The war is going too well

Remove all ads!

Given the incredible success of the coalition, and the Presidents soaring poll numbers, the Democrats are starting to get a little nervous about the 2004 election. This is leading to some of what I consider to be desperate maneuvers by the Dems, some of which are certainly not in the best interests of the American people.

The primary thrust of the Dems seems to be to shift attention to the economy. In this effort they are even going so far as to try to undermine the economy to keep it bad. It is well historically documented that Presidents are punished in elections for bad economies, and rewarded for good ones. Now, that said, it is not in the best interests of the Dems to allow the economy to start a healthy recovery. IMO this is why the Dems fought to cut back much of the Presidents tax cuts. I know they are using excuses like, the deficit is going to unhinge the economy if we cut taxes, and what about the poor people who have lost their jobs who need help, and we will have to cut welfare benefits if we cut taxes. Well, I am not afraid to call BS on something when I see it.

1. Historically, following major tax cuts tax revenue actually INCREASED! This is a factor of the fact that the private sector spends money more efficiently that the public. Lowering taxes will provide people with more money to spend and invest, this spurs the economy on, which creates more jobs, which creates more demand for workers, which raises pay, all of which increases tax revenue. That my friends is a WIN-WIN!

2. Welfare erodes the economy. I am not saying that all welfare should be eliminated. IMO it should be a temporary safety net only. No long-term welfare for people (unless they are disabled to the point of being unable to care for themselves). The fact is, the more money you take out of the economy to feed children, the more you harm the economy, the more jobs are lost, the more hungry children you have. It is a catch-22. LOSE-LOSE

3. The Dems don't care anymore about you, me, or the starving children that the Republicans or Libertarians. They simply are using election math. If you take money from a minority (the rich), and give it to the minority (the poor), come election time, you are going to have a minority who is unhappy with you and a majority who like you. This equals bought votes and election wins. It is sad that so many Americans are sheeples, and cannot see that the very handouts that they are receiving are a force that takes away opportunities to get better jobs and earn more money. LOSE-LOSE

Now, before I get attacked for being a Republican (which I am not) and told about how evil the Republicans are, ask youself, which matters most, intentions, or results. Yes I back the Reps in many of their economic stances, but I realize that they are no more interested in the poor than the Dems. The fact is, while unintended, the Reps economic policies are better for the economy, and better for the vast majority of Americans, so while their intent is not altruistic, the result is positive, so I will support it.

[ April 12, 2003, 22:58: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

I know. Now that the press isn't 100% liberal, this is kinda fun.

Check out Ann Coulter's article here http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7214

She's as hot as she is right (right both logically and in the wing-ed-ness of her views )

Just found out ... Andy Rooney admited that he was wrong to oppose Bush and this war. http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/4/10/85647 This is HUGE!

[ April 10, 2003, 20:03: Message edited by: Mathetais ]

 

From the article linked:
"Liberals are no longer a threat to the nation."

Could you gentlemen be any more psychotic?

 

No, I'm about as psychotic as possible. And I don't agree with that statement either. I just like her overview of the Dixie Chicks, Pearl Jam stuff.

Nice to see ya ArtE!

 

Art,

You quote one line out of an article that neither of us wrote, and then call us psychotic?

OK. You are entitled to your opinion.

However, I would be more interested in hearing a rebutle to the subject, as I am assuming you don't agree.

 

Well Dark, assume anything you like.

However, the psychotic comment... hmm, unfair? Maybe. Complete intolerance toward a group of individuals who think differently than you, and creating a solid dividing line of, "Us vs. Them" evokes that sort of response out of me. Yes its ironic, that I'm intolerant of the intolerance, don't bore me by calling me a hypocrit. Sorry, the, "Republicans saved the free world, Democrats are evil" thing just gets my hackles up. Sort of makes you wonder why Bush (or Anne Coutler) didn't invade say... Rhode Island instead of Iraq.

There is no point in rebuting the topic, as I know from lots of experience here, that there is no discussion to be had. Denying it is pointless. What results is an endless point/counterpoint that goes on, with no one side listening to the other until everyone gets too bored to continue. We can all draw from plainly biased sources, or veiled biased sources, it doesn't matter, you and I would not be here to actually listen to one another but to simply pick apart each others argument with an endless supply of links, quotes... or whatever.

Ok I will concede, Pearl Jam and the Dixie Chicks suck, but that's besides the point.

 

Spoken like a true SP vet.

 

Darkwolf the Democrats cant stop the republicans from passing just about anything they want right now.I had heard Republican senators are at the forefront of striking down the tax cuts,they have a war to pay for.

I tend to agree with Arte,but what the heck I am a sucker so I will join in this debate anyway.

Wellfare is a tricky thing.Its difficult to make efective programs and have enough money to do what you realy need to get people jobs,educate them or teach them a skill.Maybe you know of some programs the Republican Party runs and link us to them.

The truth is though I think the two party system is on its last legs.I would like to see a third or even a fourth party rise up with enough power to affect things.

[ April 11, 2003, 10:02: Message edited by: Dorion Blackstar ]

 

Actually, the Dems can stop the Republicans from getting any thing that the Dems don't want. The Republicans do not have enough seats to break a filibuster, so the Dems also effectively hold a veto by simply refusing to allow a bill to come to a vote.

They also can find liberal Repubs and offer a deal down the road, you vote against your party on this, and we will back you on that. Happens all the time!

I hope you are right about the 2 party system ending. As I stated above, I am not affiliated with the Republican party. My views tend to be more conservative, but I am more closely aligned with Libertarian views than any other party that I am aware of.

Ain't politics grand!

 

Yes you could filibuster,but you can't just do that to everything.It's a tough strategy to use on a consitent basis.Use it too often and people see you as just trying to hold up goverment.

 

For those of us who hold to Jeffereson's belief that "the government that governs least governs best" (paraphrased), one side stopping the other from launching some new scheme isn't always a bad thing - no matter which side is doing the stopping.

 

The following quote is from Chandos at: http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000253

The discussion was getting way of topic so I decided to shift it here, hope Chandos doesn't mind.

Lets see:

Bush took office on January 12th of 2001.

On January 20 of 2000 the DJIA closed at 11489.37.
On January 19 of 2001 the DJIA closed at 10587.59.

It was already on the way down. Unfortunately for those who gambled to heavily (me included), the accounting scandals that occurred under the CLINTON administration started being exposed to insiders, and under whose administration were they disclosed? Bush 43. The accounting that led to the scandals was booked under the adulterer's administration.

You are right about the unemployment rates. They would be higher today than in Clinton's last years of office regardless of what anyone did because you just can't keep selling out the future forever. However they wouldn't have to be as high as they are now except for the fact that the negligent behavior of Clinton has put us in a position of slow economic recovery from the recession, the symptoms of which were already rearing their ugly head before Bush beat Gore in the election. If Clinton would have handled the rising terrorist threat in some manner that didn't make America look weak (lobbing cruise missiles into the desert at long abandoned training camps pretty much showed Bubbas' military and foreign policy IQ), hadn't cut the military and intelligence agencies to continue to prop up his ever decreasing "surplus" (which, like the Enron and WorldCom profits never existed, they were just some fancy accounting), and had been paying attention to how the labor unions in this country were strangling industry, we wouldn't be in this spot. Of course, he wouldn't have a bunch of sycophants to praise him for the great economy. To bad they won't admit he bought at the cost of the future (funny, that would be NOW! )

As far as the deficit, so what! Every recession should be marked by deficit spending. Not an increase in spending, just maintaining status quo. Raising taxes while in a recession is like putting leaches on someone who is dying of internal bleeding! The fastest way to eliminate the deficit is to grow the economy, something that the Dems cannot allow to happen if they are to have a chance in the 2004 elections. It is simple economics, cut taxes (on those who pay taxes), allow them to invest and spend this money, watch the economy grow, and watch your tax revenues increase. It has even been proven historically. Why do you think that every socialist country in the world is going through enormous economic problems? Their governments think that they can spend better than their citizens, so they tax at 80% and their economies wither away.

Government is not efficient. It is necessary, but only in the most minimal manner possible. Amazing that a bunch of men without the benefits of cable tv, computers, research facilities, and spin-doctors figured that out over 200 years ago, but we still don't get it today.

Which brings us to our last point. Where are the largest growth areas of the government since Bush won the election? Airport screeners, military, intelligence, and law enforcement. Lets see, why do we need all these to grow? If anyone hasn't figured it out, I will give a hint, scroll up. I wish the Republicans would have grown a backbone on the issue of federalizing the airport screeners, but they, probably rightfully, were afraid that the Democrats would use it against them in the mid-term elections, so they caved (I still say, shame, shame, shame on you for that W!).

The economy is cyclical in nature. It rises and falls, and it is impossible to prevent either forever. That is not to say that the government cannot buffer the effects. However when you artificially stimulate it for an extended period, it behaves just like a drug addict when they crash. The longer and more soaring the high, the deeper and harder the low, and that is exactly what Clinton did for at least 3 years, and more likely 5 years. Now we get to enjoy the detox, just like we did in the 80's.

I really think Reagan was speaking to liberals with that one.

[ April 12, 2003, 04:10: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

Its interesting how you blame everything on CLinton.If I recall correctly when he took office the economy was failing thanks to Bush and Reagan.After he took office the economy began to recover within the first two years.

Your attacks on his foriegn policy also kind of amuse me.Do you think even for a minute the US much less the world would of supported any kind of direct attack on terrorists anywhere.Also lets not forget when he went into Bosnia we heard nothing but griping from the republicans.

PS lets not forget when Reagan lied on the stand over the Iran Contra hearings."I have no recolection of giving this order" please.

The truth is I didnt like Clinton all that much either but beleive it or not he ran the country faily well.You just cant deny the strong economy we had under his "leadership".And being "impeached" without any loss of power hardly counts.So what if he had sex with his intern and lied about it.Reagan lied about selling weapons to rebels that were killing civilians.

Still waiting paitently for any social programs by the republicans.

[ April 12, 2003, 05:51: Message edited by: Dorion Blackstar ]

 

Really now, Darkwolf, you've just dealt your credibility a serious blow. You can't honestly be blaming Clinton for the decisions of a bunch of corporate CEOs. Was there an administration rep in every boardroom, forcing all those companies to commit fraud? I think not. And while I don't have the statistics at my fingertips, I believe that the biggest fraud of them all - Ken Lay - was a major financial supporter of Bush 43 even while he was Guvnor Dubya.

You generally raise very good topics for discussion and are a wealth of information, but this is one of the times when your extreme distaste for Clinton has tampered with your good sense.

 

So Ken Lay was a supporter of Bush, the CEO of Global Crossing, the largest telecom bankruptcy ever, prior to WorldCom, was a huge supporter of Clinton and the Democratic Party. It is pointles, but we can play tit-for-tat forever if you like.

I will admit that Clinton is not totally responsible for the accounting nightmares, he certainly would have to be held responsible for them before W. would be. W. wasn't even President when most of them were happening.

 

Darkwolf wrote:

Oops, that's exact my point of view. Darkwolf, thank you for that quote, I never ever have seen the shortcomings of republican politics so well described

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1778681.stm

I just wonder, how the goverment will pay for those expenses without rising taxes. If I interpret the article right, then the military expenses now are much higher, because neither the war not the occupation of Iraq was included.

And I think it's a huge gamble, if anyone expects to proft from Iraqi oil to pay for those expenses.

PS: IMHO, republicans (Regean, Bush Sr., Bush Jr.) have a history of rising goverment expenditure to always new heights.

[ April 12, 2003, 15:12: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Actually, I think the ONLY people responsible for the corporate accounting scandals are:
* the corporate executives who made the decisions to pursue illegal activities
* corporate employees or contractors who knew about them and didn't blow the whistle
* any SEC or other regulatory personnel who ACTIVELY looked the other way and let them go through.

The presidential administration has almost nothing to do with it and shouldn't bear any blame, IMO.

 

Rallymama, you go girl. Can I just add one to your list:

* Major shareholders, especially the powerful ones like pension funds, who do not bother to vote on company policy or show up at an annual meeting to stress that they expect a high standard of ethics from their employees (i.e. the CEO and the board of directors)

Corporations are like democratic countries. The consumers are the voters/taxpayers, the shareholders are the Senate. They all bear a certain amount of responsibility for what the guy at the top does.

 

Darkwolf -- I don't mind that you moved our debate on the economy to this thread at all. Others have already responded to a number of your points very well - thank you, Rally and Yago - so I won't be redundate. But I did want to take up two issues:

First, You know as well as I do that Shrub did not beat Al Gore in the election; he was appointed by the supreme court. But that is off topic so I won't spend time on it.

But since this topic is about the economy let's talk about the ever growing, giant corporate welfare state that the republicans and democrats have created. IMO this is where the government affects the economy the most. The reason we have this current state is because large corporations donate money to candidates and then semd their lobbies to Washington to get policy makers to write legislation that is very favorable to them.

As most everyone knows, John McCain championed against this situation in the 2000 election and lost (and I would have voted for him over Al Gore, but not over Nader). The reason I bring this up is because on the ohter thread you gave me that old baloney about how giving Halliburton the contracts would do more good for the economy in the long run -- classic trickle down theory stuff.

That theory has only added to the corporate welfare state that we now find ourselves in. Your idea that making the rich ever richer and that somehow it gets down to the average American only encourages large coporations to continue to have an overbearing influence on how policy is written by legislators who are supposed to represent the people who legitimately elected them. It also creates the very conflict of issues between government officials and taxpayer money as we now see happening with the rebuilding of Iraq (i.e. Cheney - Halliburton).

Also, as to the 2.5 billion that I think would be better spent on feeding hungry children here at home -- What do you think those families would do with the money? They would go the grocery store and spend the money, which would also create the same kind of economic stimulus that you say giving the money to the rich would create. In this way the economy would grow from the inside-out instead of the top-down method that you are so keen on. I know that they don't have the lobbyists and high powered PR men that large corporations do, but the poor could use a break sometimes also, Darkwolf.

 

Clinton enjoyed the fruits of the labors of the Reagan administration. Reagan was no more economically intelligent that Clinton. Hell, Clinton was and is a genius. I will even say that he was probably the most intelligent president in modern history, but he used his intelligence selfishly. Reagan had incredible common sense. He went out and got the smartest people he could find, and even he admitted that getting smart people in government was almost impossible, and let them do their jobs. It got him in trouble in the Iran-Contra scandal, but it also resulted in a period of unprecedented economic growth. I am not going to teach Econ 3303 in this forum, but any honest economist will tell you that the programs initiated by Reagan's administration led to the unprecedented growth of the early 90s. The "surplus" was not a result of the brilliance of Clinton; he was just the one who got to receive the benefits of Reagan's "Bite the Bullet" economic plan. They will also tell you the Clinton used artificial means, and unsound accounting (by the government) to continue this growth far beyond what should have been its natural end.

Chandos, what new industry and jobs are created by the expenditure of money in a welfare system? Does welfare develop new technology? Does welfare even encourage the efficient distribution of resources? Quite to the contrary, it is inefficient because you are taking money from someone who is producing something and giving it to someone who produces nothing. An entire level of production is lost, because instead of passing this money to someone who was in turn producing a good or service, it went it someone who makes nothing. A dollar spent by private industry turns over approximately 10 to 13 times before it is dissolved; that some dollar spent by the government on welfare turns over 6 to 9 times.

Good economics and good feelings don't always go together, just like good medicine often tastes really bad, but you still should take it!