risks in most cases, be punished for higher taxes? It's not their fault that a corrupt government has a spending problem. They are contributing more to society in terms of donating/giving back, employement, and creating the services and products we need/want. However, I believe we need to cut our expenses to where the tax revenue is in the first place.

[JPhillips]

Well then population numbers don't mean anything. Even at a flat percentage the richest will still pay far more than an equal number of the poorest. And again I'll point out that when all tax revenue is taken into account we're almost at a flat rate.

As for balancing the budget, I don't think it can be done without a tax increase. Given that FICA taxes are a net positive right now where can you find 350 billion to cut?

[Galaxy]

Well then population numbers don't mean anything. Even at a flat percentage the richest will still pay far more than an equal number of the poorest. And again I'll point out that when all tax revenue is taken into account we're almost at a flat rate.

As for balancing the budget, I don't think it can be done without a tax increase. Given that FICA taxes are a net positive right now where can you find 350 billion to cut?

Start with Iraq/defense, reforming welfare, social security and Medicare/Medicaid, and the pork that takes up a lot of money.

[Solecismic]

again I'll point out that when all tax revenue is taken into account we're almost at a flat rate.


That's simply not true, unless you cherry-pick taxes and completely ignore welfare and other benefits.

[JPhillips]

You can't use SS or Medicare because as I stated FICA taxes are currently a net positive.

Iraq and Afghanistan will come in at under 100 billion, so lets say you cut 80 billion there. Welfare reform is maybe 20 billion tops. Where does the other 250 billion come from?

[JPhillips]

When you say I'm cherry picking taxes, what taxes will make it more progressive that aren't being used? Show me some real numbers that use the whole tax burden. The Heritage report hides the methodology, so I while I don't doubt the math, I don't know what numbers they are using for things such as social safety net spending.

[Solecismic]

According to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/2004/bull0206.pdf) from 2004, the top 10% income earners own 67.6% of the nation's wealth. I don't see what's so unfair about expecting them to pay a similar share of the taxes..

I've always thought that the income tax is used as a proxy for a wealth tax (which in certain respects would make more sense), and even though the tax is progressive with respect to incomes, it's actually regressive with respect to wealth.

That would be a huge mistake. It would discourage the middle and upper middle classes from saving for retirement, or for schooling for their children, or to upgrade their houses.

And with rich people, it would be incentive to stuff money in mattresses, leave the work force, and not invest in stock. That would greatly affect the stock market and would keep companies cash-poor, meaning much more unemployment.

I also think it's a bad idea to let the government poke into what we own. The IRS is a massive enough bureaucracy as it is.

[Solecismic]

Jim: I'll freely admit that taxation is a factor in spending, but its not the only factor and its probably not even one of the most important factors. There has been a general trend each decade since the fifties, tax rates have declined and growth has also declined. I'm not saying the two are causal, but there just isn't much evidence that tax rates directly effect growth of business.

Again, its just impossible to say a few points higher tax rate will lead to slower growth.

That's just not true. Tax Freedom Day was never later than April 7 in the '50s, never later than April 12 until 1968. Taxes remained constant until Clinton took office, then rose sharply to a May 3 peak in 2000. Bush's cut set it back into the range we were in from 1968-1994.

If not for the tech boom, it's possible Clinton's tax increases could have been devastating. Bush has not been a great president by any means. His legacy will be the Iraq war, which is a monumental disaster. But I believe he helped stop what would have been a long recession stemming from the combination of higher taxes and the tech bust.

From everything I've read about the economy, shifts are gradual. A few points here will always lead to some form of readjustment. It's not like you can tax and tax and then a switch goes off saying you've gone too far.

[kcchief19]

I know these theories won't be popular with the partisans, but here me out.

As inefficient as our government may or may not be, the reality is that the contemporary form of American government taxation and spending policies are the best in the world at encouraging investment, protecting the wealthy and providing services to the poor. Could it be better? Yes, through some significant tweaks -- but that gets into politics.

The size of the federal budget and the role of monetary policy allows for the greatest protection against depressions and panics around. Since the advent of Keynesian policies in this country, we haven't had a single depression and few if any panics -- maybe Black Monday in '87 -- and relatively short and mild recessions compared to historical patterns. It's not simply a matter of globalization. Other countries have continued to have boom and busts economies around the world. But the size of our federal budget allows the government to keep pump primed when necessary and control policy in a way other countries haven't figured out how to do.

So, in essence, no matter how much either side wants to complain, the size of our government is a necessary evil to maintain a steady economic growth pattern that diminishes the risk for recessions and depressions. I think that's a fair trade off.

In regards to taxing policy, I think it's worth noting that progressive taxation is generally advocated by almost any serious economists of any political persuasion. They may disagree on the range, but progressive taxes are the only way the system works. You'll never hear me say anything about "the rich" paying their "fair share." It won't necessarily be fair. But it's the only way it works.

That said, I think we have some concerns. I think our deficit spending will choke us in 20-30 years when I'm nearing retirement and Social Security will be bankrupt. I'm saving and investing with the idea Social Security won't be there, but there are millions banking on Social Security and something will need to be done.

I would also like to see something done with tax policy, but unfortunately there are limits. I'll take to the streets if we ever get close to implenting a horribly regressive national sales tax. I'd like to see tax policy with less monkey shines -- I don't want to get rid of incentives for investment and savings like tax breaks on capital equipment, charitable donations or mortgage interest. But if you're in a 35 percent tax bracket, I don't think there should be anyway you can claim so many deductions that you're paying less percentage in taxes than someone in the 25 percent bracket.

[kcchief19]

The IRS is a massive enough bureaucracy as it is.
This is the absolute biggest reason why I don't believe we will ever see meaningful or signficant tax reform in this country. Does anyone know how many millions of people are employed in the tax preparation field, from the IRS all the way through corporate CPAs and H&R Block? If we went to a flat tax, eliminated all tax loop holes aside from simple, dedicated deductions to encourage savings and investment, there would be millions out of work or displaced. H&R Block wouldn't exist.

The lobbyists won't let it happen, and even if they did it would cause a bubble that make the tech bubble look like a night at the ballpark.

[kcchief19]

That's just not true. Tax Freedom Day was never later than April 7 in the '50s, never later than April 12 until 1968. Taxes remained constant until Clinton took office, then rose sharply to a May 3 peak in 2000. Bush's cut set it back into the range we were in from 1968-1994.

If not for the tech boom, it's possible Clinton's tax increases could have been devastating. Bush has not been a great president by any means. His legacy will be the Iraq war, which is a monumental disaster. But I believe he helped stop what would have been a long recession stemming from the combination of higher taxes and the tech bust.

From everything I've read about the economy, shifts are gradual. A few points here will always lead to some form of readjustment. It's not like you can tax and tax and then a switch goes off saying you've gone too far.
The thing I don't like about Tax Freedom Day is that doesn't really tell you what you think it tells you. My taxes from Bush to Clinton didn't change one iota. The biggest change is that the top tax bracket went from 39.6 to 35 percent. So the folks at the top of the chain got the big break. For them, Tax Freedom day changed, but not for me.

Personally, I think there ought to be a Budget Spending Day too, so we can see what the disconnect is between what we are spending and what we getting in taxes. I think Clinton's tax policy was the most responsible thing a president could do -- he raised taxes to try and maintain spending and whittle down the deficit. As you can probably tell, I'm not a propponent of supply-side economics. It made sense to a large degree in the 1980s when Reagan was cutting the top tax brackets from 70 to 33 percent, but when you're talking about yo-yoing from 33 to 39.6 percent, I don't think that amount makes any difference whatsoever in individual investment and spending decisions, but it makes a huge difference in deficit spending.

I agree with the last paragraph whole-heartedly. As much fine-tuning as we have with the economy, we still have not mastered how to apply the brakes and when to hit the gas. I think that lesson is particularly true when it comes to Fed policy. I think the Fed recently went overboard with rate hikes and probably went a little too fast too soon, especially in light of the energy crunch we're setting ourselves up for right now. The Fed wants to keep a lid on inflation, but at the same time while higher rates may slow inflation it will also slow investment.

[JPhillips]

Okay, so I do have to admit a mistake. In saying that taxes have gone down I was looking at only federal income taxes, the very thing I try to correct in others! From what I have found, the tax rate as a percentage of GDP has been around 18% for the past fifty years. When it gets too close to 20% there tend to be tax cuts and when it gets too close to 15% there tend to be tax increases.

The larger point of continued slower growth that isn't at all connected to tax rates remains, however.

[MrBigglesworth]

Of course it has to do with the percentage of the population. The richest people in our country pay at least half our tax revenue. That seems fair? And you think they should pay more?
http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1119720&postcount=125

[MrBigglesworth]

There's 21,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. There was never many more than that and by all accounts, things are going relatively well.
What do you mean? Things are pretty bad in Afghanistan by most accounts. You mean compared to Iraq? Because it is going well compared to Iraq.

[Galaxy]

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1119720&postcount=125
How many times you going to post that? I've read it...

[MrBigglesworth]

How many times you going to post that? I've read it...Besides, you didn't cite any sources for that information. Doesn't answer my questions.
I'll keep posting as many times as you ask the question, "why do the rich pay X% of the taxes?" It's because the rich make X% of the money.

Source: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00in11si.xls

[Vinatieri for Prez]

As inefficient as our government may or may not be, the reality is that the contemporary form of American government taxation and spending policies are the best in the world at encouraging investment, protecting the wealthy and providing services to the poor.

Disagree completely.

[Galaxy]

I'll keep posting as many times as you ask the question, "why do the rich pay X% of the taxes?" It's because the rich make X% of the money.

Source: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00in11si.xls

Your not getting what I am trying to ask though. Is it the rich's fault that they make more money? Most of them are providing jobs, taking risks in delivering new products or services, and some are innovative in several fields that impact our daily lives. By reducing their taxes, they are investing it back into companies, stocks, ect., which will increase more jobs, ect. When was the last time you were paid by a poor person?

[Glengoyne]

That's just simply untrue.
...


No really it is the truth. The Downing Street Memo isn't what most Bush administration critics think it is.

[Glengoyne]

There's 21,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. There was never many more than that and by all accounts, things are going relatively well.

Do you suspect Al Qaeda still trains there? If so, then I would be more inclined to agree. But I don't think that's the case anymore.

Dutch,
Those aren't US soldiers right? Cause I don't think the US has that many there now, unless they've raised levels post Iraq.

The Al Qaeda and Taliban groups are essentially omnipresent outside of the few major cities where the UN is present. They rule the countryside along with the opium poppy growing war lords. Afghanistan is far from a panacea.

I wish we had taken the time, and invested the troops on the ground there to really extend the democracy, especially the law and order aspects of a true democracy, to the people outside the capital.

[MrBigglesworth]

Your not getting what I am trying to ask though. Is it the rich's fault that they make more money? Most of them are providing jobs, taking risks in delivering new products or services, and some are innovative in several fields that impact our daily lives. By reducing their taxes, they are investing it back into companies, stocks, ect., which will increase more jobs, ect. When was the last time you were paid by a poor person?
You don't hear so much anymore about trickle down economics, because it wasn't much of a success when it was first talked about and implemented. If you are saying that lower taxes mean the rich have more money, then I would say you are right. If you are saying that more of the tax burden being on the poorer people helps them through trickle-down, then I think you are wrong.

[Flasch186]

Dutch,
Those aren't US soldiers right? Cause I don't think the US has that many there now, unless they've raised levels post Iraq.

The Al Qaeda and Taliban groups are essentially omnipresent outside of the few major cities where the UN is present. They rule the countryside along with the opium poppy growing war lords. Afghanistan is far from a panacea.

I wish we had taken the time, and invested the troops on the ground there to really extend the democracy, especially the law and order aspects of a true democracy, to the people outside the capital.

yup, when all is said and done I wonder if Afghanistan will be looked at, in the grand scheme of things as a success story. IOW, will the removal of the Taliban in the end be smaller in stature than the failure to catch Bin Laden, failure to control the drug trade, etc. Dont take this as a "i was against the war" statement, cuz I wasnt...just being analytical.

[Flasch186]

hmmm, did a search and wasnt sure which thread to put this in considering titles sometimes can be vague purposely or inadvertantly so....here goes since it is appropriate for this one:

Ex-CIA official: WMD evidence ignored
'60 Minutes' report: White House disregarded good intelligence

Sunday, April 23, 2006; Posted: 8:46 p.m. EDT (00:46 GMT)


(CNN) -- A retired CIA official has accused the Bush administration of ignoring intelligence indicating that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no active nuclear program before the United States-led coalition invaded it, CBS News said Sunday.

Tyler Drumheller, the former highest-ranking CIA officer in Europe, told "60 Minutes" that the administration "chose to ignore" good intelligence, the network said in a posting on its Web site.

Drumheller said that, before the U.S.-led attack on Iraq in 2003, the White House "ignored crucial information" from Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, that indicated Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

Drumheller said that, when then-CIA Director George Tenet told President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other high-ranking officials that Sabri was providing information, his comments were met with excitement that proved short-lived.

"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller is quoted as saying. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "

Drumheller said the administration officials wanted no more information from Sabri because: "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."

CBS said the White House declined to respond to the charge and that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said Sabri was just one source and therefore not reliable.

But Drumheller said it was not unusual for the administration to rely on single-source stories when those stories confirmed what the White House wanted to hear.

He cited a report the CIA received in late 2001 that alleged Iraq had bought 500 tons of uranium-containing compounds from Africa.

"They certainly took information that came from single sources on the yellowcake story and on several other stories with no corroboration at all," he said.

Bush included the reference, which was attributed to the British and turned out to be false, in his 2002 State of the Union Address.

"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure," Drumheller told CBS' Ed Bradley. "This was a policy failure. I think, over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time."

The White House earlier this month reacted angrily to a report that Bush had cited trailers suspected as biological weapons labs as proof of the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after intelligence officials knew that the trailers were not part of a WMD program. (Full story)

"I cannot count how many times the president has said the intelligence was wrong," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.

He added that the administration has implemented reforms to make sure that "the executive branch and the Congress have the best possible intelligence as they move forward to deal with the threats that face this country and face this world."

[MrBigglesworth]

Flasch that's just the opinion of one man, not the smoking gun that Bush haters would want you to think it is.

[Glengoyne]

Flasch that's just the opinion of one man, not the smoking gun that Bush haters would want you to think it is.

Well lets see. This is a CIA official saying that specific evidence was ignored. The thing I'm curious about is the time frame involved. Not to mention what the CIA considered Sabri's credibility was. More facts are needed, but this is a hell of a lot more of a smoking gun than the Downing Street clap-trap.

[Glengoyne]

You don't hear so much anymore about trickle down economics, because it wasn't much of a success when it was first talked about and implemented. If you are saying that lower taxes mean the rich have more money, then I would say you are right. If you are saying that more of the tax burden being on the poorer people helps them through trickle-down, then I think you are wrong.

No I think the reason you don't hear about it anymore is that it has become a catch phrase that people who don't know thing one about economics to attack. They can mock it and say it doesn't work. Yet when you hear the Republicans of today speak about keeping the tax burden low to protect business, they are preaching the same policies described in "Trickle Down" economics. It has just been all repackaged for the public's consumption.

[Flasch186]

Flasch that's just the opinion of one man, not the smoking gun that Bush haters would want you to think it is.

it just seems like there are a lot of "Individuals" from different arenas saying the same type of things. At what point, numbers wise, does a couple of people become a gang, then a horde, then an army, etc. etc.?

[MrBigglesworth]

it just seems like there are a lot of "Individuals" from different arenas saying the same type of things. At what point, numbers wise, does a couple of people become a gang, then a horde, then an army, etc. etc.?
Ask Glen.

[MrBigglesworth]

No I think the reason you don't hear about it anymore is that it has become a catch phrase that people who don't know thing one about economics to attack. They can mock it and say it doesn't work. Yet when you hear the Republicans of today speak about keeping the tax burden low to protect business, they are preaching the same policies described in "Trickle Down" economics. It has just been all repackaged for the public's consumption.
Normally if something works, it's popular. That's not 100% true, but it's a general trend. If it's popular, it doesn't need to be repackaged under a different name every few years.

Let's just take the Bush example: taxes cut for the upper incomes, and then slow job growth, an increase in poverty, low wage increases, and an increase in the wealth disparity.

[Galaxy]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree...

[MrBigglesworth]

Ex-CIA official: WMD evidence ignored
'60 Minutes' report: White House disregarded good intelligence

You may remember that two congressional investigations into pre-war intelligence gave the White House clean records, the Robb-Silbermann Commission and the Roberts Committee. Josh Marshall is reporting that he called the ex-CIA official and he says that he was interviewed as many as three times by each commission, told them everything that he told 60 Minutes, and none of it made it into any of the reports.

If true, it obviously destroys the credible of the reports, and makes me wonder what else was not included.

So is there enough evidence finally for everyone this side of Dutch to finally admit that Bush et al wanted to lead us to war at any cost? Worst president ever.

[Solecismic]

This is the absolute biggest reason why I don't believe we will ever see meaningful or signficant tax reform in this country. Does anyone know how many millions of people are employed in the tax preparation field, from the IRS all the way through corporate CPAs and H&R Block? If we went to a flat tax, eliminated all tax loop holes aside from simple, dedicated deductions to encourage savings and investment, there would be millions out of work or displaced. H&R Block wouldn't exist.

The lobbyists won't let it happen, and even if they did it would cause a bubble that make the tech bubble look like a night at the ballpark.

Several comments on very different issues, so I'll dolapost a bit to keep things separate.

I don't think the tax prep bubble burst would be that significant. Just think of the massive amount of investment money that was propping up unstable tech products in the late '90s. All you had to do was say "dot com" somewhere on your prospectus, and the venture capitalists were at your door. Most H&R Block workers are temporary.

You're right about the lobbying, though. It would be significant. You just have to be confident, as I am, that slashing a large number of government jobs, along with the associated budget savings, would spur the economy in more efficient ways. Good businesses know what to do when skilled labor suddenly floods the market.

I don't think we'll ever get that opportunity. The populists (I see populism as thinly veiled communism) are too successful with their class warfare rhetoric.

[Solecismic]

The thing I don't like about Tax Freedom Day is that doesn't really tell you what you think it tells you. My taxes from Bush to Clinton didn't change one iota. The biggest change is that the top tax bracket went from 39.6 to 35 percent. So the folks at the top of the chain got the big break. For them, Tax Freedom day changed, but not for me.

Personally, I think there ought to be a Budget Spending Day too, so we can see what the disconnect is between what we are spending and what we getting in taxes. I think Clinton's tax policy was the most responsible thing a president could do -- he raised taxes to try and maintain spending and whittle down the deficit. As you can probably tell, I'm not a propponent of supply-side economics. It made sense to a large degree in the 1980s when Reagan was cutting the top tax brackets from 70 to 33 percent, but when you're talking about yo-yoing from 33 to 39.6 percent, I don't think that amount makes any difference whatsoever in individual investment and spending decisions, but it makes a huge difference in deficit spending.

I agree with the last paragraph whole-heartedly. As much fine-tuning as we have with the economy, we still have not mastered how to apply the brakes and when to hit the gas. I think that lesson is particularly true when it comes to Fed policy. I think the Fed recently went overboard with rate hikes and probably went a little too fast too soon, especially in light of the energy crunch we're setting ourselves up for right now. The Fed wants to keep a lid on inflation, but at the same time while higher rates may slow inflation it will also slow investment.


One simple point here. If a change of 7% among the very rich can move the entire Tax Freedom Day calculation two weeks, then the very rich are paying more than all of the taxes. Taxes went down for everyone, and it was very much welcome.

We need to cut the federal budget. We need to stop waging unnecessary wars. We need to admit that there's a difference between an entitlement culture and a safety net. We need to stop villifying businesses, because, aside from the government, they're the only ones who provide jobs in this country.

One thing to look at with the loan rate: the Fed believes that their actions only work months, if not years, in advance of a problem. It's very complex work. I don't understand it all, but I don't feel qualified to say whether creating short-term problems like a housing bubble bursting right before I want to sell mine are worth combatting long-term problems, like fighting inflation, which we all know was incredibly damaging in the '70s.

[Solecismic]

You don't hear so much anymore about trickle down economics, because it wasn't much of a success when it was first talked about and implemented. If you are saying that lower taxes mean the rich have more money, then I would say you are right. If you are saying that more of the tax burden being on the poorer people helps them through trickle-down, then I think you are wrong.

I think it's been said before, but if you support the welfare state, then you don't mind taxing the rich until the marginal rates are so high, it just doesn't bring in any revenue any more because incentive dies.

If you have a welfare state instead of a true safety net, then the under-educated or under-skilled have no incentive to work. They can't find a job that has any effect on their net compensation, so why not just sit around and whine all day?

We have to keep looking at welfare states elsewhere in the world (or at least moreso than ours). Are they successful? Do you see much new business coming from France or Germany these days? France's welfare state is so entrenched that about 2% of the entire country went out on daily protests of a law that would certainly have spurred businesses to provide jobs in a nation with 10% unemployment. But the jobs weren't good enough for them because France does not require healthy, able people to try and earn a living on their own.

[Solecismic]

So is there enough evidence finally for everyone this side of Dutch to finally admit that Bush et al wanted to lead us to war at any cost? Worst president ever.

I'll argue in favor of the Bush tax cuts and how Greenspan handled the Fed, because I believe they helped reduce what would have been an economic disaster in the tech bust. You can't blame Bush for the jobs losses caused by something that happened long before he was in office.

As for your comment above, no contest. Bush mangled things so badly that you have to wonder if he just plain wanted to invade Iraq, screw diplomacy.

[flere-imsaho]

There's 21,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. There was never many more than that and by all accounts, things are going relatively well.

There's plenty of analysis to indicate that more units on the ground, especially early on, would have resulted in a higher capture rate of Al-Qaeda targets. U.S. forces simply weren't able to project and sustain force as well as they would have liked.

As for going "relatively well"? Define "relatively well". The advantage the U.S. has with Afghanistan vs. Iraq is that an existing structure of power (i.e. warlords) was only happy to re-take power after the Taliban and had the means to do so. Still, there's plenty of fighting outside of the major cities, and ex-Taliban insurgents are using techniques used in Iraq against U.S. forces. These don't make the news as much because Iraq dominates U.S. coverage, but it's certainly happening.

Do you suspect Al Qaeda still trains there? If so, then I would be more inclined to agree. But I don't think that's the case anymore.

All evidence points to an Al-Qaeda presence still existing on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, helped by the chaos there, and also helped by sympathetic local powers on the Pakistani side with which Musharraf still won't contend, despite our diplomatic leaning.

Anyway, OBL is apparently still in that area, so that's something at least. Plus, remember that Al-Qaeda doesn't particularly need Afghanistan for training purposes anymore, since they can use Iraq for that.

[ISiddiqui]

As for your comment above, no contest. Bush mangled things so badly that you have to wonder if he just plain wanted to invade Iraq, screw diplomacy.

I think that's about right (he wanted to invade and, by God, he was going to do it).

As for the tax cuts issue, they may have been alright if our military budget didn't jump so high because of the Iraq War. Just staying in Afghanistan may have stopped the deficit from climbing so high.

Though frankly, I don't care that the rich were paying 40% in federal taxes. I don't think it was such a crisis that they had to get a tax break to 35%. A good tax policy to jumpstart the economy would be to take that money which would be lost by reducing taxes on the top percent and use that to reduce the middle and lower class taxes even further. Since middle class and lower class people have a higher marginal propensity to consume than the upper class, it would also stimulate more consumption. That being said, I may also take some of the almost 5% cut in the top marginal rate and give tax cuts to businesses.

[Dutch]

Dutch,
Those aren't US soldiers right? Cause I don't think the US has that many there now, unless they've raised levels post Iraq.

The Al Qaeda and Taliban groups are essentially omnipresent outside of the few major cities where the UN is present. They rule the countryside along with the opium poppy growing war lords. Afghanistan is far from a panacea.

I wish we had taken the time, and invested the troops on the ground there to really extend the democracy, especially the law and order aspects of a true democracy, to the people outside the capital.

http://www.cfc-a.centcom.mil/Information/Coalition%20forces%20in%20Afghanistan.htm

Coalition forces in Afghanistan: More than 21,000
- United States: more than 17,900
- Allies: more than 3,100
Allied nations: 21

Provincial reconstruction teams: 13 Coalition, 9 NATO

(International Security Assistance Force) Combined Forces Command – Afghanistan

CFC-A is the strategic headquarters in Afghanistan and is commanded by Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry.

Our mission:

Combined Forces Command Afghanistan conducts full spectrum operations throughout the combined joint operations area to defeat Al Qaeda and asscociated movements, establish an enduring Afghan security structure and reshape its posture for the Long War in order to set the conditions for long-term stability in Afghanistan.

Combined Joint Task Force-76

Is a subordinate unit of CFC-A. It is the operational headquarters in Afghanistan and is commanded by Maj. Gen. Jason Kamiya of the Southern European Task Force at Bagram Airfield. CJTF-76 is broken down into six major task forces:

Combined Task Force Bayonet

Covers the south and southeast of Afghanistan and is responsible for provincial reconstruction teams in Kandahar, Lashkar Gah, Qalat and Tarin Kowt.

Combined Task Force Devil

Covers the central and eastern region of the country and is responsible for provincial reconstruction teams in Asadabad, Bamian, Gardez, Ghazni, Jalalabad, Khowst, Parwan, Mehtar Lam, and Sharona.

Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force

Covers special operations missions across the country.

Task Force Griffin

Responsible for aviation coverage of the entire country including close air support, reconnaissance and logistics.

Combined Task Force Sword

Oversees engineer operations, including coalition engineers from South Korea, Poland and Slovakia, at Bagram Airfield, Kandahar Airfield, the provincial reconstruction teams and forward operating bases throughout the country.

Each provincial reconstruction team is a civil-military project intended to help Afghans build and repair damaged infrastructure such as roads, wells and schools. The PRTs also help establish broad security by extending the reach of the Afghan government through the country.

The Office of Security Cooperation – Afghanistan (OSC-A)

Is another subordinate unit of CFC-A. OSC-A works with the government of Afghanistan and the international community to reconstruct the Afghan security and defense sectors.

OSC-A is reconstructing the Afghan National Army, and the Afghan defense sector by recruiting soldiers to training the recruiters; organizing the Ministry of Defense and mentoring its senior leaders and the General Staff; acquiring weapons, uniforms and equipment; as well as developing the policies and processes needed by a modern army to establish viable acquisition, personnel and other systems required to establish a working military infrastructure.

OSC-A's recent assumption of the U.S. Government's role in reforming the Afghan National Police provides a historic opportunity to help provide stable rule of law in Afghanistan. OSC-A works with Germany, the lead nation in Afghan Police reform, and other members of the international community to collectively deliver a proffessional polic force that will enhance the security of the Afghan people.

Under OSC-A’s operational control is Task Force Phoenix, which is responsible for training the Afghan National Army.

Current as of Jan. 21, 2006

[sabotai]

Dutch (since your one of the military people here, and to other military people still reading this), what resources (websites, books, etc) are there that really go into detail about this sort of stuff? Like what exactly is a "Task Force", "Combined Task Force", "Special Ops Task Force", what kind of personel are they made up of, their command structure, equipment, etc. etc. (I'd love to learn more about modern military stuff)

[Dutch]

Dutch (since your one of the military people here, and to other military people still reading this), what resources (websites, books, etc) are there that really go into detail about this sort of stuff? Like what exactly is a "Task Force", "Combined Task Force", "Special Ops Task Force", what kind of personel are they made up of, their command structure, equipment, etc. etc. (I'd love to learn more about modern military stuff)

Task Forces are just temporary units brought in to do a mission. I'm not an expert on all of this. Some of our folks who have deployed recently would be of more assistance.

As for Afghanistan and Iraq, the biggest source of news is the US Central Command. http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/default.aspx

[yabanci]

As for Afghanistan and Iraq, the biggest source of propganda is the US Central Command. http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/default.aspx

Indeed.

[Dutch]

Indeed.

You read the New York Times, so fuck you. :)

Seriously, where does the New York Times get their info if not from this source? This site provides a majority of the information the AP gets. Plus the other stuff the AP can't sell. Great info here.

[Glengoyne]

Dutch,

I didn't think the US had 17,000 troops there, I thought we had been hovering around the 10,000 mark. In any case, I haven't seen any reports indicating that we had been able to squash the rebounded opium trade. I can't really think we are successful there when the Taliban was able to shut down the opium harvest better than we can. That plus some of the reports about the Taliban reclaiming territory. Even if those are overblown, the fact that they essentially have war lords governing sections of the country, tell me that there is lots of work left to be done.

[MrBigglesworth]

Seriously, where does the New York Times get their info if not from this source?
I'll take this one. See, Dutch, there are these people called 'reporters'. You may remember them as the people you call traitors for reporting on the evil deeds of President. What they do is, they either go out into the field and find the info for themselves, or rely on sources inside the government to tell them what is going on. What they don't do (at least always) is rely on propaganda from the government and reprint everything the government says. Not doing so is not a sign of liberal bias, but rather part of their function as a check on the powr of government.

[CraigSca]

I'll take this one. See, Dutch, there are these people called 'reporters'. You may remember them as the people you call traitors for reporting on the evil deeds of President. What they do is, they either go out into the field and find the info for themselves, or rely on sources inside the government to tell them what is going on. What they don't do (at least always) is rely on propaganda from the government and reprint everything the government says. Not doing so is not a sign of liberal bias, but rather part of their function as a check on the powr of government.

Now - these "reporters" as you call them...have they ever been shown to have any bias or, I don't know, fabricate a story in the past? I can imagine maybe some small-time reporters probably have, but it's good to know that such a thing would never occur at the NY Times.

[Flasch186]

...and these so called reporters, if they even exist, would never go on a News Network and serve one side of the political aisle over another OR god forbid, use that new technology called Radio to espouse lies, would they? I have my doubts if these so called journalists even exist as opposed to just being vacationers who pick bad locales to relax. Especiallyy Ben Wiedeman and Christiane Amanpour.

[flere-imsaho]

LOL, complaining about reporters when this Administration has spent money to place propaganda pieces in media outlets, quietly hired commentators to shill for them, and set up propaganda outlets masquerading as objective news sources in Iraq. You guys crack me up.

CENTCOM's website, as Dutch points out, is good. I also recommend globalsecurity.org. Someone may want to take issue with their articles, but their factual stuff is usually quite helpful, especially for questions like "What is an X", and suchlike.

[chinaski]

Good ole Bush at it again.... "Want lower gas prices? Well then, we need to ease regulation!"

I hope the American public isnt so completely stupid that they fall for this shit.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060425/pl_nm/bush_energy_plan_dc_1

[chinaski]

more on the story...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060425/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_15

As of now, environmental restrictions on gas refineries are LIFTED. what a fucking farse.

[Subby]

more on the story...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060425/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_15

As of now, environmental restrictions on gas refineries are LIFTED. what a fucking farse.
Bush said that high gasoline prices are like a hidden tax on consumers and businesses, although he said the nation's economy was strong. He urged Congress to take back some of the billions of dollars in tax incentives it gave energy companies, saying that with record profits, they don't need the breaks. He urged lawmakers to expand tax breaks for the purchase of fuel-efficient hybrid automobiles.
Well, at least the article wasn't all bad news...

[chinaski]

Well, at least the article wasn't all bad news...

true, but i think the halting of epa refinery regulations might more than offset that. Also, i think those tax breaks were supposed to go towards r&d? wasnt that how it was touted back then? but either way, they dont deserve a single red cent from the government, good move by Bush - even if this is the most obvious move. no industry deserves federal funds amidst record profits.

[Flasch186]

Good ole Bush at it again.... "Want lower gas prices? Well then, we need to ease regulation!"

I hope the American public isnt so completely stupid that they fall for this shit.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060425/pl_nm/bush_energy_plan_dc_1

worked for Cable companies right?

[MrBigglesworth]

http://tinyrevolution.com/mt-static/images/Bush-Nixon4.jpg

Just wow. More people disapprove of Bush than had disapproved of Nixon at any time except right before he resigned. And this is without any congressional investigations.

[duckman]

http://tinyrevolution.com/mt-static/images/Bush-Nixon4.jpg

Just wow. More people disapprove of Bush than had disapproved of Nixon at any time except right before he resigned. And this is without any congressional investigations.

Doesn't mean much since he will not resign nor should he.

[Buccaneer]

Usual Biggle ignorant tripe. Little does he know that the standard for the presidential was much higher pre-Watergate, where being president was something noble and the ultimate occupation. If you think the Bush are bad, just wait till the next president, and the one after that, etc. It's a different time and multi-generational stats don't make good comparisons.

duckman, damn you for quoting that piece of turd.

[Dutch]

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/_/_dji

[Franklinnoble]

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/_/_dji

Dutch has good kung fu.

[MrBigglesworth]

Usual Biggle ignorant tripe. Little does he know that the standard for the presidential was much higher pre-Watergate, where being president was something noble and the ultimate occupation. If you think the Bush are bad, just wait till the next president, and the one after that, etc. It's a different time and multi-generational stats don't make good comparisons.

duckman, damn you for quoting that piece of turd.
Buc, this is the dumbest response I have ever had the mispleasure of reading from you. If I am not mistaken, it is your contention that Bush's record high disapproval ratings are not due to his incompetance as a leader, but rather as a general trend where each president will be judged to be worse and worse. This trend, according to you, has somehow missed Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. Furthermore, you contend that Bush's disapproval is because, pre-Nixon, standards were higher. How higher standards makes someone less likely to be critically judged is left unexplained. And you call a post consisting entirely of facts without commentary 'ignorant tripe'. This might be the ultimate in wankery. Good show Buc.

Seriously, if you want to participate with the adults, please add something that is above a first grade level. And if you are incapable, don't make yourself look worse by being juvenile in your name calling.

[MrBigglesworth]

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/_/_dji
Yes Dutch, another reason why Bush's disapproval may be up: 0% growth rate over the past 6 years in the stock market.

[ISiddiqui]

Ugh.. I have to agree with Biggie here... sorry Bucc. But the 'wait until the next President' stuff was dumb.

[Buccaneer]

Ugh.. I have to agree with Biggie here... sorry Bucc. But the 'wait until the next President' stuff was dumb.

Yeah, I know, I couldn't help it. But I also think that the partisan bullshit will not get any better. It seems that we've been in a cycle of the next administration/congress/whatever will try their damndest to wipe out any trace of the previous adminstration/etc., overcompensating if you will. We saw that with Carter after Nixon, Reagan after Carter, Clinton after Reagon/Bush and Bush after Clinton.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Buc, this is the dumbest response I have ever had the mispleasure of reading from you. If I am not mistaken, it is your contention that Bush's record high disapproval ratings are not due to his incompetance as a leader, but rather as a general trend where each president will be judged to be worse and worse. This trend, according to you, has somehow missed Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. Furthermore, you contend that Bush's disapproval is because, pre-Nixon, standards were higher. How higher standards makes someone less likely to be critically judged is left unexplained. And you call a post consisting entirely of facts without commentary 'ignorant tripe'. This might be the ultimate in wankery. Good show Buc.

Seriously, if you want to participate with the adults, please add something that is above a first grade level. And if you are incapable, don't make yourself look worse by being juvenile in your name calling.

Hey, Bucc.

Go Wings. ;)

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Yeah, I know, I couldn't help it. But I also think that the partisan bullshit will not get any better.

It doesn't make sense to blame this on generic partisanship. It wasn't like that at the start. I can't think of any President who was given more bipartisan support than George W. Bush. He had an approval rating near 90% in 2001, and got most of his major campaign programs passed on a bipartisan basis even before the attack. Partisanship has gotten particularly bad in recent years, but things happened to cause that, and Bush was hardly blameless in that process... He has governed with all the subtleness of a sledgehammer.

[Dutch]

Yes Dutch, another reason why Bush's disapproval may be up: 0% growth rate over the past 6 years in the stock market.

If you consider the end of the Dot.Com bust, I agree.

But since February '03, you have to admit we've had solid growth. According to Democrats, that wasn't going to happen. In fact, Democrats said the exact opposite would happen in the years following February '03. I haven't heard the Democrats move from that prediction.

In fact, they keep pushing how bad the economy has gotten since February '03 and has said that Bush is lying when he says the economy has been growing since the Iraq War and ensuing Terror-Insurgency began.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: Show me one prominent Dem that has said Bush is lying that the economy is growing. You're just making that up. Now there have been plenty of critiques of who is benefitting from the current growth and as far as I'm concerned some of that is justified. Real wages for average Americans have declined until the past quarter.

I recently read what I think is a good explanation to the disconnect between economic numbers and the public's perception of the economy. The country is really separated between those that live paycheck to paycheck and those that don't. If you live paycheck to paycheck, regardless how much you make or how many possesionsyou have, this economy feels dangerous. Its very hard to find a long-term stable job and if you lose your job you lose your healthcare as well. Add to that rising gas costs that most people just have to absorb somehow and things feel more precarious for the individuals living paycheck to paycheck than the overall numbers might suggest.

[Buccaneer]

It doesn't make sense to blame this on generic partisanship. It wasn't like that at the start. I can't think of any President who was given more bipartisan support than George W. Bush. He had an approval rating near 90% in 2001, and got most of his major campaign programs passed on a bipartisan basis even before the attack. Partisanship has gotten particularly bad in recent years, but things happened to cause that, and Bush was hardly blameless in that process... He has governed with all the subtleness of a sledgehammer.

I agree, I have never been a fan of Bush and his administration in general. Neocons do not mesh well with libertarians. But the greater enemy of libertarianism is socialism and I would rather run further away from that. I do not want people to have expectations of the govt to do something, because that always cost more money and get less results. This is esp. true when any president has "bi-partisan" support or high popularity, they feel they have a mandate of some sort. As far as foreign affairs, I believe that they alternate history would not have been any better, just a little different. Iraq would have been a major thorn one way or another; same for Iran. If not them, then it would be some other places. I want us to get back to doing more ourselves and taking more personal responsibilities and not ceeding more of our liberties to those taking our money and using it to bribe and extort.

[albionmoonlight]

I wonder if the Dems/liberals/libertarians are in for a bit of a sad suprise when this all plays out. Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet, I propose, not because the country has suddenly moved to the left. Bush's ratings are in the toilet because he is HORRIBLE at his job.

The disapproval is not with the neocon agenda--but with Bush's execution of that agenda. If/when the GOP/neocons put someone in charge who can execute the GOP/neocon agenda well, I think that we may revert right back to 80%+ approval ratings for that president.

I just don't see how Bush screwing up makes people change their views on abortion, the environment, the judiciary, etc.

[flere-imsaho]

http://www.uuforum.org/Images/deficit.gif


http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/dow1.gif


http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/Iraq-war-hostile-fatalities-L.gif

[MrBigglesworth]

The disapproval is not with the neocon agenda--but with Bush's execution of that agenda. If/when the GOP/neocons put someone in charge who can execute the GOP/neocon agenda well, I think that we may revert right back to 80%+ approval ratings for that president.
That is what the neocons are attempting to do, to paint it as the fault of Bush not being a real conservative (a couple of prominent radical righters have called Bush 'liberal' in the past couple of days). It's the Dem's job to show that it was a combination of incompetance and terrible policy. The nation loves the nationalistic part of the Bush presidency, but I don't think they like the domestic policy at all. Public opinion of foreign policy used to be the only thing holding Bush up back when he had respectable poll numbers.

I just don't see how Bush screwing up makes people change their views on abortion, the environment, the judiciary, etc.
Well a majority of the country already favors abortion and favors environmentalism (the latter is why the GOP needs to name bills that pollute the sky 'Clean Air Initiatives' and bills that cut down trees 'Healthy Forest'). I'm not sure of the public's opinion on the judiciary, but I would imagine that a population that is in favor of abortion in some form would want the same from their judges.

[Glengoyne]

That is what the neocons are attempting to do, to paint it as the fault of Bush not being a real conservative (a couple of prominent radical righters have called Bush 'liberal' in the past couple of days). It's the Dem's job to show that it was a combination of incompetance and terrible policy. The nation loves the nationalistic part of the Bush presidency, but I don't think they like the domestic policy at all. Public opinion of foreign policy used to be the only thing holding Bush up back when he had respectable poll numbers.


Well a majority of the country already favors abortion and favors environmentalism (the latter is why the GOP needs to name bills that pollute the sky 'Clean Air Initiatives' and bills that cut down trees 'Healthy Forest'). I'm not sure of the public's opinion on the judiciary, but I would imagine that a population that is in favor of abortion in some form would want the same from their judges.

In some ways I'm with Albion on this one. I really think the Dems are counting on Bush's approval ratings, or disapproval as we stand now, too much. I think they really have to change their agenda to make it more popular. Bush didn't win the second time around because people thought he was doing a great job. His approval ratings were lower than 50%, when he was elected by more than 50% of the electorate. Clearly this should tell the Democrats that there was something wrong with their agenda in the 2004 election, at least wrong in the public's eyes.

I just think the Dems will be in for a disappointment if they are counting on Bush's appeal, or lack thereof, winning the day for them in the upcoming mid-terms. They need to address their message as well.

[MrBigglesworth]

In some ways I'm with Albion on this one. I really think the Dems are counting on Bush's approval ratings, or disapproval as we stand now, too much. I think they really have to change their agenda to make it more popular. Bush didn't win the second time around because people thought he was doing a great job. His approval ratings were lower than 50%, when he was elected by more than 50% of the electorate. Clearly this should tell the Democrats that there was something wrong with their agenda in the 2004 election, at least wrong in the public's eyes.

I just think the Dems will be in for a disappointment if they are counting on Bush's appeal, or lack thereof, winning the day for them in the upcoming mid-terms. They need to address their message as well.
IIRC, Bush's approval numbers jumped just above 50% during the election. In any case, if he had 48% approval and got 51% of the vote, then if he has 30% approval he wouldn't get more than 35% of the vote, and there is practically no difference, electorally speaking, in the two. I'm sure the GOP is worried about it, several members will be dragged down by it. Hell, it looks like even a Dem (Lieberman) will be dragged down by it.

And the Dems do need a clearer message, but they don't need to change their agenda to make it more popular. On the big issues they seem to side with the majority of the American people according to opinion polls.

[Glengoyne]

...

And the Dems do need a clearer message, but they don't need to change their agenda to make it more popular. On the big issues they seem to side with the majority of the American people according to opinion polls.

I don't know about that. What I mean by that is that I think Republicans can pull out different polls that show that they hold the majority opinion on abortion and the like. Polls on subjects like that vary based on the language used in the questioning, the specific categories offered, and more. II think a lot of folks don't want abortion banned, but do believe that there should be reasonable constraints applied to the practice. So they agree with part of the Dem party line on the subject in saying that "abortion should be legal and available", but differ on the Dem party line that defends abortion constraint with the ferocity of the NRA using the same "slippery slope" argument.

The point I'm making is that while 30 something percent of the public approve of Bush's performance, probably a much higher percentage of people would still vote for him over Kerry or another Democrat candidate. I'm saying that I don't think Bush was elected because people believed in him, they just believed that he was the lesser of two evils. The Dems haven't really modified their version of "evil" since then, and I think they need to if they want to really take advantage of Bush's poll numbers.


On the other thing you touched on.
I hope Lieberman isn't "pulled down". He's one of the few good Dems left, in my opinion. Of course I consider McCain to be just about the best thing about Republicans too, so apparently my opinion doesn't mean too much to hardened partisans in either party.

[KWhit]

IIRC, Bush's approval numbers jumped just above 50% during the election. In any case, if he had 48% approval and got 51% of the vote, then if he has 30% approval he wouldn't get more than 35% of the vote, and there is practically no difference, electorally speaking, in the two.

That's fuzzy math.

:)

Actually, you can't can't count on it being that cut-and-dried. There are many people who will vote against the dems no matter what Bush's approval rating might be.

[KWhit]

On the other thing you touched on.
I hope Lieberman isn't "pulled down". He's one of the few good Dems left, in my opinion. Of course I consider McCain to be just about the best thing about Republicans too, so apparently my opinion doesn't mean too much to hardened partisans in either party.

I agree with you. There is something about the system that has made it tough for the best candidate to get the nomination, IMO.

[MrBigglesworth]

The point I'm making is that while 30 something percent of the public approve of Bush's performance, probably a much higher percentage of people would still vote for him over Kerry or another Democrat candidate. I'm saying that I don't think Bush was elected because people believed in him, they just believed that he was the lesser of two evils. The Dems haven't really modified their version of "evil" since then, and I think they need to if they want to really take advantage of Bush's poll numbers.
I don't see how you can get that Bush would have anything near to 50% of the vote now that is approval is 20% lower than when he actually got 50% of the vote, but we could probably argue about that all day.

On the other thing you touched on.
I hope Lieberman isn't "pulled down". He's one of the few good Dems left, in my opinion. Of course I consider McCain to be just about the best thing about Republicans too, so apparently my opinion doesn't mean too much to hardened partisans in either party.
Well yeah, that makes sense to me, since Lieberman and McCain are both conservatives of one sort or another, especially on foreign policy. I used to like McCain, but the most incorrect meme ever is that he is some straight talking moderate. He is actually to the RIGHT of Bush on foreign policy: for example, he wants to send MORE troops to Iraq, and is a huge hawk. Being against torture does not make one a moderate, that used to be the accepted position of 95% of the country.

[st.cronin]

I wonder if the Dems/liberals/libertarians are in for a bit of a sad suprise when this all plays out. Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet, I propose, not because the country has suddenly moved to the left. Bush's ratings are in the toilet because he is HORRIBLE at his job.

The disapproval is not with the neocon agenda--but with Bush's execution of that agenda. If/when the GOP/neocons put someone in charge who can execute the GOP/neocon agenda well, I think that we may revert right back to 80%+ approval ratings for that president.

I just don't see how Bush screwing up makes people change their views on abortion, the environment, the judiciary, etc.

It is so odd to see clear thinking in a political thread on the fofc. I'm a little flabbergasted.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Well yeah, that makes sense to me, since Lieberman and McCain are both conservatives of one sort or another, especially on foreign policy. I used to like McCain, but the most incorrect meme ever is that he is some straight talking moderate. He is actually to the RIGHT of Bush on foreign policy: for example, he wants to send MORE troops to Iraq, and is a huge hawk. Being against torture does not make one a moderate, that used to be the accepted position of 95% of the country.

I really dislike the linear political spectrum concept and think it gets way overused in American politics. Wanting to have more troops in Iraq didn't mean McCain was "to the right of" Bush, it means he was not an idiot. We clearly were unable to maintain basic law and order. You either need to get enough troops in there to do the job or get the fuck out. I don't see how that has anything to do with left and right. At this point I don't know that more troops are going to make a difference, but McCain was right when it mattered..

Along similar lines it bothers me to see McCain and Lieberman lumped together here (as they often are). They probably occupy a similar space on a linear political spectrum, but are otherwise night and day. McCain is a fiscal conservative and a social moderate (or least he has been so far, we'll see how this speech at Liberty U. comes off). Lieberman is a fiscal liberal and a social conservative (IMHO the worst of both worlds), and stupid most of the time to boot...

[flere-imsaho]

If/when the GOP/neocons put someone in charge who can execute the GOP/neocon agenda well, I think that we may revert right back to 80%+ approval ratings for that president.

I'm not sure I agree with this. First of all, you're assuming that a significant proportion of Americans actually understand the neocon agenda. Secondly, you're assuming that a majority of Americans actually agree with that agenda.

Thirdly, I don't think the GOP and neocon agendas are the same thing, unless you're saying that they are because the neocons have hijacked the current GOP to their own aims. I rather doubt GOP faithful of the Reagan stripe are wholeheartedly behind the neocon agenda, to say nothing who agree with even older GOP ideals.

The neocon agenda preaches an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy that strives to achieve American hegemony throughout the world (I'm generalizing). Given the current context (an apparent failure of this policy in Iraq - apparent to the majority of the American electorate that is), I'm not sure that a continued execution of this policy would result in 80%+ approval ratings. Especially when your average American voter is going to say "What, invade X like we did Iraq? Cousin Jim Bob went to Iraq and came back with no legs. Fuck that!"


Approval ratings are a reflection of the public's perception of the actions of the President. Those actions may be objectively good, objectively bad, or objectively irrelevant to the success of the nation as a whole. When asked to rate the President, the pollee is going to ask themselves a multitude of questions, amongst which might be: "Do I agree with his goals?" "Do I agree with the methods he uses to achieve these goals?" "Are his results good for me?"

Given that context, it's difficult for me to see how a vast majority of the populace (the 80% you indicate) would answer in the affirmative if a GOP/neocon strategy was executed, even executed well. Especially when that strategy isn't anything close to Reagan or Clinton saying "Let it ride" and getting lucky with the stock market. That strategy pushes a specific worldview, specific mechanisms to make it come about, and works for specific results, all of which I doubt 80% of Americans agree.

[albionmoonlight]

I'm not sure I agree with this. First of all, you're assuming that a significant proportion of Americans actually understand the neocon agenda. Secondly, you're assuming that a majority of Americans actually agree with that agenda.

Thirdly, I don't think the GOP and neocon agendas are the same thing, unless you're saying that they are because the neocons have hijacked the current GOP to their own aims. I rather doubt GOP faithful of the Reagan stripe are wholeheartedly behind the neocon agenda, to say nothing who agree with even older GOP ideals.

The neocon agenda preaches an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy that strives to achieve American hegemony throughout the world (I'm generalizing). Given the current context (an apparent failure of this policy in Iraq - apparent to the majority of the American electorate that is), I'm not sure that a continued execution of this policy would result in 80%+ approval ratings. Especially when your average American voter is going to say "What, invade X like we did Iraq? Cousin Jim Bob went to Iraq and came back with no legs. Fuck that!"


Approval ratings are a reflection of the public's perception of the actions of the President. Those actions may be objectively good, objectively bad, or objectively irrelevant to the success of the nation as a whole. When asked to rate the President, the pollee is going to ask themselves a multitude of questions, amongst which might be: "Do I agree with his goals?" "Do I agree with the methods he uses to achieve these goals?" "Are his results good for me?"

Given that context, it's difficult for me to see how a vast majority of the populace (the 80% you indicate) would answer in the affirmative if a GOP/neocon strategy was executed, even executed well. Especially when that strategy isn't anything close to Reagan or Clinton saying "Let it ride" and getting lucky with the stock market. That strategy pushes a specific worldview, specific mechanisms to make it come about, and works for specific results, all of which I doubt 80% of Americans agree.

This is a well thought out post, and I agree with it. My only real point above is that I don't see that the social dynamics in this country that gave the GOP a majority of the popular vote in the last major election have changed much. And that the Democrats should understand that disaproval of Bush does not necessarily equate to people getting on board with the Democratic plan or jumping ship on the GOP plan. It may simply mean that people have picked up on the fact that if Bush flipped burgers as well as he ran a country he would probably get laid off from Hardees.

[Dutch]

The neocon agenda preaches an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy that strives to achieve American hegemony throughout the world (I'm generalizing). Given the current context (an apparent failure of this policy in Iraq - apparent to the majority of the American electorate that is), I'm not sure that a continued execution of this policy would result in 80%+ approval ratings. Especially when your average American voter is going to say "What, invade X like we did Iraq? Cousin Jim Bob went to Iraq and came back with no legs. Fuck that!"

We were apparently losing WWII when Pearl Harbor was bombed and we were defeated in the Phillipines and Europe was apparently losing when Nazi Germany was 20 km from Moscow. But the reality was quite a bit different than the perception, wasn't it? The fight isn't done. I don't like the thought of defeat while our troops are still in Iraq. We will win this fight and the Iraqi government survives. The question is, when we do win the fight and Iraq stands on it's own legs backed by a democracy, will you give the US credit for a job well done? I think we should give the US a lot of credit, but I'm skeptical that we will.

Also, If I may object, the average American voter does not know somebody who lost his legs in Iraq. Vietnam maybe, WWII definately, but not Iraq.

Approval ratings are a reflection of the public's perception of the actions of the President. Those actions may be objectively good, objectively bad, or objectively irrelevant to the success of the nation as a whole. When asked to rate the President, the pollee is going to ask themselves a multitude of questions, amongst which might be: "Do I agree with his goals?" "Do I agree with the methods he uses to achieve these goals?" "Are his results good for me?"

Given that context, it's difficult for me to see how a vast majority of the populace (the 80% you indicate) would answer in the affirmative if a GOP/neocon strategy was executed, even executed well. Especially when that strategy isn't anything close to Reagan or Clinton saying "Let it ride" and getting lucky with the stock market. That strategy pushes a specific worldview, specific mechanisms to make it come about, and works for specific results, all of which I doubt 80% of Americans agree.

I do agree. I don't think the GOP stands a chance in hell in the next election and it's because the President has not done a good job of getting his agenda out to the people. On the other hand, the liberals have done an outstanding job of getting people to understand their agenda. The middle 33% (read: fence sitters) won't be aware enough to do anything other than vote for Hillary or abstain. The end result; Democrats really don't have to change their approach at all to win in 2008. 2006 elections should be pro-liberal as well.

[Buccaneer]

I wonder if the Dems/liberals/libertarians are in for a bit of a sad suprise when this all plays out.

I almost choked on my desert when I saw that trio. While I believe certain Dems (mostly those in the past) can be libertarian-minded, liberals (by definition) cannot be. There is no one prominent for the Dems that carried on the works of Proxmire for whenever there is a hint of budget reductions or cuts or slowing increases, it seems like there is a solid block coming out in opposition. I've seen this not only at the federal level, but in several states as well. Just take a look at those opposing state-wide initiatives/amendments to restrict taxation or other reductions in revenues.

I am not sold on that a true "neocon" agenda would be libertarian-minded because what they want to achieve costs money, a lot of it. One could argue that a true "liberal" agenda would cost far, far more but I think once it reaches a certain point, the effect of inefficiencies, wastefulness, recklessness and corruption, not mention the power obtained through extortions and briberies, becomes mind-numbing.

[flere-imsaho]

My only real point above is that I don't see that the social dynamics in this country that gave the GOP a majority of the popular vote in the last major election have changed much. And that the Democrats should understand that disaproval of Bush does not necessarily equate to people getting on board with the Democratic plan or jumping ship on the GOP plan.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly, and I'll expand on that when I reply to Dutch in a sec.

[BrianD]

The end result; Democrats really don't have to change their approach at all to win in 2008. 2006 elections should be pro-liberal as well.

I disagree with this completely. I still think the main Democrat message is "We're not Bush." If Democrats can make their views understood and they resonate reasonably well with the people, they should do well in 2006 and 2008. They way they are going currently, I don't see them gaining a large number of seats. They still seem bent on destroying Bush's political capital rather than trying to generate their own.

[Swaggs]

I disagree with this completely. I still think the main Democrat message is "We're not Bush." If Democrats can make their views understood and they resonate reasonably well with the people, they should do well in 2006 and 2008. They way they are going currently, I don't see them gaining a large number of seats. They still seem bent on destroying Bush's political capital rather than trying to generate their own.

I have said this before, but I really think the democrats should embrace and run on the concept of accountability. The current combination of the Bush administration and congress has really slipped away from "the buck stops here" philosophy and I think that is something that the democrats could really use to their advantage.

Realistically, something like accountability could stick with swing voters, much like morality did with them in 2000 and 2002, and decisiveness did in 2004.

With that said, i do not see them doing that yet, and it may well be too late to pound that concept into voters' minds.

[flere-imsaho]

We were apparently losing WWII when Pearl Harbor was bombed and we were defeated in the Phillipines and Europe was apparently losing when Nazi Germany was 20 km from Moscow. But the reality was quite a bit different than the perception, wasn't it?

I wish you'd stop comparing Iraq to WWII. We've been over and over this and they're two completely separate things.

Also, If I may object, the average American voter does not know somebody who lost his legs in Iraq. Vietnam maybe, WWII definately, but not Iraq.

Fair enough. A point I wanted to make with this, though, was that I've met a fair number of Republicans who plan to sit out 2006 because either a) they're Reserve/Guard and got screwed over by Iraq or b) they have family in the Armed Forces and have suffered a loss. This isn't by any means an overwhelming majority of the electorate, but it's part of the GOP "base" they're losing this time around, due to this issue.

And yes, there are probably still plenty who think we're doing the right thing (as you do) and will vote to keep it that way.

I do agree. I don't think the GOP stands a chance in hell in the next election and it's because the President has not done a good job of getting his agenda out to the people. On the other hand, the liberals have done an outstanding job of getting people to understand their agenda. The middle 33% (read: fence sitters) won't be aware enough to do anything other than vote for Hillary or abstain. The end result; Democrats really don't have to change their approach at all to win in 2008. 2006 elections should be pro-liberal as well.

I think there's a difference between 2006 and 2008. The 2006 election will be, for better or worse, a referendum on the GOP in general and the Congressional scandals and Bush's performance in specific. While the odd compelling GOP candidate may be able to overcome this (and obviously those in safe seats don't have to worry), a good number of Reps and Senators in hotly-contested seats are going to pay for this, largely through the function of Republicans staying home from the polls. This particular dynamic has played itself out many times before, so I don't see why it wouldn't happen again.

Given this, the correct strategy for the Dems in 2006 is to continue to push the "GOP Reps & Senators are crooks, and Bush is an incompetent" message. It fires up the base, and as the message heads out into the mainstream, it will probably keep enough moderate Republicans home.

Having said that, I think 2006 will be a little underwhelming for the Dems. If you look closely at the numbers in the races, it's very unlikely the Dems will pick up enough seats to control either chamber in Congress, so they'll be in much the same position (though they can probably cause even more trouble in the Senate, with some pick-ups).

For 2008, however, this won't be a winning message. Maybe if the GOP candidate was Bush, or maybe if the GOP is stupid enough to nominate someone with close ties to Bush. If the Dems want to win in 2008, their candidate needs to show up with a positive message. At that point the electorate will have had roughly 6-7 years of trouble, from terrorism to the economy, and want to hear that someone has a plan to lead the country to better times. I think, frankly, that's the message that will win in 2008. Sadly (as a Democrat), I'm pretty certain it's a message that Hillary won't be able to deliver, or at least deliver convincingly.

Thus, the 2008 election will be all about the candidates and their own charisma.

[MrBigglesworth]

We were apparently losing WWII when Pearl Harbor was bombed and we were defeated in the Phillipines and Europe was apparently losing when Nazi Germany was 20 km from Moscow. But the reality was quite a bit different than the perception, wasn't it?
Japan was apparently losing WWII when Hiroshima was bombed. Nazi Germany was apparently losing when the Russians were 20 km from Moscow. The South was apparently losing when Sherman burned Atlanta. Saddam was apparently losing when American tanks rolled into Baghdad. The reality was pretty much in line with those perceptions, wasn't it?

Yes, things can be turned around. But that doesn't happen magically, and the odds are against it.

[WVUFAN]

Thus, the 2008 election will be all about the candidates and their own charisma.

I agree, to a point. I think it depends on how the Democrats go about it. In 2004, it seemed that the message the Dems were saying wasn't "This is what we stand for" and more "We hate Bush", which isn't, and won't work, despite the negative opinion of the President right now. Too many people in the grass roots of the country have a tendency to support a sitting President, regardless of who that person is.

So, yes, the Dems have a great chance to taking back not only the Presidency, but alot of Congress, but only if they go on issues, and not on a hatred of the opposition.

[Dutch]

Yes, things can be turned around. But that doesn't happen magically, and the odds are against it.

The big difference is that the US military is under no threat of surrendering Iraq to the terrorists. Politically, I agree, it's a little up in the air. I hope GWB stays the course.

[MrBigglesworth]

I really dislike the linear political spectrum concept and think it gets way overused in American politics. Wanting to have more troops in Iraq didn't mean McCain was "to the right of" Bush, it means he was not an idiot. We clearly were unable to maintain basic law and order. You either need to get enough troops in there to do the job or get the fuck out. I don't see how that has anything to do with left and right. At this point I don't know that more troops are going to make a difference, but McCain was right when it mattered..
No, McCain is in favor of sending more troops to Iraq RIGHT NOW, not when it would have mattered during the invasion. Only in retrospect does he feel that more troops should have been used in the beginning, he didn't say it at the time. The 'rogue state rollback' foreign policy that we have right now was actually stolen from McCain back during the 2000 election, before 9/11. Attacking countries pre-emptively only with huge armies is not be the 'moderate' position of foreign policy. It is very much to the right.

[MrBigglesworth]

The big difference is that the US military is under no threat of surrendering Iraq to the terrorists. Politically, I agree, it's a little up in the air. I hope GWB stays the course.
Why would you hope that George would stay in the same losing course?

[MrBigglesworth]

I agree, to a point. I think it depends on how the Democrats go about it. In 2004, it seemed that the message the Dems were saying wasn't "This is what we stand for" and more "We hate Bush", which isn't, and won't work, despite the negative opinion of the President right now. Too many people in the grass roots of the country have a tendency to support a sitting President, regardless of who that person is.

So, yes, the Dems have a great chance to taking back not only the Presidency, but alot of Congress, but only if they go on issues, and not on a hatred of the opposition.
You seem to be taking a position that going on hatred of the opposition is just a losing strategy. But it works very well for the Right, so maybe the Left just isn't as good at it as they are.

[WVUFAN]

You seem to be taking a position that going on hatred of the opposition is just a losing strategy. But it works very well for the Right, so maybe the Left just isn't as good at it as they are.

Well, we're gonna disagree with your contention that the Right ran on hatred. They ran on the idea of core family values, which appeals to a large number of people from rural areas.

So, yes running based on the hatred for the other side, specifically against a sitting President, doesn't work. The Republicans tried it during Clinton's second term, and it didn't work for them either.

[st.cronin]

Well, we're gonna disagree with your contention that the Right ran on hatred. They ran on the idea of core family values, which appeals to a large number of people from rural areas.

So, yes running based on the hatred for the other side, specifically against a sitting President, doesn't work. The Republicans tried it during Clinton's second term, and it didn't work for them either.

I actually liked Dole's campaign, I think 9 times out of 10 it would win - he was just up against a machine.

[WVUFAN]

I actually liked Dole's campaign, I think 9 times out of 10 it would win - he was just up against a machine.

I think if Dole would have shown the personallity he did after he lost the race during it, he would have done better.

Still would have lost, but would have done better.

[Dutch]

Why would you hope that George would stay in the same losing course?

I wouldn't.

[Crapshoot]

I dunno - there's something like 25% of this country which believes the greatest threat facing them (as per the last election) is "family values", which too often translates to "I hate gayz they're icky" - I think the worst thing that core can do for the GOP is potentially stay home, and I don't think they're likely to do that given what's at stake.

[MrBigglesworth]

I wouldn't.
But you just said...whaaaa?

[WVUFAN]

I dunno - there's something like 25% of this country which believes the greatest threat facing them (as per the last election) is "family values", which too often translates to "I hate gayz they're icky" - I think the worst thing that core can do for the GOP is potentially stay home, and I don't think they're likely to do that given what's at stake.

I would gather that the number is greater than 25%.

And, FWIW, I think it's less "gays are icky" than "gays shouldn't marry" and a religious belief that condemns it. Say what you will about that opinion, and religion/politics, but the idea strikes a chord with a good number of people. Democrats have a tendency to stay away from that, and side away from Christians and stricter Christian beliefs, and that's why people, especially in rural areas, side more with Republicans.

[MrBigglesworth]

Well, we're gonna disagree with your contention that the Right ran on hatred. They ran on the idea of core family values, which appeals to a large number of people from rural areas.

So, yes running based on the hatred for the other side, specifically against a sitting President, doesn't work. The Republicans tried it during Clinton's second term, and it didn't work for them either.
"Family values" = "hate the gay" and "hate the sex"

The Right attacks every single detractor, not on the basis of their arguments, but their character. Swift boating, Richard Clarke, the retired generals, Casey Sheehan, etc. For a couple years you couldn't say a bad word about the Iraq War without being called a traitor. The Radical Right books out there, best sellers not obscure titles, include: "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life", "Deliver Us from Evil : Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism", "Liberal Facism", "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism", and "Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left".

And now they are using the hatred for immigration. Just look at Bubba Wheels' thread, that's not motivated by rational thought of the plusses and minuses. I read once that the GOP election time strategy, since the southern strategy was implemented, could be summed up as: "scare white folks".

[st.cronin]

"Family values" = "hate the gay" and "hate the sex"

The Right attacks every single detractor, not on the basis of their arguments, but their character. Swift boating, Richard Clarke, the retired generals, Casey Sheehan, etc. For a couple years you couldn't say a bad word about the Iraq War without being called a traitor. The Radical Right books out there, best sellers not obscure titles, include: "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life", "Deliver Us from Evil : Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism", "Liberal Facism", "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism", and "Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left".

And now they are using the hatred for immigration. Just look at Bubba Wheels' thread, that's not motivated by rational thought of the plusses and minuses. I read once that the GOP election time strategy, since the southern strategy was implemented, could be summed up as: "scare white folks".

The immigration issue does not break down left/right lines cleanly.

[WVUFAN]

"Family values" = "hate the gay" and "hate the sex"

The Right attacks every single detractor, not on the basis of their arguments, but their character. Swift boating, Richard Clarke, the retired generals, Casey Sheehan, etc. For a couple years you couldn't say a bad word about the Iraq War without being called a traitor. The Radical Right books out there, best sellers not obscure titles, include: "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life", "Deliver Us from Evil : Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism", "Liberal Facism", "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism", and "Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left".

To counter:
Lapdogs : How the Press Rolled Over for Bush (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743289315/qid=1147237313/br=1-5/ref=br_lf_b_5//102-5757235-4357752?v=glance&s=books&n=11107)
Cruel and Unusual: Bush/Cheney's New World Order (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393326780/qid=1147237313/br=1-19/ref=br_lf_b_19//102-5757235-4357752?v=glance&s=books&n=11107)
Stupid White Men
449 Stupid Things Republicans Have Said (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0740743538/qid=1147237544/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/102-5757235-4357752?v=glance&s=books)

And that was just browsing through Amazon for a couple of minutes. My point is both sides do it. Both sides, and more recently the Dems have done alot of the badgering.

Concerning the "Swiftboat" thing, the Dems put false documents in Dan Rather's hands in the closing weeks of the election. Again, while both sides are guilty, perception is that the Dems are overly negative, and it bit them come election time.


And now they are using the hatred for immigration. Just look at Bubba Wheels' thread, that's not motivated by rational thought of the plusses and minuses. I read once that the GOP election time strategy, since the southern strategy was implemented, could be summed up as: "scare white folks".

I'm not sure what you mean by "plusses and minuses". I mean, I personally think the GOP is bending over backwards in their immigration bill -- much more than I would, in that they're allowing illegals to stay here. I'm not sure what more the GOP can do.

[MrBigglesworth]

To counter:
Lapdogs : How the Press Rolled Over for Bush (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743289315/qid=1147237313/br=1-5/ref=br_lf_b_5//102-5757235-4357752?v=glance&s=books&n=11107)
Cruel and Unusual: Bush/Cheney's New World Order (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393326780/qid=1147237313/br=1-19/ref=br_lf_b_19//102-5757235-4357752?v=glance&s=books&n=11107)
Stupid White Men
449 Stupid Things Republicans Have Said (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0740743538/qid=1147237544/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/102-5757235-4357752?v=glance&s=books)

And that was just browsing through Amazon for a couple of minutes. My point is both sides do it. Both sides, and more recently the Dems have done alot of the badgering.
The first book is critical of the press. The second book was written by someone that I have never heard of. The third one's insult is "stupid", not really up to par with 'traitor', 'evil', 'death', etc, in terms of inspring hatred. And none of those first three generalizes the opposition at all like the ones I mentioned (liberals, Democrats, etc). The last one has a Democratic (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0740743708/qid=1147238354/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-9671073-7475328?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) counterpart, hardly an example of a partisan author with hatred of the opposition.

Concerning the "Swiftboat" thing, the Dems put false documents in Dan Rather's hands in the closing weeks of the election. Again, while both sides are guilty, perception is that the Dems are overly negative, and it bit them come election time.
I don't remember it being a Dem that put the false documents in Dan Rather's hands. I also don't remember it being presented as fact on prime time cable news shows long after it was discredited.

I'm not sure what you mean by "plusses and minuses". I mean, I personally think the GOP is bending over backwards in their immigration bill -- much more than I would, in that they're allowing illegals to stay here. I'm not sure what more the GOP can do.
Plusses and minuses refers to the good and the bad things that come from illegal immigration. The GOP is bending over backwards because their corporate business donor base is very much opposed to restricting illegal immigration.

[Blade6119]

george W is my homeboy

[Glengoyne]

"Family values" = "hate the gay" and "hate the sex"

The Right attacks every single detractor, not on the basis of their arguments, but their character. Swift boating, Richard Clarke, the retired generals, Casey Sheehan, etc. For a couple years you couldn't say a bad word about the Iraq War without being called a traitor. The Radical Right books out there, best sellers not obscure titles, include: "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life", "Deliver Us from Evil : Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism", "Liberal Facism", "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism", and "Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left".

And now they are using the hatred for immigration. Just look at Bubba Wheels' thread, that's not motivated by rational thought of the plusses and minuses. I read once that the GOP election time strategy, since the southern strategy was implemented, could be summed up as: "scare white folks".

I'm not a big "Family Values" voter, but I'll tell you what. "Family Values" isn't code for anything. It doesn't translate to we hate gays. It means a lot of specific things, but I think it is more of a general resistance to the decay of values in society. A good number of people feel that some elements of society are committing crimes and investing their life and time in self gratification(drugs and other pursuits contrary to responsibility) because they didn't grow up in a functional healthy family. Family Values is about focusing or investing in the core principle of "family" and the benefits conveyed to both individuals and society as a whole.

When those on the left attack "family values, and reduce it down to homophobia, it doesn't win them friends on the right or the middle.

Also you have all of this bullshit about how the Republicans push hate. The left ran a campaign of demogoguery against Bush in 2004, and it didn't work. I love the cartoon from the day after the election that had the donkey waking up in bed with Michael Moore with a caption saying "How did we end up here?" You throw out the Swift boat guys, but Bush distanced himself from them..he didn't embrace their message. The freaking DNC ran ads attacking Bush on the essentially baseless AWOL business, along with the favored son bit. They ran those on their own website. The Dems certainly can't hold their heads up high and say they don't campaign on hate.

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm not a big "Family Values" voter, but I'll tell you what. "Family Values" isn't code for anything. It doesn't translate to we hate gays. It means a lot of specific things, but I think it is more of a general resistance to the decay of values in society. A good number of people feel that some elements of society are committing crimes and investing their life and time in self gratification(drugs and other pursuits contrary to responsibility) because they didn't grow up in a functional healthy family. Family Values is about focusing or investing in the core principle of "family" and the benefits conveyed to both individuals and society as a whole.

When those on the left attack "family values, and reduce it down to homophobia, it doesn't win them friends on the right or the middle.
I didn't reduce it to homophobia, I reduced it to homophobia and sexophobia. Glen I must have missed when the GOP was talking about a Constitutional Amendment to ban drugs, or pushing for Supreme Court justices that wanted to outlaw self-gratification. I remember the big issues being gays marrying and abortion. I'm sure a lot of people feel the way you are portraying them as feeling, but that is not what is bringing them to the polls.

Also you have all of this bullshit about how the Republicans push hate. The left ran a campaign of demogoguery against Bush in 2004, and it didn't work. I love the cartoon from the day after the election that had the donkey waking up in bed with Michael Moore with a caption saying "How did we end up here?" You throw out the Swift boat guys, but Bush distanced himself from them..he didn't embrace their message. The freaking DNC ran ads attacking Bush on the essentially baseless AWOL business, along with the favored son bit. They ran those on their own website. The Dems certainly can't hold their heads up high and say they don't campaign on hate.
I love how you throw out the swift boat stuff because Bush distances himself from it, then use DNC ads to say all the left is bad (essentially baseless? I missed where Bush provided evidence of where he was). Is Bush the entire Right spin machine? Talk about a straw man. The Swift Boat guys were paraded around on Hannity, O'Reilly, and FoxNews for months.

Can you please cite examples of demogoguery against Bush in 2004? Keep in mind that the GOP spent the entire year of 2004 calling most liberals traitors, I want to see something of that nature from a major source, i.e., not Ward Churchill or some other podunk professor from the midwest.

[MrBigglesworth]

http://www.factcheck.org/article254.html
There were these other developments:

*
A Boston Globe report Sept. 8 concluded that Bush "fell well short of meeting his military obligation" because of irregular attendance at Guard drills. The Globe said Bush's superiors "could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973 or 1974. But they did neither."
*
The Associated Press reported Sept. 8 that newly obtained records show Bush's Texas unit continued operating the type of airplane that Bush was trained to fly until 1974, long after Bush's last flight in April 1972. Bush aides once suggested that a reason he stopped flying and later skipped a flight physical, leading to his official grounding, was that his services weren't needed because the F-102 Delta Dagger planes were being phased out.
*
The CBS program 60 Minutes aired an interview Sept. 8 with former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, who said he used his political influence to get Bush into the Texas Air National Guard in 1968, when the Vietnam war was raging. "I would describe it as preferential treatment," said Barnes, a Democrat who is supporting Kerry. "We had a lot of young men that left and went to Canada in the '60s and fled this country. But those that could get in the Reserves, or those that could get in the National Guard -- chances are they would not have to go to Vietnam."
"Essentially baseless"? Those were just the revelations from one day.

[Dutch]

But you just said...whaaaa?

We aren't losing.

[Buccaneer]

I actually liked Dole's campaign, I think 9 times out of 10 it would win - he was just up against a machine.

You're kidding me? Dole's campaign was one of the worse in the past 35 years. We're talking Mondale bad.

[Crapshoot]

I'm not a big "Family Values" voter, but I'll tell you what. "Family Values" isn't code for anything. It doesn't translate to we hate gays. It means a lot of specific things, but I think it is more of a general resistance to the decay of values in society. A good number of people feel that some elements of society are committing crimes and investing their life and time in self gratification(drugs and other pursuits contrary to responsibility) because they didn't grow up in a functional healthy family. Family Values is about focusing or investing in the core principle of "family" and the benefits conveyed to both individuals and society as a whole.

When those on the left attack "family values, and reduce it down to homophobia, it doesn't win them friends on the right or the middle.

Also you have all of this bullshit about how the Republicans push hate. The left ran a campaign of demogoguery against Bush in 2004, and it didn't work. I love the cartoon from the day after the election that had the donkey waking up in bed with Michael Moore with a caption saying "How did we end up here?" You throw out the Swift boat guys, but Bush distanced himself from them..he didn't embrace their message. The freaking DNC ran ads attacking Bush on the essentially baseless AWOL business, along with the favored son bit. They ran those on their own website. The Dems certainly can't hold their heads up high and say they don't campaign on hate.

Glen, I'm no fan of the Dems - hell, a GOP without the religious right is more along the lines of my party - those people scare me. Yet they proposed a frigging amendment to the constitution that would ban "gay marriage" - more than any other issue, that was the brainchild of the religous right. I certainly agree with you that "cultual decay" may be a larger part of the problem, but its manifestation in politics appears to be primarily on the gay marriage issue - as Bigglesworth pointed out, compare the political steps taken against the other issues you cited, compared to gay marriage.

[flere-imsaho]

You're kidding me? Dole's campaign was one of the worse in the past 35 years. We're talking Mondale bad.

Worse than Kerry's in 2004?

[flere-imsaho]

The big difference is that the US military is under no threat of surrendering Iraq to the terrorists. Politically, I agree, it's a little up in the air. I hope GWB stays the course.

I don't know why I'm asking, since I know what the answer will be, but what is "surrendering Iraq to the terrorists"?

[Glengoyne]

Worse than Kerry's in 2004?

Hey Kerry was in the running. Of course he wasn't up against Clinton, so maybe the comparison is lacking.

[Glengoyne]

The proposed amendment on Gay Marriage...How hard has that been pushed? The Amendment to ban abortion, that was also one of the GOP "Planks" in 2004. How far has that been pushed? There have been more bills proposed to encourage families to stay together than there has been to ban marriage and abortion(partial extraction excluded).

The people who equate "family values" to homophobia are just participating in a smear campaign.

Again for those who blame homophobia for bringing voters to the polls and winning Bush the election in 2004. I think you need to reexamine the facts with less than the rose colored glasses that you wore during your previous analysis. The left arrived at the conclusion that the gay marriage question won the day for the right by bringing out the base. I'm saying that John Kerry was enough to bring out the base, and that the gay marriage bit is convenient because it allows the left to believe that there was nothing wrong with their positions. They can claim it was those "damn dumb predjudiced blue staters that cost us the election." I would submit that they and you are wrong.