George W. Bush - now and then...
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:55:58 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  George W. Bush - now and then...
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Which comes closest to where you were then and R now?
#1
A I voted* for Bush at least once and regret doing so.
 
#2
B I voted* against Bush twice and regret doing so.
 
#3
C I voted* for Bush and don't regret it.
 
#4
D I voted* against Bush and don't regret it.
 
#5
E I didn't vote, could have, and regret not voting for Bush
 
#6
F I didn't vote, could have, and regret not voting against Bush
 
#7
G write in - please explain in post
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 46

Author Topic: George W. Bush - now and then...  (Read 2532 times)
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2007, 09:02:51 PM »

But tell me what exactly you think Gore or Kerry would have done worse than Bush.
I think taxes would be higher.  Gore campaigned against Bush's tax cuts and Kerry campaigned on repealing them.
Yeah, they would be.  But then again the budget deficit wouldn't be so high.

After Bush raised taxes in 1990, the deficit grew for three straight years.  Raising taxes doesn't fix your budget problem if you help induce a recession (In Gore's case he'd be deepening a recession that was already going to happen in 2001 anyway).

I don't think it's likely that raising taxes strengthens the budget if it deepens a recession and shrinks your tax base.  It certainly didn't fix the budget in 1990.

I think the budget would be more bloated, and I think the rabid spending from the new Democratic Congress ($21 billion in earmarks on just one bill!) is proof enough that Democrats are no longer the party of Clinton and Rubin on bedget issues.  Just look at Rx drugs.  Bush's bill is bad enough, but the Democrats proposed alternative would have cost $300 billion more by their own estimates.
I disagree.  The only time we've had a reasonable budget is when we had a Dem White House and a Republican Congress.

That's not accurate.  We've had reasonable budgets in the past with far different arrangements than the split government of the 1990s.

Afghanistan would be in worse shape.  Kerry talked about wiping out the opium crop, which is pretty short sighted.  Wipe out the opium and you wipe out the income of Afghan farmers, and unless you can replace that income with something you're going to find farmers suddenly more sympathetic to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.  High opium production is a small price to pay for peace in the hills outside Kandahar.

Truth be told, there's no way to wipe out the opium crop in Afghanistan.

But there is a way to alienate rural farmers without accomplishing anything productive, and Senator Kerry found it.

Things in Iraq would also be worse.  Kerry was not a strong leader, and could not have resisted pressure from his party to withdraw from Iraq.  We'd have retreated by now and Muqtada al-Sadr would already be the Supreme Leader of Iranian Manchuko.
Umm ... no.  Bush is not a strong leader.  He's just a stubborn fool who refuses input from others.  Kerry would probably be in the process of pulling us out of Iraq.  But we would have wider committment from international forces.

The "wider commitment from international forces" seems unrealistic.  I see no reason to think that John Kerry could have gotten troop commitments from anyone who wasn't already there.  This is a sort of Deus ex machine, an implausible resolution to an intractable problem.

While Bush is stubborn and a fool, that doesn't refute the point that Kerry is still weak.  He repeatedly showed he was unable to resist pressure from his party's base, most famously in his vote on the $87 billion supplemental in 2004.  He backed the supplemental until he realized Howard Dean was gaining in primary states, and he promptly switched sides.  Does anyone have a reason that would convince me that once elected, Kerry would no longer be willing to kowtow to his fringe base given that he had spent over 20 years kowtowing to that very base?
Logged
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,767


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2007, 10:21:59 PM »

Chavez
He's happily driving up the price of oil by withholding sales to the US and selling to India and China.  He's far from dependent on us.


Gore/Bush Taxes & Budgets
Well, conservatives on here are fond of pointing out that HW Bush was pushed into breaking his "no new taxes" pledge.  The simple truth is that Reagan took the top tax bracket down from 70% to 33%.  There really isn't that much more to amend the income tax system.

I don't know how you can honestly believe that a Democratic President and Republican Congress would cooperate to spend more than a single party government (especially one where the President NEVER veto'd a single bill).  If you honestly believe that you are either stubbornly partisan OR totally mad.


Katrina
When the White House finally dumped Michael Brown is when things turned around.  If the President hadn't been vacationing that would have happened sooner.

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding the size of the military.  Personally I think you are being stubbornly partisan in refusing to believe that Kerry would have done it.

Regardless of whether the lack of cooperation between federal and state officials was Bush's fault or Blanco's fault ... it happened.  And it probably wouldn't have happened if Kerry were in office OR if a Republican had been Gov of LA.  It is what it is.

The difference between administrations effects on FEMA is at the top.  It is in leadership and coordination between officials.


Kerry Growing the Military
Again, I think you are being blatantly obstinent.  So you don't believe Kerry would have enlarged the military.  So what do you think he would have done regarding Iraq?  His stated policy was not to pull out but rather to share the committment with international forces.  It is no skin off his nose to grow the military now that he is Commander-in-Chief.

If you actually go back throw the votes, Kerry voted against new weapons systems but he never votes against enlarging the military.


Tax Policy's Impact On Deficits
In order to have a significant impact on the economy with tax policy you have to make a dramatic cut that has broad impact (such as moving the top tax bracket down almost 40%).  Bush's slight raise didn't cause the recession.  The recession came from the long-term deficits raising interest rates.  The greatest economic minds of our time, Alan Greenspan, Warren Buffet, George Akerlof, etc all agree that long-term deficits are bad.


Afghan Opium Crop Destruction
You argue that Kerry wouldn't grow military but you do think he would try to destroy the opium crop.  Ok, there simply is no way America can actually destroy the entire opium crop.  Even if we wanted to do that we'd have to get the agreement of the Afghan government and they would argue against it.


Wider Committment of Other Nations in Iraq
The reason why Kerry would be able to get wider international support is because he wanted to open up the rebuilding contracts to international firms.  If there is no economic reason to support a project, why would you expect foreign powers to put their troops behind it?
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 21, 2007, 11:58:19 PM »

Chavez
He's happily driving up the price of oil by withholding sales to the US and selling to India and China.  He's far from dependent on us.

He is one of our top sources of oil.  It is simply false to say he's withholding sales from us.

Gore/Bush Taxes & Budgets
Well, conservatives on here are fond of pointing out that HW Bush was pushed into breaking his "no new taxes" pledge.  The simple truth is that Reagan took the top tax bracket down from 70% to 33%.  There really isn't that much more to amend the income tax system.

I don't know how you can honestly believe that a Democratic President and Republican Congress would cooperate to spend more than a single party government (especially one where the President NEVER veto'd a single bill).  If you honestly believe that you are either stubbornly partisan OR totally mad.

And I think its partisan for you to deny that the party of bigger government actually wants bigger government.

Katrina
When the White House finally dumped Michael Brown is when things turned around.  If the President hadn't been vacationing that would have happened sooner.


We'll have to agree to disagree regarding the size of the military.  Personally I think you are being stubbornly partisan in refusing to believe that Kerry would have done it.

Again, you are living in a partisan fantasy world when you ignore John Kerry's 20 year voting record and say he'd have enlarged the military.

Regardless of whether the lack of cooperation between federal and state officials was Bush's fault or Blanco's fault ... it happened.  And it probably wouldn't have happened if Kerry were in office OR if a Republican had been Gov of LA.  It is what it is.

So your argument boils down to "Kerry would have benefitted from the crippling partisanship of kathleen Blanco so he'd be a better President."?

That is, to put it mildly, perverse.

The difference between administrations effects on FEMA is at the top.  It is in leadership and coordination between officials.

Like, say, coordination between the Governor of Louisiana and the President?

Kerry Growing the Military
Again, I think you are being blatantly obstinent.  So you don't believe Kerry would have enlarged the military.  So what do you think he would have done regarding Iraq?  His stated policy was not to pull out but rather to share the committment with international forces.  It is no skin off his nose to grow the military now that he is Commander-in-Chief.

This is the problem with your whole debating style, Wakie.  I don't agree with you so I'm obstinant?

Look, the guy has a 20 year record of voting to cut defense budgets, to eliminate whole weapon systems, slash the size of the Navy , and shrink the size of the Army.  You call me partisan and then ask me to take John Kerry at his word when he makes a campaign promise to do something that is the exact opposite of what he's been doing since he got to the Senate.  I am not willing to make the leap of faith that you make.  unlike you, I don't just take a politicians word for it, I make him show me he's telling the truth through his voting record.

If you actually go back throw the votes, Kerry voted against new weapons systems but he never votes against enlarging the military.

Actually, he did vote for a smaller military.  By voting for several omnibus appropriations bills in the 1990s that reduced the size of the army without protest he did indeed vote to reduce the size of the army.

Tax Policy's Impact On Deficits
In order to have a significant impact on the economy with tax policy you have to make a dramatic cut that has broad impact (such as moving the top tax bracket down almost 40%).  Bush's slight raise didn't cause the recession.  The recession came from the long-term deficits raising interest rates.  The greatest economic minds of our time, Alan Greenspan, Warren Buffet, George Akerlof, etc all agree that long-term deficits are bad.

That "slight" raise was a $137 billion tax increase.  Now you know why I don't trust Democrats on taxes, they call a $137 billion tax hike "slight" and then claim it has no effect on the economy.

Interest rates during Bush's term were fairly stable, but fell during the course of his four years.  So no, there wasn't a recession because of rising interest rates from deficit spending.

And even if deficits had been driving up interest rates, Bush's tax increase was followed by even larger deficits than before he raised taxes!  How can his tax increase be beneficial to the economy if it does nothing to shrink the deficit?

Of course I think big deficits are bad over a long period of time, and that's one of the reasons Bush's tax increase was such a failure: It did not reduce the deficit.  It simply did not.

Afghan Opium Crop Destruction
You argue that Kerry wouldn't grow military but you do think he would try to destroy the opium crop.  Ok, there simply is no way America can actually destroy the entire opium crop.  Even if we wanted to do that we'd have to get the agreement of the Afghan government and they would argue against it.

What I'm saying is Kerry wanted to send troops out into the Afghan countryside to wipe out opium fields.  I don't think he could have succeeded in destroying the opium crop, but his policy still would have generated huge resentment among Afghan farmers.

If you're going to have high opium production, at least make sure you have happy farmers.  if you're going to have angry farmers, make sure its because there's no opium.  But as you say Kerry's policy could not have hoped to succeed at wiping out the opium production.  The Kerry policy would have produced the worst of both worlds: It leaves us with angry rural farmers suddenly sympathetic to the Taliban without making a dent in opium production.

Wider Committment of Other Nations in Iraq
The reason why Kerry would be able to get wider international support is because he wanted to open up the rebuilding contracts to international firms.  If there is no economic reason to support a project, why would you expect foreign powers to put their troops behind it?

You think France is going to send ground troops into Iraq, a move that would have been wildly unpopular at home, because billion dollar French companies would have gotten to bid on reconstruction contracts?  That is totally implauible.  It reconfirms my view that you believ in a Deus ex machina solution for Iraq under a Kerry Presidency, a totally implausible solution to an otherwise intractible problem.

We were never going to get French or German troops into Iraq because they didn't want their kids dying in Mesopotamia and didn't think we should have waged the war in the first place.  It had nothing to do with reconstruction contracts, and believing otherwise is self delusion of the first order.
Logged
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,767


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 22, 2007, 01:54:16 AM »

Lets look at it this way.  When you don't control Congress it is very easy to say that you are the party of smaller government.  But over the last 12 years the Republicans have, despite their pledges to the contrary, grown government.  Nonmilitary, nonhomeland security discretionary spending grew by record levels under the Bush administration.  Much faster than under Clinton.

Both parties are the party of bigger government.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.231 seconds with 14 queries.