John Eisenhower Hates America?

[JPhillips]

Is there any other explanation for this:

From the N.H. Union Leader

Another View:
Why I will vote for John Kerry for President
By JOHN EISENHOWER
Guest Commentary



THE Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3½ years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.

Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we “always have.” We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.

As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.

The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.

Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.

In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.

Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, “If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both.” I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.

The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation’s financial structure sound.

The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today’s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.

Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.

I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits.

John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, served on the White House staff between October 1958 and the end of the Eisenhower administration. From 1961 to 1964 he assisted his father in writing “The White House Years,” his Presidential memoirs. He served as American ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971. He is the author of nine books, largely on military subjects.

[clintl]

Well said, Mr. Eisenhower.

[CamEdwards]

perhaps he and Ron Reagan should write a book.

[Sharpieman]

I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits.
Well said

[Swaggs]

I wish Kerry could state his message this clearly.

[Senator]

what do you believe?
why is it important to you?
Who most closely represents these things?

Vote.

[CamEdwards]

I myself urge everyone to visit Democrats.com, where I found this piece linked. Not to imply guilt by association, because I'm sure Mr. Eisenhower is a very fine man. I just wonder how he likes his op/ed piece lumped in with articles entitled "Jeb's Gestapo Intimidates Black Voters in Orlando", "Bush's Biggest Rally - a White Supremacist Triumph?", "Insider Says Media Polls are being Systematically Manipulated to Achieve Specific Objectives", and my favorite "Bush Dealings on Iran so Hypocritical they are Comical"

No kidding, if I were Mr. Eisenhower I'd demand that site delink to his article. A lotta loons tend to drown out a single voice trying to speak reasonably.

[JPhillips]

Remember that Democrats.com is an INDEPENDENT site. It is not a site run by the DNC or Kerry.

So Cam, your point is that any nut who links to a story lessens the merit of a story? Eisenhower can't control who links his commentary on a newspaper website. That's ridiculous.

Also, if you want to have a nutball fight off you've got plenty of them on your side. Just start with Little Green Footballs, who I believe you link to. Do their paranoid ramblings invalidate all of your opinions?

[CamEdwards]

Paranoid ramblings? About what? I also link to Democratic Underground, albeit for the UIC. In fact, after reading the headlines at democrats.com I'm inclined to link to them as well. :)

As to nuts linking to stories lessening the merit of a story, I think I was pretty clear that I think he's a fine man. In fact, I believe that was the exact phrase I used. But if I found one of my posts linked to a wacked-out site that believes John Kerry's the anti-Christ... I'd be asking them to remove the link. I wouldn't want to have my work associated with nutjobs.

[EagleFan]

I wish Kerry could state his message this clearly.

He needs to have a message to be able to state his message.

[Havok]

I wish Kerry could state his message this clearly.


Kerry has a message??







dammit.... eaglesfan beat me to it

[sterlingice]

I myself urge everyone to visit Democrats.com, where I found this piece linked. Not to imply guilt by association, because I'm sure Mr. Eisenhower is a very fine man. I just wonder how he likes his op/ed piece lumped in with articles entitled "Jeb's Gestapo Intimidates Black Voters in Orlando", "Bush's Biggest Rally - a White Supremacist Triumph?", "Insider Says Media Polls are being Systematically Manipulated to Achieve Specific Objectives", and my favorite "Bush Dealings on Iran so Hypocritical they are Comical"

No kidding, if I were Mr. Eisenhower I'd demand that site delink to his article. A lotta loons tend to drown out a single voice trying to speak reasonably.
Yeah, well, Cam, I wouldn't want to be a black voter in Florida. Let's put it that way. Tho, Gestapo is pushing it. White Supremacist Triumph and Iran as Comical, also blown up rhetoric.

But the polls *are* being systematically manipulated to whoever is offering them- haven't you seen the big blowup between Zogby and Gallup over their normalizations? This has been a huge media story as people are basically saying "don't trust polls as far as you can throw them" because different sources are coming up with such different answers using methods that favor the outlet that ordered them.

SI

[CamEdwards]

There's a big difference between "don't trust the polls because of weighting and oversampling" and "Polls are being Systematically Manipulated to Achieve Specific Objectives".

[timmynausea]

I wouldn't want to have my work associated with nutjobs.
I guess you momentarily forgot that you work for the NRA.

[timmynausea]

Dola - that was supposed to be a joke so I hope noone is terribly offended, but I'm kind of kidding on the square.

[CamEdwards]

Dola - that was supposed to be a joke so I hope noone is terribly offended, but I'm kind of kidding on the square.

What the hell does that mean? I'm only joking so don't get mad, but at the same time know that I'm actually serious?

Damn... you must be a Kerry man.

[timmynausea]

Well, it's not that complicated. I said it primarily for humorous effect, but it happens to be true. I guess in retrospect I'm sorry that I was trying to be cordial, so yeah. I think it's ridiculous/hilarious that a guy that works for the NRA righteously proclaims he doesn't want his work associated with nutjobs.

[Cuckoo]

I think it's ridiculous/hilarious that a guy that works for the NRA righteously proclaims he doesn't want his work associated with nutjobs.

Just like any organization/institution that feels very strongly about an issue or situation, there will certainly be nutjobs amongst the group. But to categorize the entire NRA as that shows your ignorance, in my opinion.

[TroyF]

I'm not going to bother getting into all of the specific points in this thread because it would just make my head hurt. I'm just going to say the headline offends me.

I'm sick of crap like this on both sides. He doesn't hate America, he's voting for what he believes in. I'm not a brownshirted nazi because I'm going to vote for Bush. Sigh.

[portnoise]

perhaps he and Ron Reagan should write a book.

Here's your classic example of trying to undercut the content by lightly mocking the speaker. That's been the story of the whole campaign, really.

Look, here it comes again:

Damn... you must be a Kerry man.

I'm not defending timmy's argument that everyone in the NRA is necessarily a nutjob... that's a stereotype. But the Eisenhower article says some important stuff and represents even more. It'd be nice to see a discussion of what he actually says.

And if you're in the mood to mock me lightly, you could start with how I'm canadian and yet I actually care about this stuff. ;)

[timmynausea]

When did I say that everyone in the NRA is a nutjob?

[KWhit]

I'm not going to bother getting into all of the specific points in this thread because it would just make my head hurt. I'm just going to say the headline offends me.

I'm sick of crap like this on both sides. He doesn't hate America, he's voting for what he believes in. I'm not a brownshirted nazi because I'm going to vote for Bush. Sigh.
Ever heard of irony?

[CamEdwards]

to continue the light mocking... apparently we don't understand the nuances in Timmynausea's statement.

As to Mr. Eisenhower's actual comments: I disagree with him, I've stated why I disagree with him in countless threads over the past twelve months, and since he doesn't read this message board, I feel no need to explain in detail why I believe Mr. Eisenhower is misguided.

[GrantDawg]

I'm not going to bother getting into all of the specific points in this thread because it would just make my head hurt. I'm just going to say the headline offends me.

I'm sick of crap like this on both sides. He doesn't hate America, he's voting for what he believes in. I'm not a brownshirted nazi because I'm going to vote for Bush. Sigh.
The sooner we all admit that all Republicians are Nazi's and all Democrats are Communist, the sooner we will return honesty to politics.

[GrantDawg]

to continue the light mocking... apparently we don't understand the nuances in Timmynausea's statement.

I pretty sure he meant there are some nutjobs connected to the NRA. He wasn't saying all, but that there are some (which is a true statement. Sorry.)

[CamEdwards]

I pretty sure he meant there are some nutjobs connected to the NRA. He wasn't saying all, but that there are some (which is a true statement. Sorry.)

actually, you'd be surprised. Most of the people I'd consider to be "nutjobs" think the NRA is too moderate or too political and won't join.

Then again, I guess the "nutjob" is in the eyes of the beholder. I've got no problem associating myself with the NRA, and perhaps Mr. Eisenhower has no problem with his column being linked by democrats.com.

[rkmsuf]

People care what John Eisenhower thinks?

[GrantDawg]

actually, you'd be surprised. Most of the people I'd consider to be "nutjobs" think the NRA is too moderate or too political and won't join.

Then again, I guess the "nutjob" is in the eyes of the beholder. I've got no problem associating myself with the NRA, and perhaps Mr. Eisenhower has no problem with his column being linked by democrats.com.

I've personally known a few nutjob members. I'll introduce you sometimes. :)

[Bonegavel]

If this guy was a conservative for all these years and now wrote that, I have a bridge somewhere in New York to sell you.

[GrantDawg]

If this guy was a conservative for all these years and now wrote that, I have a bridge somewhere in New York to sell you.
Why? I've been a conservative my whole life, and I'm voting for Kerry.

[Bonegavel]

Why? I've been a conservative my whole life, and I'm voting for Kerry.
I stand corrected.

I would seriously like to know what you define as conservative. If you ARE a conservative and are voting for Kerry --- you have a vastly different idea of what it means than I. If you have simply switched ideologies, then I understand.

Don't get me wrong, Bush is by no means the president I would have wanted when it comes to spending and programs, but his aproach to the War on Terror is what I think we need.

[Cuckoo]

I have a lot of respect for GD, and I am no Bush fan, but for a person who considers themself a conservative to vote for Kerry is just crazy to me. I'm not trying to bash you at all, GD. I just don't get it either.

[GrantDawg]

Because I think Bush has made too many major mistakes (and is completely unwilling to admit or correct mistakes), and that 4 more years would put this country in greater jepordy than 4 years of Kerry.

I have never voted for a Democrat in my life, but there is no way I can vote for Bush at this point.

[Radii]

I have a lot of respect for GD, and I am no Bush fan, but for a person who considers themself a conservative to vote for Kerry is just crazy to me. I'm not trying to bash you at all, GD. I just don't get it either.

Why? I don't claim to know the exact reasons why GD is voting for Kerry, but what's wrong with someone saying "I hold most of these beliefs that most people consider to be conservative, but, I just cannot agree with what the conservative candidate has done regarding X(presumably Iraq here), therefore in this election I am going to have to vote against Bush"


Just like I imagine there are people who say "I hold most of the beliefs that people consider to be 'liberal', but, in this election, I just feel that we cannot afford to change leadership in the middle of a war, and I am going to vote for Bush"

I have no problem with either of the above statements.

[Radii]

The sooner we all admit that all Republicians are Nazi's and all Democrats are Communist, the sooner we will return honesty to politics.

Good point, Comrade Dawgski! :D

[Cuckoo]

Why? I don't claim to know the exact reasons why GD is voting for Kerry, but what's wrong with someone saying "I hold most of these beliefs that most people consider to be conservative, but, I just cannot agree with what the conservative candidate has done regarding X(presumably Iraq here), therefore in this election I am going to have to vote against Bush"


Just like I imagine there are people who say "I hold most of the beliefs that people consider to be 'liberal', but, in this election, I just feel that we cannot afford to change leadership in the middle of a war, and I am going to vote for Bush"

I have no problem with either of the above statements.

I would understand not voting at all for that reason. But I can't understand voting for someone who holds even less in common with what you believe just because you're dissatisfied with the other. It seems to me to be only a protest of sorts and detrimental to the overall goal.

Obviously he can do whatever he chooses. The only reason I comment is that I consider myself to be very close to where he is in dissatisfaction with the current administration, but there's no way I can make that leap to voting for Kerry. Because for all Bush's faults, Kerry's are even greater in my opinion.

[GrantDawg]

I would understand not voting at all for that reason. But I can't understand voting for someone who holds even less in common with what you believe just because you're dissatisfied with the other. It seems to me to be only a protest of sorts and detrimental to the overall goal.

Obviously he can do whatever he chooses. The only reason I comment is that I consider myself to be very close to where he is in dissatisfaction with the current administration, but there's no way I can make that leap to voting for Kerry. Because for all Bush's faults, Kerry's are even greater in my opinion.
I answered why earlier, but I'll repeat myself using different words here...

I believe that four years of Kerry would do less damage to this country internally than four more years of Bush would do both internally and externally.

[Cuckoo]

I answered why earlier, but I'll repeat myself using different words here...

I believe that four years of Kerry would do less damage to this country internally than four more years of Bush would do both internally and externally.

Hey, I was just curious. Perhaps when I said I don't understand, you weren't sure what I was saying. I read your explanation. I just can't understand how you reached that position. And I suspect I never will.

[GrantDawg]

Hey, I was just curious. Perhaps when I said I don't understand, you weren't sure what I was saying. I read your explanation. I just can't understand how you reached that position. And I suspect I never will.
Ok, I did think you just didn't see it. To be fair, I don't know how someone could vote for Bush at this point. (Well, that's not true. I think a better way of saying that is I can understand why, but I disagree with the reason).

[Buddy Grant]

I don't have the time or interest to actually read and research what John Eisenhower writes, but I do seem to recall that he has fathered several dozen children out of wedlock, and wasn't his father a Communist agitator or something?

[mgadfly]

Because I think Bush has made too many major mistakes (and is completely unwilling to admit or correct mistakes), and that 4 more years would put this country in greater jepordy than 4 years of Kerry.

I have never voted for a Democrat in my life, but there is no way I can vote for Bush at this point.

As much as I've disagreed with GrantDawg in other threads, I've been a fiscal conservative my whole life and am, for the first time, planning to vote for a Democrat as well.

I hope that my vote, and other votes like it, will send a message (much of it stated by Mr. Eisenhower above) to the Republican party. I once told my wife (who is liberal) that I'd never vote for John Kerry (this was awhile back, prior to any indication he'd be a presidential nominee), and now I have come to admit that there is something worse: Bush's unwillingness to restrain the more conservative elements of his administration which are, apparently, completely unconcerned about personal liberties, local control of government decision making, fiscal responsibility, and even a little bit of international cooperation.

[Cuckoo]

Ok, I did think you just didn't see it. To be fair, I don't know how someone could vote for Bush at this point. (Well, that's not true. I think a better way of saying that is I can understand why, but I disagree with the reason).

Fair enough. I suppose that's what I'm trying to say as well. I understand your reasoning, I just disagree with it. :)

[Arles]

Not to burst everyone's balloon, but I'm still searching for one coherant thought in his entire article. He rails Bush for not balancing the budget, yet says:

"The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so."

Balancing the budget with an economy that was struggling in 2000-2002 and multiple ongoing wars can hardly been considered the "state of the economy allowed it to do so." I would think many people would put increasing job creation and jumpstarting the economy (which Bush did from 2003 forward) above balancing the budget.

He bounces all over every issue with no mention of any policy that will help outside of raising taxes. He rails about the budget, yet doesn't mention government spending once. He accuses the Republicans of not caring about small businesses, yet advocates raising their taxes (many small businesses end up in the higher income brackets). He says we need to "limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms" but seems to advocate even more social spending when he talks about "the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country". He cites the way George HW Bush agreed to leave Saddam in power after the first gulf war a great example of leading in foreign policy. Yet it is the fact that Bush watered down his plan to go into Kuwait to get more global support that made it necessary for us to go back in and finish the job in 2003.

I don't know what Mr. Eisenhower's political views are, but with his stance on raising taxes without cutting domestic spending and making the protection of the US dependent upon the approval of France and Germany, I definately think he's found the correct candidate.

Arlie

[BigJohn&TheLions]

The only problem I have is with the title of this thread. I would actually say that Lil' Ike Loves America. He is sticking with what he believes and not with his party affiliation. I see a lot of people out here who seem to love being a Republican or Democrat more than they love being an American. I am a registered Democrat who voted for Mike Bloomberg and George Patacki. I used to walk into a voting booth and just yank the Democrat lever, but cannot in clear conscience do that any more. Unfortunatly there seems to be no room in politics at the national level for politicians who are socially progressive and fiscally conservative. It's funny to me that the same people who refer to Democrats as "Tax and Spend" find George Walker Bush to be a great prez even though his policy seems to be "Cut Tax, and Spend More!" If I managed my checkbook like this administration manages the budget I would have more than a slight problem...

[KWhit]

I believe the title of this thread was meant to be a jab at the people who believe that if you do not support the President's policies 100% then you hate America or are treasonous, etc.

You know, the whole "You're either with us or you're against us!" argument.

[JPhillips]

Arles: The reason he talks about raising taxes is because that's the only real option we have. This deficit isn't about short term stimulus. It is so large, and will only get larger, that growth alone can't solve the problem. The only way to balance the budget without tax increases is to severely cut Social Security, Medicare, Defense or everything else by up to fifty percent. We all know that there is no political scenario where that can happen. Without tax increases of some sort we simply can't fix the structural deficit the current Repub leadership has left us. Even Reagan and Bush1 understood that too much revenue decrease can't be compensated for in increased growth.

I must have missed where Eisenhower said that America must base its security on France and Germany. Is that in invisible type? Seriously, Arles, his point isn't that America can't act, but tha the perils of this particular action have been detrimental to the security of the United States. You can agree or not, but he never comes close to justifying the slur you used.

Finally, for everyone, the title was a joke. Since it seems like everyone supporting Kerry is accused of being unAmerican I picked a satirical title.

[sterlingice]

There's a big difference between "don't trust the polls because of weighting and oversampling" and "Polls are being Systematically Manipulated to Achieve Specific Objectives".
How do you figure? If you oversample and poorly weigh your polls to who is paying for them, aren't you systematically manipulating [them] to achieve specific objectives?

SI

[Arles]

Arles: The reason he talks about raising taxes is because that's the only real option we have. This deficit isn't about short term stimulus. It is so large, and will only get larger, that growth alone can't solve the problem. The only way to balance the budget without tax increases is to severely cut Social Security, Medicare, Defense or everything else by up to fifty percent. We all know that there is no political scenario where that can happen. Without tax increases of some sort we simply can't fix the structural deficit the current Repub leadership has left us. Even Reagan and Bush1 understood that too much revenue decrease can't be compensated for in increased growth.
The average American pays almost 50% of what they earn in taxes. If this is not enough to balance the budget, I think it's time to take a long, hard look at what we are spending our money on in Washington.

must have missed where Eisenhower said that America must base its security on France and Germany. Is that in invisible type? Seriously, Arles, his point isn't that America can't act, but tha the perils of this particular action have been detrimental to the security of the United States. You can agree or not, but he never comes close to justifying the slur you used.

He says:
America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance.
The US allowed over a dozen UN resolutions to be broken before even talking about removing Saddam in a serious manner. Once the decision was made by Bush to investigate, he got unanimous UN approval for a resolution promising serious consequences if Saddam didn't come clean. Well, he didn't and Bush went to the UN yet one more time to get support. In the end, France and Germany refused to support the war - a war that the president felt was in the best interest of this country.

So, either the president let France and Germany dictate his country's security or he would go into Iraq without their support. It seems that Eisenhower is saying above that we should have put our own national security on hold until we could get France and Germany on board. And if they refused, we would not go. How is that not "basing its security on France and Germany"?

Arlie

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Once the decision was made by Bush to investigate, he got unanimous UN approval for a resolution promising serious consequences if Saddam didn't come clean.

That's right, Saddam never came clean and admitted to having vast arsenals of WMD's. Once we found all those WMD's, what choice did we have but to invade...

[Glengoyne]

What the hell does that mean? I'm only joking so don't get mad, but at the same time know that I'm actually serious?

Damn... you must be a Kerry man.
Not a Kerry fan at all but I understand exactly where he was coming from. I'm actually not sure who I like less, Teachers' Unions or the NRA.

[Arles]

That's right, Saddam never came clean and admitted to having vast arsenals of WMD's. Once we found all those WMD's, what choice did we have but to invade...
If you recall, the burden of proof was on Saddam to show how he had disposed of the chemical weapons we knew he had and provide the international community will full and unfettered inspections in Iraq. He refused to do either so our choice was to either "trust" Saddam and not verify what he as actually doing (a la Clinton and North Korea) or to remove him from power.

Given what we knew at the time, there is simply no logical reason to trust that a man like Saddam Hussein had disposed of all his weapons programs and WMD without seeing some verification.

[Crapshoot]

If you recall, the burden of proof was on Saddam to show how he had disposed of the chemical weapons we knew he had and provide the international community will full and unfettered inspections in Iraq. He refused to do either so our choice was to either "trust" Saddam and not verify what he as actually doing (a la Clinton and North Korea) or to remove him from power.

Given what we knew at the time, there is simply no logical reason to trust that a man like Saddam Hussein had disposed of all his weapons programs and WMD without seeing some verification.

you're correct to some extent on this- hwoever, Im still waiting for how Saddamn was a clear and present threat to US security. The money and time spent in Iraq could have been better spent in Afghanistan, or fighting terror, instead of fueling a selective war.

[JPhillips]

Arles: THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO OPTIONS!!! How long will it take you to come to grips with that. Building an international consensus does not mean leaving our security to the French and Germans. I'm aware this is a pointless argument with you, but please be open enough to be able to admit that there is more to the world than Bush's way and the terrorists' way.

I'd love to see that 50% stsat you used backed up. I've read numerous times that the tax burden for almost everyone is between twenty and thirty percent. If you can prove that 50% number I'd genuinely be interested.

But regardless of the percentage my point has nothing to do with whether or not the government should cut spending. The fact is that to balance the budget will take cuts so large that they are politically impossible. Therefore, the only way to balance the budget is through a minimum of tax increases mixed with smaller spending cuts.

[Abe Sargent]

Does anybody else find it tremendously inconsistent that liberal talking heads talk and give so much sway to defending civial liberties embraced in the constitution to amazingly high degrees except for the one about guns? What makes some civil liberties so important and others so wrong? Must be awfully convienent to have an ideology that can systematically ignore patently consistent views in favor of the more politically expedient ones.


(and before conservative talking heads raise voices, aren't conservatives (who tow the line, obviously, not ones who disagree with the talking heads) just as guilty for supporting acts that restrict freedoms but lay off our guns?)

-Anxiety

[Chubby]

Does anybody else find it tremendously inconsistent that liberal talking heads talk and give so much sway to defending civial liberties embraced in the constitution to amazingly high degrees except for the one about guns? What makes some civil liberties so important and others so wrong? Must be awfully convienent to have an ideology that can systematically ignore patently consistent views in favor of the more politically expedient ones.


(and before conservative talking heads raise voices, aren't conservatives (who tow the line, obviously, not ones who disagree with the talking heads) just as guilty for supporting acts that restrict freedoms but lay off our guns?)

-Anxiety
No one is saying all guns should be off the streets, we ARE entitled to guns but not nescessarily fully automatic ones.

[Abe Sargent]

Twenty to thirty percent!!! No way.

Obviously, this will depend somewhat on your tax bracket and where you live, but I find that figure hardly reliable. I make 32k myself, and I pay more than 30% a year in taxes. Surely the average is higher.

For purposes of this investigation, you should include FICA, which, although not legally defined as a tax, is ethically and realistically a tax. Sales Taxes, State Taxes, any jacked up prices on products that are subject to tarriffs, and so forth. Tons of taxes combine to extricate money from your pocket.

Having said that, I doubt the average is as high as 50% though I easily see it as being so in some areas and income groups.

-Anxiety


Arles: THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO OPTIONS!!! How long will it take you to come to grips with that. Building an international consensus does not mean leaving our security to the French and Germans. I'm aware this is a pointless argument with you, but please be open enough to be able to admit that there is more to the world than Bush's way and the terrorists' way.

I'd love to see that 50% stsat you used backed up. I've read numerous times that the tax burden for almost everyone is between twenty and thirty percent. If you can prove that 50% number I'd genuinely be interested.

But regardless of the percentage my point has nothing to do with whether or not the government should cut spending. The fact is that to balance the budget will take cuts so large that they are politically impossible. Therefore, the only way to balance the budget is through a minimum of tax increases mixed with smaller spending cuts.

[GrantDawg]

Twenty to thirty percent!!! No way.

Obviously, this will depend somewhat on your tax bracket and where you live, but I find that figure hardly reliable. I make 32k myself, and I pay more than 30% a year in taxes. Surely the average is higher.


-Anxiety

Average household income in the US (2003): 43,527. There is no way the average tax is as high as 50%. I've heard that number bandied about, but I think we had a thread recently that broke it down at much less than that.

[JPhillips]

Anxiety: I can't find the chart that best describes my point. It was based on a study by Tobacco and Petroleum companies that put the average(as I recall it didn't specify mean or median) at about 25% for all income brackets. I don't question your tax percenatge, but your rate can get balanced by others. I know when I lived in MS and owned a house my wife and I made over 50K but we paid maybe 20% in taxes if that because we had numerous deductions to the income tax and very low property taxes.

Again, the actual rate is beside the point. My argument applies whether the average rate today is 80% or 5%. We do not have any where near enough revenue currently to meet the spending requirements of this budget and our probable commitments for at least the next decade.

[Arles]

If you add up FICA, State income taxes, federal, sales tax, gas tax, and the muriad of other taxes people pay from tolls to taxes on rent to taxes on cigarettes and booze, most average income Americans pay close to 50%. Again, it depends of the state you are in and your lifestyle, but the taxes on US citizens are rediculously high and to say that the US cannot run a government with a $2.2 TRILLION buget each year is quite amazing.

[JPhillips]

Arles: Show me the evidence that the average American pays nearly 50% in taxes. If you have it I'd genuinely like to see it.

The issue isn't whether or not the govt. should be able to run on 2.2 trillion. The issue is that our cuurent budget can't come close and things will only get worse. Nobody on your side of the aisle is proposing anything like the massive budget cuts that would be required to balance the budget. Why? Because they know it will never happen. Given that reality, we have to increase revenues to avoid a financial catastrophe.

[SFL Cat]

What kills me is that Democrats are in charge of the elections in the areas where the Black vote is being supposedly being suppressed by jeb's gestapo. The only legit suppression I've heard about was when Dems were trying to keep the Black vote down so Janet Reno wouldn't win the Democratic gubernatorial primaries since most felt she would get slaughtered by Jeb even worse than their eventual candidate did.

[ISiddiqui]

I have never voted for a Democrat in my life, but there is no way I can vote for Bush at this point.

Here, Here! I'm in the same boat. This is the first Dem I'm voting for. Hopefully to restore some sanity to the WH (of course I'm hoping for a Republican dominated Senate and House as well).

[Arles]

Arles: Show me the evidence that the average American pays nearly 50% in taxes. If you have it I'd genuinely like to see it.

Here's one site that's pretty good on this issue:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-015.html

You have 28% in income tax, 7.65% for FICA and an average of 6% for State income tax. So, right there, you are at 41%. Then you add in an average of 7% sales tax, taxes on cigarettes and booze, capital gains, gas tax, taxes on travel and renting cars, road tolls, hotel taxes and taxes on some services.

Now, if you are smart, you can keep your burden lower through additional deductions and end up in the 40% range. But, for many Americans in the middle class it creeps up pretty close to 50% when factor everything in.

The issue isn't whether or not the govt. should be able to run on 2.2 trillion. The issue is that our cuurent budget can't come close and things will only get worse. Nobody on your side of the aisle is proposing anything like the massive budget cuts that would be required to balance the budget. Why? Because they know it will never happen. Given that reality, we have to increase revenues to avoid a financial catastrophe.
I will certainly agree that republicans could do a better job on spending. But, I completely disagree that we need to raise taxes. All that will happen if we raise taxes is that congress will have more money to spend and they will do so. There is no historical precedent for giving a tax hike and having it go directly into debt without being spent on other projects. History has shown that if you give congress more money, they spend it. At some point, we have to reduce spending to balance the budget and that will not change even if taxes are raised. So, why not try that before raising taxes?

Arlie

[SFL Cat]

I answered why earlier, but I'll repeat myself using different words here...

I believe that four years of Kerry would do less damage to this country internally than four more years of Bush would do both internally and externally.

Incorrect for several reasons.

First, the best time for a terrorist strike is during the transition period between administrations...please note that 9/11 occurred early during Bush's first term (which, in fact, was already behind schedule and playing catch-up due to the Florida recount flap).

Second, a sudden change in policy in Iraq would: a.) undermine the current political structure in that country, especially if Kerry decides to cut and run before the Iraqi Force is ready to assume responsibility for the nation's security; essentially leaving the country vulnerable to takeover by groups as bad as or worse than Saddam Hussein -- b.) zap any credibility the U.S. might have left with moderate Arab leaders and factions -- why should they risk making political and social reforms that might be unpopular with fundamentalist segments of their populations if they can't rely on the promise of support or aid from the U.S. -- c.) give fundamentalist Islamic terrorists a moral victory (See, the great Satan doesn't have the will to resist our jihad!!!) and embolden them to expand their activities.

Third, although most conservatives aren't happy with Bush's massive spending increases (mostly on the DOMESTIC side of things), his tax cuts did spur economic growth and help the economy shrug off the doldrums and volatility following 9/11. Kerry has never met a tax increase he didn't like (just check his voting record). Any kind of tax hike will definitely stall the economy IMO. Also, Kerry will more than likely keep pace with or surpass Bush on domestic spending. If you examine the Carter and Clinton presidencies, you'll find that the only areas where these Democratic administrations actually tried to "trim the fat" was in the military budgets....not a good idea in these days and times. Kerry's Senate voting record shows that he has no problem voting against weapons systems (a good portion of our current military assets would not exist if Kerry's side of the vote had carried the day).

[ISiddiqui]

specially if Kerry decides to cut and run before the Iraqi Force is ready to assume responsibility for the nation's security

Actually that seems to be Rumsfeld's plan.

[JPhillips]

Arles: Your report says this:

In 1960 middle-income Americans paid less than 30 percent of their earnings in local, state, and federal taxes; today that figure is up to 40 percent.

I question that figure as being too high, but I'll settle on it for argument's sake. But it isn't 50%.

[GrantDawg]

Incorrect for several reasons.

First, the best time for a terrorist strike is during the transition period between administrations...please note that 9/11 occurred early during Bush's first term (which, in fact, was already behind schedule and playing catch-up due to the Florida recount flap).

So we ought to do away with term limits and make Bush king, right? That is the only way we'll be safe. :rolleyes:

Second, a sudden change in policy in Iraq would: a.) undermine the current political structure in that country, especially if Kerry decides to cut and run before the Iraqi Force is ready to assume responsibility for the nation's security; essentially leaving the country vulnerable to takeover by groups as bad as or worse than Saddam Hussein -- b.) zap any credibility the U.S. might have left with moderate Arab leaders and factions -- why should they risk making political and social reforms that might be unpopular with fundamentalist segments of their populations if they can't rely on the promise of support or aid from the U.S. -- c.) give fundamentalist Islamic terrorists a moral victory (See, the great Satan doesn't have the will to resist our jihad!!!) and embolden them to expand their activities.

Not Kerry's plan, and a huge strawman that doesn't exist

Third, although most conservatives aren't happy with Bush's massive spending increases (mostly on the DOMESTIC side of things), his tax cuts did spur economic growth and help the economy shrug off the doldrums and volatility following 9/11. Kerry has never met a tax increase he didn't like (just check his voting record). Any kind of tax hike will definitely stall the economy IMO. Also, Kerry will more than likely keep pace with or surpass Bush on domestic spending. If you examine the Carter and Clinton presidencies, you'll find that the only areas where these Democratic administrations actually tried to "trim the fat" was in the military budgets....not a good idea in these days and times. Kerry's Senate voting record shows that he has no problem voting against weapons systems (a good portion of our current military assets would not exist if Kerry's side of the vote had carried the day).
A few years with higher taxes will not kill us. Remember the 90's under Clinton and the "largest tax increase in history?"



I just don't agree with your views of what is going on, and I think we need a new direction in Iraq (one that is more concerned with winning than the oil and the "I've got a bigger penis" diplomacy of this adminstration).

[Arles]

A few years with higher taxes will not kill us. Remember the 90's under Clinton and the "largest tax increase in history?"
One thing you have to understand is that it is very unlikely that a tax hike will go through congress. So, Kerry had better have a contingency plan for raising the revenue to pay for his programs because if he doesn't get the tax hike or even gets a watered down version of it, the debt will balloon even more with all of his proposed spending.

Kerry won't have the luxery that Clinton did of a democratic House and Senate for his first two years.

[JPhillips]

Arles: And how likely is it that the Repub. congress will pass the Kerry spending bills? IMO the best way to control govt. spending and impose some sort of ratioanl thinking on the deficit is a split government.

[Arles]

Arles: And how likely is it that the Repub. congress will pass the Kerry spending bills? IMO the best way to control govt. spending and impose some sort of ratioanl thinking on the deficit is a split government.
I agree with this. And, I've said in other threads that if I felt better about Kerry's consistency on terror or if terrorism was not as big an issue, I might even vote for Kerry for that exact reason. I voted for Clinton in the 90s because of the gridlock spending check. Still, I cannot see how someone that feels the Iraq war is a major mistake can lead troops to win the war - regardless of how it goes at any one specific part in time.

I mean if I was president and I felt a war was a diversion or not needed, there is no way I could continue to send brave, young soldiers to their death in Iraq. And, given Kerry's experience in Vietnam, I cannot fathom how he could do that as well - provided he views this war as a mistake like he said last night.

[GrantDawg]

One thing you have to understand is that it is very unlikely that a tax hike will go through congress. So, Kerry had better have a contingency plan for raising the revenue to pay for his programs because if he doesn't get the tax hike or even gets a watered down version of it, the debt will balloon even more with all of his proposed spending.

Kerry won't have the luxery that Clinton did of a democratic House and Senate for his first two years.
Which means he will be even less likely to do damage, right? He won't even be able to push much of his social agenda with a completely Republician congress, right? Thanks for backing up my point.

[GrantDawg]

I mean if I was president and I felt a war was a diversion or not needed, there is no way I could continue to send brave, young soldiers to their death in Iraq. And, given Kerry's experience in Vietnam, I cannot fathom how he could do that as well - provided he views this war as a mistake like he said last night.
Then you would be a very bad president. I think the war in Iraq was done at the wrong time in the wrong way, but I do not think we can just pull out. I don't think Kerry thinks we should pull out. He thinks we were wrong to do the way we did it, but now we have to do all we can to fix the mess this president has put us in.

The president's own intelligence tells him that things are not going well, yet he is campaigning on "everything is going great." He says he is going to "stay the course" even though pro-Bush Republicians in both the House and Senate are saying we need to change how we are running the reconstruction. Kerry offers the hope of needed change while the Bush adminstration offers continued bad policies.

This is the number one issue of this election in my mind. Looking past the demagoguery and partisianship, I think the Bush adminstration has made the world a more dangerous place, and we need a change now if we hope to correct thier mistakes.