"Nucular" Bush-O-Meter: 11 - FINAL

that's it?
are you keeping track of how often he says "Saddam Hussein"?

Am I the only one that hates listening to him talk and his accent?

Seems like the speech-writers went out of their way to keep the number of "nucular"s to a minimum since no one has been able to teach the dolt to speak.

Why don't we stick to Hockey?

'cause I don't feel like it. Bite me

Isn't that a microcosm of the way things have been working:

Concerned Citizen (Age): What is happening to our economy?
Administration Stump (RedFan): Iraq is going to destroy us all!

Off topic discussions are quite alright on this board, you probably could have assumed that this topic was not about hockey from the subject line. If it's only hockey you are interested in, don't read the off topic posts.

And not that I don't completely agree with Age from a political perspective (I'm as pinko, socialist, bleeding-heart, left-wing commie as they come - well, almost), but... it's also a microcosm of Age, always the consummate gentleman, never starts a fight .

I only counted 10 (30 total "Saddam Hussein" or "Iraq", Judy), but I could've lost count, because I was playing the State of the Union Address Drinking Game.

I played that too.. it was sooo fun!

DONT MESS WITH TEXAS!

Matt Tyhach wrote:

DONT MESS WITH TEXAS!

TYHACH!

Man, he almost said that. The part where he alluded to the terrorists who are, ah, no longer with us, right? I think he was pretty much saying, "Hey, man, don't fuck with us!" More or less the same thing. )

Given that "Don't Mess with Texas" was an anti-litter campaign, does that mean the Lone Star State has started executing people for littering?

Had me a bizarro moment during the speech and I'm hoping somebody might remember what was being talked about at that point.

I had just finished watching a video (no, the speech wasn't my first priority, sorry), and in the process of switching the display/output/whatever from VCR to TV and then turning the TV off, I heard President George W. Bush speak a single word: "...mustard."

Do I really want to know??

Actually, I suspect the word was "mustered", as in pulling together a bunch of troops to go wreak havoc on somebody George doesn't like.

Bill Fenwick wrote:

I heard President George W. Bush speak a single word: "...mustard."

It was the tail end of his favorite barbecue recipe...

not that it matters much, but i think bush uttered the word 'nucular' 12 (not 11) times...

Actually, he was talking about potential chemical weapons re: Iraq.

"...sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent..."

I'm a moderate and have voted for both Dems and Reps before. I thought it was a good speech and I plan to vote to re-elect Bush to the White House. I wonder if those of you questioning the war even have relatives or friends in the military? I do, and they're all very eager to protect our freedom. We live in a dangerous time and instead of second guessing the motives of our leaders, we should be rallying around the rank and file members of our society who are so willing to sacrifice so much for all of us.

As for Bush, sure, he's not a great orator, but who really cares? As (Democrat) Mario Cuomo once said, "I write a budget sitting on my tush."

CowbellGuy wrote:

Actually, he was talking about potential chemical weapons re: Iraq.

"...sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent..."

Are you sure it wasn't the "vegetable" in the new school lunch program?

I'm not concerned about how he speaks as much as how he thinks (or fails to). And who has said anything anti-war here?

I don't care to discuss here how I do or don't feel about the war, but you are wrong, Adam, if you think we shouldn't second guess our leaders. Openly questioning our leaders before any action is taken is not only the rule, rather than the exception, in the United States, but it is the right from which all of the other rights flow. It becomes more important, not less, when the subject is war.

Take it in stride when people call the President a boob, because that is a great American tradition also.

Interesting quote from Mario Cuomo...

On a more serious note however, it is vital we question this battle that Bush seems overly eager to bring. To NOT question is un-American.

I'm encouraged that your friends in the military are eager to defend freedom. That is the main goal. But even beyond our short-term fears of our own casualties, our track record for protecting freedom (from future attacks) and saving lives with our military is shaky. Kuwaitis, despite owing their freedom in large part to the USA, don't like us. Afghanistan is still a mess, (where we killed just as many civilians as died in the North Tower) and Osama is believed still at large. "Nation-building" is easy to criticize, but deposing a regime and then telling people who have no love or experience of democracy, "make your government now on your own" doesn't work. See Afghanistan, Iran, etc.

Sorry to be so political on our good hockey site, but with everyone dancing around the question, I figured I'd leave a little note. I promise not to respond.

-Stewart

Yes, we should second guess our leaders but on matters of military intelligence, they know far more than we do. You might think invading Iraq is a bad idea but I doubt you know more than Bush, the CIA, the Pentagon. . . or the New York Times.

Not being a history major, can you tell me when we experimented with democarcy in Iran? I thought we propped up the Shah until the Revolution came. And interestingly, 20 years later the young people want democracy. The only thing really stopping it is the religious leaders. I agree that democracy would be a long time coming in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. Maybe it will take a generation.

I hardly see what the point is in comparing civilian casualties in Afghanistan to the North Tower of the WTC. I think Bush may have said this or perhaps Cheney or Rumsfeld: That we measure the success of a mission in destroying the target and minimizing civilian casualties. They measure success by the number of civilians they kill. That we only killed a several thousand civilians is quite remarkable. If we were truly the Great Satan wouldn't we have carpet bombed the whole country and left. If their brilliant leaders hadn't allied themselves with bin Laden they wouldn't have been in that mess. They had the chance to turn him over too. Just like Iraq has had 11 years to disarm.

big red apple wrote:

Take it in stride when people call the President a boob, because that is a great American tradition also.

Bill Clinton was a boob.

Oh wait, no, sorry, what I meant to say was, Bill Clinton LIKES boobs.

Stewart, with all due respect I don't understand how you can call our track record "shaky" when it comes to defending freedom and saving lives. In fact, as a relative of Holocaust survivers, I'm almost offended by that notion. See WWII and a little "nation building" something called the Marshall Plan.

And big red apple, "openly questioning our leaders" is not a rule that I know about. Especially in matters of national intelligence, as Bill points out. In fact, given our indirect representative system of democracy, the people's true (and most powerful) say comes at the ballot box. So until more than 50% of registered voters turn out to vote, don't go talking about exercising any rights to speak out against government action.

Bill R '94 wrote:

hat we measure the success of a mission in destroying the target and minimizing civilian casualties. They measure success by the number of civilians they kill. That we only killed a several thousand civilians is quite remarkable. If we were truly the Great Satan wouldn't we have carpet bombed the whole country and left.

"glass floored self lighting parking lot" was the phrase I was thinking of. But in a more local sense, why do combatants get blamed when enemy combatants hide among non-combatants, resulting in civilian deaths? Shouldn't the blame fall on the people that hide amongst civilians? US military protocol goes so far as to have infantry check their weapons at door of a field hospital to ensure that the hospital maintains its legal status.

With a sister and a brother-in-law on active duty in the Air Force, and a very close Cornell friend stationed in the Saudi desert, I'm absolutely in no hurry to attack Iraq. However, sometimes I wonder if we shouldn't just take off the kid gloves, topple a few regimes, and then suck it up and stick around to set up a democracy.

Look at the result of the occupation of both Germany and Japan following WWII as compared to later policies from the postcolonial period through the 90's. We had a chance to set up a democracy in Afganistan when the Soviets withdrew. But both the US and Britain dropped the ball and walked away for fear of looking like a colonial power. Frankly, in a post cold war climate, I'd rather the US be seen as a colonial hegemon that occupies countries until democracy can take over than continue to instead prop up US friendly dictators like the Shah, Marcos, Noriega, and King Saud.

Adam '01 wrote:

And big red apple, "openly questioning our leaders" is not a rule that I know about. Especially in matters of national intelligence, as Bill points out. In fact, given our indirect representative system of democracy, the people's true (and most powerful) say comes at the ballot box. So until more than 50% of registered voters turn out to vote, don't go talking about exercising any rights to speak out against government action.

Speaking of "national intelligence" (quite an issue right about now, I'd say), Brown admissions is running an ad on WQXR radio with the tag line: "Experience life in the Ivy League."

Adam '01 wrote:

And big red apple, "openly questioning our leaders" is not a rule that I know about. Especially in matters of national intelligence, as Bill points out. In fact, given our indirect representative system of democracy, the people's true (and most powerful) say comes at the ballot box. So until more than 50% of registered voters turn out to vote, don't go talking about exercising any rights to speak out against government action.

I don't know where you came up with that 50% stuff. *I* voted, so *I* have a right to speak out against government action. "Openly questioning our leaders" isn't a "rule", it's a right that we have in this country. That's the kind of thing that if we lose, the terrorists have won. Not if we stop going to baseball games or stop running up credit card bills, but if we start giving up the rights that we have and others don't.

Does anyone else find it slightly ironic to invoke democratic elections as a reason not to question this particular president's plans?

Age wrote:

"And who has said anything anti-war here?"

to which I reply:

"War Sucks"

Rallying Roy

If war sucks, then go back to England with your relatives. It is because of war that America exists. Yes, that was a different situation back then, but it all still boils down to believing in our freedoms and rights as humans.

If Saddam has nuclear and chemical weapons, and other "weapons of mass destruction," then perhaps by starting a war now, we will be preventing WW III.
my $.02

Following that logic, since the United States has "nuclear and chemical weapons, and other "weapons of mass destruction", would you say that another nation attacking us was preventing WWIII?

Absolutely not. We are not a country ruled by 1 person, 1 sadistic a$%ole who kills his own people to test his weapons, and uses them as shields during war. Iraq is a 3rd world country, trying to arm themselves to become a power.

With an unstable leader, who could at anytime decide to kill millions and not blink about it, then the world can be a very dangerous place. I dont want to live it that world, no one does. He has nothing to lose by nuking the world.

To suggest that the United States has these weapons with the intent to harm millions, without provocation, is absurd.

The world has nothing to fear from us, so no one considers attacking us. Everyone has somthing to fear from Saddam. If we can stop him before he starts, then why not.

Besides, another nation attacking us would only start WWIII.

Drop the puck.

Referring to the beginning of this thread, whether you support the president or not, making fun of his speech mannerisms is not a very convincing way of getting your point across. In fact, it makes you sound like you don't have much of anything intelligent to say. Jon Stewart may be able to make it funny, but here it just appears as crass. (By the way, even if you don't have an accent or pronunciation problems, I challenge anyone to give an hour-long speech and have "nuclear" just roll off the tongue.)

Hey, I hope that you really do believe that war does suck. You see it does. However that doesn't mean that it may not be necessary at times, but for sure war does suck.

yes, war does suck, but for some circumstances, it is the only way.

So would someone mind telling me why it's a likely scenario for Iraq, but hasn't even been suggested for the equally uncooperative North Korea?

Tyhach, shut up and go back to Indiana.

Because we 1) suspect that NK is already nuclear and 2) Seoul, the likely target of the nuclear attack (and the capital of an ally) doesn't want us to play rough with the North Koreans.

The Onion had a great headline about all of this a while ago:

[q]US Pledges to Confer with Allies, then Do What it Was Going To[/q]

Whether or not Bush is an idiot is irrelevant. For morality of policy: Nixon was smart but lost, Kennedy was dumb but won. For effectiveness of policy: Carter was smart but lost, Reagan was dumb but won. They'd rather be lucky than bright.

None of our allies... save maybe Britain (but not 75% of it's citizens) want us to go to war with Iraq either. I understand that Iraq is dangerous and must be dealt with, but pretty much part 1) of your answer boils down to "because we can." Iraq doesn't have enough weapons, so therefore we can, cause they're not as dangerous. That's a wonderful precident. Whenever America doesn't like someone, we get rid of them if we can. I have a real problem with America deciding that we're the world's moral judge... whenever we suspect that anyone isn't behaving (so long as they're not strong) we can invade a country and dismantle a govemment?

Sure if they're actively killing millions (Kosovo) or invading other countries (Gulf War), that's one thing, but 'being evil in the eyes of America' is not an international war crime.

I agree that Saddam is an evil man, I agree Iraq is dangerous... but I think there's a higher principle here. We can't just do whatever we want. Moral absolutes bother me. We don't like him, so he's gone. He doesn't like us. It's too bad. We can encourage an overthrow, we can encourage reforms, but we can't just kick out whoever we feel like via military force. It's not responsible, it's not just.

I think you are ignoring a few things. The United Nations negotiated peace with Iraq required them to disarm and allow for inspections. They haven't been living up to their end of it. In many ways this is a continuation of the first Gulf War. It isn't quite the same as just dropping in on Iraq because we don't like their leadership.

I also disagree that encouraging an overthrow is somehow morally superior to an invasion. If you don't think we have the right to force a leadership change by one means you can't endorse it by another. Meddling is Meddling. Personally, I'm for either. And negotiating with guys like Sadam gets you nowhere. It didn't help the British with Hitler, it doesn't appear to have helped Clinton with North Korea. While we were sitting around patting ourselves on the back for another crisis averted they went right back to bomb making.

what happened to hockey?

Wait, you're actually saying it's ok for the leader of the free world to mispronounce a rather simple word, nuclear every time he says it in a State Of the Union Address?! With voters like you, it's no wonder he won the election (and probably will win again). God help us.

Didn't Carter also habitually mispronounce the word?

Anyway, you're forgetting that the five people whose votes got W into office all have law degrees.

The whole premise of the "Nucular" Bush-O-Meter is a crock. Carter mispronounced "nuclear" in exactly the same way Bush does. He also graduated from the Naval Academy with a degree in Nuclear Engineering. Accents are meaningless. West of the Mississippi, everybody thinks New Yorkers sound brain-damaged. Get over it.

Bush's policies empoverish the middle class while taking a steaming crap on freedom and tolerance. Those are good reasons to vote against him. Not because he talks like Gomer Pyle.

Which policies are you speaking of specifically, Greg? As I said before, I'm a moderate and I see problems with both the very conservative and very liberal points of view. The problem with liberals is that they spew this b.s. all the time, but never have any real evidence to back it up. Look at Jesse Jackson for example, a damn fine speaker cosmetically, but does anyone really understand on a substantive level a thing he's saying? If politics is emotion, governing surely is not. Instead of just talking about blanket "policies," be specific.

I only wonder why he insists on getting rid of the dividend tax for principality reasons, (he doesn't believe it's fair to double tax), yet when it comes to the double tax on Social Security (which affects much more the middle class), and is sometimes even a triple tax for those receiving it, he is mum. I made a whopping 22 dollars last year in dividends, I think I might actually save .82 with this tax elimination, yet Michael Eisner will save $4 million, the Walton family will save upwards of $18 million, and someone who donated a lot of money to Bush's campaign (can't remember the name) will save $1 million. Sounds to me like he just wants to benefit the people putting him in office. OTOH, the SS tax is absurd to begin with. You're only taxed up to $87,000. So for someone who is making that amount of money, that person is paying the full 6.7%. However for someone making twice as much as that, the percentage of their income going to SS is half as much. Is this fair, or even logical? And yet he won't get rid of the SS tax. So we are getting taxed on income we never even see. And I will never even see any of the fruits of my labor. Explain this policy to me, someone, because I thought I had a grasp on it. I'm glad Bush will get lots of donations come election campaigning time, but will have alienated anyone that might have voted for him.

Tax cut policy to be specific, Adam. What it amounts to is a significant shift of the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class.

And before you brand that "liberal b.s." so that you don't actually have to address it, consider the following system as an alternative that would both work and be fair.

Have a two number tax system: Flat Rate R and Single Exemption E. Each year Congress would as part of appropriations renew (changing if they wished) the two values. The rule is that the anticipated revenue generated by an {R, E} pairing would have to equal the year's anticipated outlays.

Each year there would be genuine political discussion on the effectiveness of different pairings. The rich would push for a low R and a low E, say {.1, 1k}. Everybody else would push for a high R and a high E, say {.5, 75k}. The compromise would reflect intelligent debate, not the gun-toting demagogery we have to hear now from both sides.

Now that system I would be in favor of. But not this Trojan Horse crap that Bush gives us, where he bribes us with $600 so (a) his cronies can have $600,000 and (b) so that he can bankrupt all social spending and then say down the line, "gee, sorry guys, but we just don't have the money." Not only is the administration's policy willfully dishonest. It's... well... it's just so tacky.

Neocon economists have their heads buried up their asses so far that they can't see that their own policy of radical tax regression hurts their own constituency (the rich). The middle class is the stabilizing element on the economy. When it prospers, the rich have more rubes to sell useless geegaws to and the poor have more taxpayers to sponge off. When it shrinks, everybody loses. The rich benefit the most from a stable economy because they have the most to lose, so they should be protecting the middle class golden-egg-laying goose, not trying to eat it.

It amazes me that the G.O.P. would still rather hoard a few shillings now than invest in a vibrant economy and rake it in later, but nobody every said American business interests were strong on the long view.

Greg wrote:

Bush's policies empoverish the middle class while taking a steaming crap on freedom and tolerance. Those are good reasons to vote against him. Not because he talks like Gomer Pyle.

Bush's policies (if you disagree with them) are a good reason to not vote for him.

The fact that he sounds silly when he speaks is a good reason to make fun of him. )

Or how about a flat tax cut?

Everyone gets 1000-1500 bucks, regardless of income. This would cost hundreds of billions of dollars less than Bush's plan, and stimulate the economy.

The downside is that Dick Cheney wouldn't get as hefty a tax cut

> The fact that he sounds silly when he speaks is a good reason to make fun of him.

True, but we have his daughters for that. Not that I would ever repeat that terrible joke about their recent 21st birthday, federally protected wetlands officially opened for drilling.

> Everyone gets 1000-1500 bucks, regardless of income. This would cost hundreds of billions of dollars less than Bush's plan, and stimulate the economy.

Yeah, but most of us would just waste it on some luxury like food, housing, or education. It's much better to give it to the wealthy because, as we all know, they "create jobs."

Greg, thanks for your explanation. Not a bad system at all. Might put a bit too much faith in the intelligence of the demand side, but overall seems sound. I'm more of a supply-sider myself, but I can certainly see where you're coming from (i.e. "the rich have more rubes to sell useless geegaws to."

Grant, though a flat tax "sounds" good in principle, I'm not sure it's so realistic. Steve Forbes, who arguably is the main spokesman for this idea, has no policymaking experience and my bet is that if ever elected he would find it much harder than he thinks to actually implement this system.

Just wanted to clarify that I support a flat tax cut, not a flat tax

Grant,

Got your meaning. But someone who's currently making $300,000 a year pay (I believe) somewhere in the range of $70,000 in taxes. How much a difference would $1000 make to them? Pretty much none at all? Why are we bothering to give money back to people who are swimming in it. And before you think I'm being self-serving, my parnents, between the two of them, who both work full time are pretty comfortable - not 300k perhaps, but living comfortably in the mid-upper 5 digits... and I don't think they should get a dime back... they don't need it, when it could much better go to schools and new jobs and the unemployed and social security and medicare and ... (oh, and btw, they agree).

And just to get an idea the #'s we're talking here, Newsweek has a chart with different kids of family's and what they'd get back. A two child family making $50,000 a year would have their taxes reducd ~40% - by about a total of $800 . A two child family making $300,000 a year with several thousand in dividend income would save a much lower % per year (can't recall exactly), but it worked out to over $20,000 / year! WHY?!? You could do such great things with that money, rather than giving it back to the people who are already rich.

The thing that bothered me about the Bush State of the Union (pronouciation aside, I prefer to make fun of his nonsensical phrases anyway), was how he proposed a multi-billion dollar war and a billion for fuel cell research and the huge campaign to prevent aids in Africa and the national mentor program all while reducing the "average family's" taxes to $45/year!

This Republican "have everything now" mentality is simply irresponsble. You can't have tons more and pay tons less, it just doesn't work that way. Can you say LARGEST GOV'T DEFICIT EVER. It'll foist the burden onto future generations < ahem > bankrupt social security and medicare and who knows what else. It's just reckless and downright stupid.

Grant MacIntyre '05 wrote:

Just wanted to clarify that I support a flat tax cut, not a flat tax

And therein lies the difference between regressive and antiregressive (retroregressive?) economic policy.

There has actually been some progress in disclosure lately, with Republican commentators admitting that the rich are getting the biggest benefits from the administration's tax cuts. Now if we can just get someone to stand up during the campaign and say "I want to cut taxes because I believe the rich are overtaxed". Maybe Frist will.

Adam: ok, a peace pipe to you, too.

Forbes' ideas were derivative of ideas that came out of Cato back when it was more than just a rubber stamp for the beltway neocons. They were okay, but there are better systems that aren't just an obvious tax dodge for, well, Steve Forbes. Anyway, I don't think of him as anything more than a pretender.

A flat tax won't ever happen for some bad reasons:

+ eliminates ambiguities in the laws, the lawyers' rice bowl
+ eliminates goodies politicians use to leverage contributions

and for some pretty good reasons:

+ has trouble handling dependents
+ eliminates the precious few deductions that are actually good for the country (e.g., first time homeownership, charity deductions, education deductions)

But it's where we should be aiming. Otherwise all we'll ever get is the same bribe/threat system we have now, where liberals scream WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN??!!! every time anybody wants to actually keep some of the money they've earned, and conservatives play the Bugs Bunny shell game "1 for you and 1 for me; 2 for you and 1... 2 for me; 3 for you and 1... 2... 3 for me."

> Why are we bothering to give money back to people who are swimming in it.

Same thing for social security. The dark little secret (although not very secret anymore) is that benefits go primarily to the upper middle class and wealthy, since naturally that's who paid the most in. Our politicians are taking the credit for giving us back our own money, less the lost interest -- gee thanks.

We could make these programs fiscally viable and not the cynical Ponzi schemes they are by being honest and saying "The New Deal marketing of this plan was an understandable but regrettable mistake. From now on, this is REALLY going to be a social insurance program, not an entitlement. That means if you don't need the money, you won't get it. You're rich, you've already won -- congratulations and thank you for helping your fellow man!" But we're too childish to actually elect politicians who would do that . We'd rather be promised rainbows and skittles and all go merrily into debtor hell with our illusions intact.

For that matter, it's nearly the same story for vouchers. Would the Bushies be pushing school vouchers if we said, "OK, fine. But they will be strictly needs-based. Little Erica will not be chauffered to Andover on the public tab"? Not likely. This policy is just another GOP dodge to make us pay the tab while their conies put their kids through prep school, with the added bonus of propping up the Bible schools so the next generation of Creationists can vote in more Republicans on the "Now let's burn down the Observatory so this will never happen again!" platform.

If we grew up as a country and made benefits strictly needs-indexed, we'd be in much better shape, financially and ethically. Too rational -- aint ever gonna happen.

I'm pretty much repulsed by both parties although I have always voted Republican. Since Cornell I've lived in Massachusetts and New York City so my votes have never mattered anyway. But here are my few thoughts:

Does anyone know how taxing all income for Social Security purposes would affect the solvency of the program? Or why it was set up this way in the first place? By this I mean capping the amount of income subjected to the SS tax. I get exceptionally frustrated when the Democrats convince senior citizens the "mean spirited" (one of their favorite phrases, after "wealthiest 1%" Republicans are trying to throw them to the wolves. Would one of them stand up and explain why it is fair to keep raising the SS tax rate as the number of workers per retired person drops? When the system was set up the average live span was 67 so the number of workers per SS recipient was quite high and the tax quite low. As the years have gone on they kept raising the tax rate to keep up with longer life spans. I tried explaining this on a CU list serv about 8 years ago and I got shouted down as being insensitive to old people. One of the women in the group said she paid into the system so the money was her "right." I tried to explain that actually a 1960 (or 1961) Supreme Court ruling said in fact that no, you have no legal claim on the money you pay in. It is a "pay as you program." Nonetheless, I took a beating in the group and in a not so polite way. As is typical of Democrats, they have no respect for other people's opinions and rather than explain themselves the call you "mean spirited" or "stupid" or worse. Putting aside the morality of caring for sick people, does anyone expect a system where medical costs rise faster than tax revenue to be solvent? Try raising that question with a Democrat and they'll beat you into submission with curses.

As for the dividend tax, I read an interesting proposal in which instead of eliminating the tax on investors, they should make dividend payments a deductible expense for corporations. They article suggested that the current rules encourage companies to borrow money rather than issue stock (and pay dividends) because interest is a deductible expense. Since corporate income tax is a smaller portion of federal tax income wouldn't this theoretically mean a smaller inpact on government revenue, especially if some of the dividend deductions merely replaced interest deductions? Just a thought.

I would rather hear a Democrat explain why we should double tax dividends or why we shouldn't change Social Security rather than hear them scream about Republican proposals benefiting for the rich. Myself and other conservatives get repulsed by the continued rhetoric against "the wealthiest 1%". Gore and Daschle seem to define wealth by having a high income. Obviously this isn't necessarily so. If you live on either coast where the cost of living is higher and state income taxes are higher, making $100,000 surely doesn't make you "wealthy". If they really want to pick on people, pick on the wealthiest 0.1%, the people making millions of dollars.

Lastly, the Democrats got mighty pissed off that the Republicans wanted to raise the amount you could contribute to an IRA, saying it was a gift to the wealthy. First of all, the amount had been stuck on $2000 for about 20 years. If SS benefits, standard deductions, etc. are all indexed to inflation, why wasn't the IRA limit? I think raising it to $5000 barely put it ahead of inflation for all of the years it was $2000. Shouldn't the Democrats want all of the middle income people to save as much for retirement? If the amount of the contribution is a fixed dollar amount it can't benefit the wealthy any more than a middle income person that can afford to make the full contribution. Again, they are missing the distinction between well off and rich.

Another point: I am all for spending more money on the schools. I just wish the Democrats would admit that the teachers union is just as much a "special interest" (their third favorite phrase) as any corporate donor. I can't help but be skeptical of them when the California teachers lobbied to set curriculums locally because without uniform curriculums it would be difficult if not impossible to apply standardized tests statewide. It had been proposed that these test scores would be one way of identifying sub par teachers. If they don't want the tests then should come out and say so and give a good reason.

"Myself and other conservatives get repulsed ..."
What's wrong with the simple--and grammatically correct in this case--pronoun "I?"

Or is the problem that so-called conservatives can only think about...myself?

If you think it's tough to live on the east coast with a $100,000 income, try it on $15,000. You might learn to like some of the government programs you are so "repulsed" by.

"For that matter, it's nearly the same story for vouchers. Would the Bushies be pushing school vouchers if we said, "OK, fine. But they will be strictly needs-based. Little Erica will not be chauffered to Andover on the public tab"? Not likely. This policy is just another GOP dodge to make us pay the tab while their conies put their kids through prep school, with the added bonus of propping up the Bible schools so the next generation of Creationists can vote in more Republicans on the "Now let's burn down the Observatory so this will never happen again!" platform."

And Republicans are mean spirited?

First of all, I barely understand your position on sending Republican kids to Andover. Of course it should be need based. I would wager that most of the residents of a failing school district are going to be low income. If it were NYC and a wealthy person lived in a bad school district but was going to send their kid to a prep school anyway then I agree, make an income test. Democrats say they want to fix education. That's great but it isn't going to happen overnight which does absolutely no good to the kids in the broken schools today. Is Al Gore going to go to PS whatever in Harlem and explain to some 8 year old that he can't go to a private school. Hopefully we'll fix it all by the time your little brother comes through. You, however, are out of luck.

The whole church-state issue is a smokescreen created by the teachers unions to save their own jobs. Do you really believe a child's education is the primary reason they formed a union? And any voucher system would have voluntary participation so the idea that Republicans are trying to funnel kids into Catholic schools is absurd.

I don't understand why people always tab the Republicans as the party of the rich. Per capita, according to the last Michigan model numbers, voting Democrats make more money than voting Republicans. For every poor inner-city Democrat, there is a poor rural farming Republican. While Democrats consistantly carry "rich" states like New York and California, Republicans carry "poor" states like Mississippi and Idaho. And let us remember that for every greedy big business Republican, there is a greedy trial lawyer Democrat just waiting to litigate the legislation that their buddies in Congress passed for them.

Another point I would like to make that nails both sides but I'll mostly criticize the stupidity of the language Democrats use. First, I think the Bush tax cuts were a bad idea - and I voted for him. But to imply that the deficits of today are entirely his fault is not really fair. Clinton was extremely lucky that Al Gore invented the internet. The boom in jobs and the bubble of the stock market greatly inflated the tax revenues of the 1990s. Ordinary people as well as the wealthy paid lots in capital gains taxes in the 1990s. And many more people were employed than most economists thought possible. I remember from my econ classes on the Hill that most economists pegged structural unemployment (is that the right term?) at 5%. At the height of the internet boom unemployment was just over 3%. With that comes more payroll taxes for the government.

With the stockmarket crash comes much lower capital gains revenue. I think I read that California was measuring the drop in state taxes from capital gains and stock option exercises in the billions. And when people have losses they can offset their ordinary income which results in even lower income tax revenue.

And does anyone really believe the President can steer the economy any better than I could steer an oil tanker? The reason many companies aren't making capital expenditures now is because collectively they over expanded during the 1990s. The world can make far more cars, microchips, etc. than it needs. Forget that government deficits drives up long term interest rates. Those rates are still very low historically and companies still aren't borrowing. Why? Because they know they won't sell enough products at high enough prices to earn a return on the investment. This has nothing to do with tax cuts, or war. and the decline started in 2000 while Bush was still governor of Texas. Do we blame Clinton for this recession? Do you think things would still be rosy and the Nasdaq at 5000 if Al Gore were president?

Let it be known that I do not consider myself a Republican or a Democrat, or a conservative or a liberal. I don't even know what any of those labels mean. I just believe what I believe, regardless of what "party" those beliefs may fall into. Again, my biggest beef with mr. prez is what he says, not necessarily what he does. He tells us something when we all know he completely means something else. He has planned on going to war since Day 1 and this stuff about how "only if Iraq doesn't comply with the inspections" rhetoric is just bs to appease all the other countries. After all, maddas tried to killed his daddy. Now it's personal. No one should be so eager to jump into a war that 68% of Americans and nearly all of Europe and the rest of the world isn't even sure should occur. And it's not fair to say that Bush knows more than the rest of the civilized world. And as for the taxes, why say he's eliminating double taxes for the principle of it, if he's not going to eliminate all double taxes. Aren't they all unfair? That's not the reason, and you know that, and for him to think we actually believe him, well, then he's a complete idiot. And I'm honestly scared to death of the shambles of an economy he is going to leave us in.


ps. what's with little erica going to andover? I would never go to a private school... )

Here we go. Rather than say something intelligent you attack my grammar. How typical.
.

Adam,

Republicans are the party of the rich because they favor plans that make the rich richer, not necessarily because of the demographic makeup of the party.

Besides, I have always been confused as to why poor farmers favor the Republican party. If there are chemicals (arsenic) in the drinking water and smog in the air, how much longer can sustainable agriculture last?

And Bill, I think the income comment was rather intelligent.

Adam '01 wrote:

I don't understand why people always tab the Republicans as the party of the rich. Per capita, according to the last Michigan model numbers, voting Democrats make more money than voting Republicans. For every poor inner-city Democrat, there is a poor rural farming Republican. While Democrats consistantly carry "rich" states like New York and California, Republicans carry "poor" states like Mississippi and Idaho. And let us remember that for every greedy big business Republican, there is a greedy trial lawyer Democrat just waiting to litigate the legislation that their buddies in Congress passed for them.

Republicans carry "poor" states like Mississippi and Idaho because there's more to a party's complete policy stance than economics, there's also social policy.

Again, do you really believe Bush is entirely responsible for the current state of the economy? Seriously, outline it for me because I think the economy is far beyond the control of one person. Tax cuts, interest rate changes, etc. do not cause immediate effects. Give me your best explanation. Really.

Excuse me if I don't care what Europe thinks. Rather than have a rational discussion they call our Republican presidents "cowboys". Besides, what do they have to be afraid of? Terrorists aren't going to nuke London or Hamburg. That's where they live.)

You really need to get over this terrible obsession you have with "Democrats," Bill. Just go back and reread the incredibly strident language you use every time you mention "them." Rather frightening, actually. Not good for your blood pressure--or your credibility.

Don't mind if I poke my head in. No one cares if you care what Europe thinks. But obviously President Bush does, or at least he should. They are called allies. I'm sorry, but he's not going to be able to fight a war without them. And calling him a cowboy, so what? Why is that an insult? He is a cowboy. Is that worse then saying three countries represent the axis of evil? Or calling the German-Franco alliance old Europe? what the heck is that supposed to mean?

Josh, I think any political scientist or economist worth the value of their sweat socks would argue that economic policy and social policy are the exact same thing. They are not independant circuits and are invariably intertwined with each other.

For example, we might call education a "social" issue....until of course we talk about vouchers, local taxation, teacher pay, unions, government contracts, etc etc. Then suddenly our "social" issue becomes a decidedly "economic" issue.

I honestly don't think I said anything very harsh. I actually posed some questions about the positions of both parties. I asked multiple people to further explain their statements. No response. What I get is that I have an "obsession" and a correction of my grammar. Are you going to critique the dozens of people here with nothing more constructive to say than "Bush is stupid" and that he does favors for his "cronies." Seriously, that's a question not an indictment of your comments. Why is it ok to attack conservatives but when I raise some questions I get put down?

Funny thing about Europe. They don't matter. They're about as irrelevant as Gartman. And guess what, when push comes to shove, they'll all fall into place. For example, see today's news about the EU 8 jumping aboard.

"No one cares if you care what Europe thinks."
I would never say that to anyone on this board. I care that you have opinions and I'll respect you even if you disagree with me. Doesn't mean I have to like what you have to say. Again, I think I've raised some questions here about statements made by some Democratic leaders. Rather than defend the policy I've received insults and health advice about lowering my blood pressure.
I was hoping for some actual debate, exchange of ideas, something more than "Bush Sucks."

I was commenting on your "excuse me if I don't care what Europe thinks" comment after Erica said that you should be wary of going to fight a war that the majority of the rest of the world disagrees with. What I meant was, it doesn't matter what your personal opinion on the matter is because you are not making the decision, but Bush should think twice about fighting such a war when he clearly needs these allies in order to win. I am trying to sustain a debate as well. IT just seems like more people here disagree with you, thus it may seem as if you are being bashed. But really it is not you personally....

While I agree with Bill R on few things on this thread, I do agree that his comments deserved more than grammar and blood-pressure comments...

[Q]Again, do you really believe Bush is entirely responsible for the current state of the economy? Seriously, outline it for me because I think the economy is far beyond the control of one person. Tax cuts, interest rate changes, etc. do not cause immediate effects. Give me your best explanation. Really.[/Q]
I have taken a year of Economics at Cornell and I left it with one overall opinion... it's all voodoo... and not the Reagan kind. More specifically, it's all expectations. If people expect a good economy, they spend more, invest more, which pushes the GDP and incomes higher. When they expect things to get worse, then hold back and save, which slows down the economy, and starts everything spiraling downhill. When Bush got into office he was so deadset and pigheaded about getting his tax cut for the wealthy (see my previous post for defense of that opinion), that he started talking about how things were going downhill and looked bad, and how the taxcut was desperately needed to give the eonomy a kick.

Citizens who had been happily spending started thinking "uh oh" and slowed down... essentially a self-fulfulling prophecy to hurt the economy for a tax cut that had little to no effect anyway. Just as tunnel-vision pigheaded as he's being about this 'war' (it's really a slaughter - we haven't fought a war in a long time).

Not don't get me wrong and think I'm saying Bush was lying. Some president (forgive my lack of memory from sophomore year - Truman or a Roosevelt or someone) once said he wished there was such a thing as a one-handed economist. Because economists 'always' evaluate politices by saying "on one hand..., but on the other hand...". So what I'm saying is that Bush had good signs and bad signs about the economy, he chose to harp on the bad ones and screwed us over by doing it. I really believe that. I really feel that the summer after my sophomore year, I was 500 votes in Florida away from having a good summer job.

[Q]I would wager that most of the residents of a failing school district are going to be low income. If it were NYC and a wealthy person lived in a bad school district but was going to send their kid to a prep school anyway then I agree, make an income test.[/Q]
I would wager most too, but there are exceptions. More important, I could really see a lot of affluent suburban families using voucher as an excuse to send their kinds to private schools. I come from an affluent Ct suburbs and way too may people consider private schools a status symbol and if the gov't was paying for it, they'd love to pull their kids out of public schools - not for the better education (our schools are damn good) - but simply so they can say the name of some fancy school when asked where their kid goes.

[Q]Democrats say they want to fix education. That's great but it isn't going to happen overnight which does absolutely no good to the kids in the broken schools today. Is Al Gore going to go to PS whatever in Harlem and explain to some 8 year old that he can't go to a private school. Hopefully we'll fix it all by the time your little brother comes through. You, however, are out of luck.[/Q]
How about "You, however, are having tons of money pumped into your schools. You get to join in these great new programs we have running, share your opinions on what works and what doesn't. You get to shape the future of public schools and benefit from these great new resources that we are trying today." Instead of "You can skip out on us if you want to. We'll give you free money to bail on your neighborhood school."

[Q]The whole church-state issue is a smokescreen...[/Q]
Regardless of the particulars of the teachers unions, I take any threat to the separation of church and state or to civil liberties VERY seriously. I know that no one intends this as a way to promote religion, but government dollars going to fund parochial schools means government dollars going straight to churches. How much better is that then the government just making a donation to a religious organization? Different, yes, but better? It's still pumping up certain religions, at the sake of others, with government money. It's fishy, even if it wasn't meant that way.

It's the same thing with Bush's faith based initiative. I know he means no harm with it, but how can you really control these organizations. Religious charities often encourage their recipients to attend religious meetings - they promote themselves and offer themselves are salvation. They're welcome to do what they want with their money, but when it's the government money, it's another long. Old habits die hard, and when it comes to people who think that they're going to heaven a lot of other people are going to hell just for what religion they are, do you really think you're gonna get them to be unbiased? to not mention that while they serve the next bowl of soup? (note: I'm not saying tons of people believe that former statement. I'm not saying tons of people would continue to use faith in their charity work, but some would. I'm not comfortable with that, and it's just not right.

So, although I'm sure you disagree, Bill, is that more the kind of response you were looking for?

-Fred

P.S. I'd love to continue this, but I'm on my way to Hamilton, I can pick it up tonight though .

Bill R '94 wrote:

I was hoping for some actual debate, exchange of ideas, something more than "Bush Sucks."

You might ponder why in the world anyone would want to engage in rational discourse with someone whose opening statement is: "Another point I would like to make that nails both sides but I'll mostly criticize the stupidity of the language Democrats use."

> They're about as irrelevant as Gartman.

That's funny but it still hurts.

I keep reading on this and other forums these inane statements from conservatives that Democrats don't care about other's opinions or have a tin ear to debate or whatnot. This is usually preceded and succeeded on the same post by belligerant denunciations of liberals AS PEOPLE as unpatriotic or morally reprehensible. By now why hasn't EVERYONE figured out two simple truths:

#1 Where you stands depends on where you sit. Our beliefs are conditioned by our own self-interest. The rich and the religious favor conservativism, the oversocialized and underprivileged favor liberalism. What favors us or our values just accidentally also happens to be "right" or "moral" or "smart" or whatever. Hockey ought to be the perfect exemplar of this -- we all always see the ref screw our team. The "bias" is always against us. We are subjective beings.

#2 There's no moral difference between the people on either side. Both sides have an equal percentage of morons and geniuses, have an equal percentage of cynics and idealists, have an equal percentage of charlatans and missionaries. Naturally, any given person might be a jerk or a saint, but the overall makeup washes out differences.


The reason I think we are all treated to a constant barrage of anger from conservatives on forums is the tone set by AM HateRadio, where it's okay to say anything slanderous about anyone who opposes the drumbeat of a very facile form of social and fiscal conservativism. C'mon folks -- the pundits are always the very lowest scum of a movement -- why pattern your delivery after them? I know why Rush does it -- ratings! But the dittoheads who follow up with the same tone in public forums are just being obnoxious and not doing anything but masturbating in public.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

The reason America has been successful both as a society and an economic enterprise is that we have a gentle, regular swing between liberal and conservative tendencies -- that way, we don't wind up with a theocratic third world dictatorship of the right or a communitarian east bloc dictatorship of the left. As long as we all continue to relentlessly scrutinize policies, we'll be okay.

In other words, I'm for freedom of speech, and now I'd like some apple pie.

Hi. I'm new here, from the class of '72 (Ag school). It's great to see the team once again enjoying the kind of success it had when I was a student. Great memories that I'm sure have been relived on this board many times so I'll spare everyone another recap.

I wanted to reply to a post DeltaOne81 made complaining about the President's proposed tax cut being tilted too severely to the high end of the income distribution.

IMO, the problem with the income tax structure is that it places too heavy a burden on the rich and doesn't ask enough of everyone else. For 1998, the top 1.7% of taxpayers (income wise) paid 40% of the income tax. They had 22% of the income. The bottom 75% of payers, who had 33% of the income, paid only 11% of the income tax. By the way, I'm one of the 75%.

I see two, at least, problems with this. A little reflection will show that any income tax cut must favor the rich since, practically speaking, they're the only ones paying the tax. Thus, any tax cut proposal is a ready made platform for class warriors to denounce it as a giveaway to the rich. Taxes can never be reduced regardless of the state of the budget. This happened in the late '90's.

More disturbing is its deformative effect on democracy. When a large part of the population can vote itself benefits that they have no part in paying for, it's easy to see in which direction matters will go: the endless discovery of peoples "rights" to things they had no role in producing but would like to have anyway. Food, education, health care, a car or two, color TV, an espresso machine: there is no end to it. And there's always someone who will see the opportunity for himself in arguing for these rights. And people, being what we are, are always a receptive audience.

The tax structure as it is is ustable, like anything that's top heavy. When the high income population took a hit, states like NY and CA that depend excessively on it for their tax contributions saw receipts fall off a cliff. If the burden were distributed more evenly, this would not have happened.

Luckily, I'm not running for office anywhere so I can express these views. But to get back to DeltaOne81, I wouldn't lose too much sleep about letting the people who earned their money keep a little more of it. What are we talking about? $60 - 70 billion a year in a budget of over $2 trillion? It's rounding error!

> For 1998, the top 1.7% of taxpayers (income wise) paid 40% of the income tax. They had 22% of the income.

Point understood, but now challenged.

The fact is that while these people may have 22% of the income, they have 40% (probably far more) of the disposable income. A citizen's first $40,000 is a helluva lot more vital to his family's bare subsistence than his fortieth $40,000.

I don't buy this idea that exempting lower income people from taxation opts them out of social responsiiblity. Does that mean exempting women and the elderly from combat opts them out of responsiblity? Of course not. The whole point of a nation is to join together for mutual protection. Some of these functions require manpower, and the poor provide the vast majority of that. Others require money... the people WITH the money should provide that.

Finally, I don't know what to tell you if you don't see the difference between food and an espresso machine. Very basic living standards ought to be the right of any American. In the final analysis this is also far more hardheadly practical, because it allows more people to enter the middle class and start making meaningful lives for themselves and stop being a burden on wage earners.

There was a very funny Tom Tomorrow about this a couple of months ago, with a few millionaires sitting at a bar.

Just look at the benefits the poor get! How I envy them!

But wouldn't John Locke argue that one doesn't have to join together for mutual protection if one doesn't want to? We are all an island...yada yada yada. See, Kramnick teaches something in his political theory class.

Not only that, but the last time I saw "John Locke" it was bathroom graffitti.

I have no argument you should be able to opt out if you don't want to follow the rules. But that means you have to go buy a tropical island somewhere. Otherwise, the same thing happens as when you wake up one morning and decide you want to opt out of the traffic laws.

if you were playing that drinking game, I honestly don't know how you made it that far to count all those...

>"Excuse me if I don't care what Europe thinks."

Interesting comment from Nicholas Kristof's column in today's New York Times:

"The most sensible suggestion for confronting anti-Americanism comes from one prominent American official: "It really depends on how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."

That was George W. Bush in the second presidential debate. He was dead right — back then."

I don't know why I'm getting into this now (after 84 previous posts) but I have a little time to kill before work...

Just about any system of taxation that isn't Robin Hood-Sherriff of Nottingham regressive will place a higher burden of taxation on the wealthy, in terms of amount. Few would argue that this is appropriate. The question is what level of taxation is fair and reasonable. This comes down to beliefs that are held with quasi-religious fervor and thus can't very well be debated rationally because the two sides can't agree on the assumptions. Speak broadly, one side feels that the government's (society's) desire or responsibility to provide services to the public (and particularly the lowest income portion) is of primary importance and this therefore justifies high levels of taxation, particularly high marginal rates on those of higher income. The other side (myself included) believe it is unfair and wrong to tax at marginal rates of 35%, 39% or higher. these rates are, IMO, confiscatory. Both sides arguments are at the heart reasoned, fair/moral arguments and which is right depends on your perspective.

Regarding tax cuts, (shifting out of present both sides mode...) remember that taxes are not fundamentally a good thing. They are a cost to the economy, a burden. No one likes to pay taxes. This makes cutting taxes always a good thing - you're returning money to the people who earned it. Tax cuts are not always the best thing and may not even be close at a moment in time - funding the government is in essence a necessary evil - but I think it's wrong to speak of cutting taxes in the same way as about frivolous government spending. Tax cuts do not waste government money, they return taxpayers money to the people.

There's lots of talk about who tax cuts benefit. For obvious reasons, most tax cuts are likely to help the higher income sector in terms of dollar value. The only kind that don't are those that increase the so-called "progressive-ness" of the tax code, which is to many already tilted to the point of unfairness.

On the social responsibily front, it is to some extent true that those who do not pay are less likely to be worried about how the money is spent. It's human nature to spend other people's money more freely (witness politicians). But certainly there are many Americans who wouldn't don't feel this way and are responsible. I'd just like to point out that this is exactly the argument put forward by Charles Rangel for bringing back the draft. He thinks that those in power are too willing to spend the lives of other people's children.

[Q]Regarding tax cuts, (shifting out of present both sides mode...) remember that taxes are not fundamentally a good thing. They are a cost to the economy, a burden. No one likes to pay taxes. This makes cutting taxes always a good thing - you're returning money to the people who earned it. Tax cuts are not always the best thing and may not even be close at a moment in time - funding the government is in essence a necessary evil - but I think it's wrong to speak of cutting taxes in the same way as about frivolous government spending. Tax cuts do not waste government money, they return taxpayers money to the people.[/Q]
Ah, macroeconomics coming back to me. The first couple paragraphs of yours we'll have to agree to disagree on, but this is simply a mistatement.

The equation for Gross Domestic Product was something like GDP = C + G + something else ( I'm pretty sure there was one more factor ) - C was consumer consumption and G was government spending. Conservatives tend to act like money taken in by the government disappears into a black hole. Taken away from the citizens and never to be seen again. To be wasted and squandered and probably burned in the bag in some Democrat's office.

Government spending goes back to the people and the economy just as tax reductions would. It's used to fix roads and buildings and gets paid to the works, it's used to buy medicines and pay for medical care for medicare/cade and goes back to the drug companies and doctors and hospital workers. It's used to pay teachers and build new schools. Taxes redistribute money (through welfare, unemployment benefits) to the less wealthy who tend to have a higher spending rate, just out of necessity. While $40,000 for a multimillionaire may half be invested overseas or in an IRA, $1000 to 40 families struggling to get buy will spent all at local grocery stores and local shops and on their rent.

Government spending is actually much less volitile and more predictable than Consumer Consumption. Of course, there's a point where taxes are so high that it cripples the ability of the populace to live on a day to day basis, and that's no good, but that point is like 80, 90%. While your society can set taxes based on other priorities, taxes are not, by definition, bad. They are not a necessary evil economically, they are actually targeted, controlled spending.

Greg -

See we took it on the chin last night. I can hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from here!

Anyway, I wanted to try again with the post I put up yesterday.

You asked, “Does that mean exempting women and the elderly from combat opts them out of responsiblity?”

Yes it does, as far as responsibility for evaluating the consequences of war goes. If you don’t believe me, ask Charley Rangel. That’s his whole point in saying, “Bring back the draft.” His point is that if our children were exposed to the dangers of combat we would be less likely to engage in it. He is absolutely right. I remember the anti-war protests during Vietnam. I also remember that they disappeared right after the draft was ended. Ones opinion about the war was largely determined by the likelihood that one would have to fight in it.

This mirrors my point that if people paid more equally for social benefits they would be more thoughtful before they asked for more of them. The voters of Oregon just gave testament to this.

Also, “Finally, I don't know what to tell you if you don't see the difference between food and an espresso machine. Very basic living standards ought to be the right of any American.”

All I was trying to point out is the unlimited nature the demand for “rights” takes on when their exercise only means taking the possessions of others. When someone demands that others pay for, for example, his health care and then goes driving off in his Honda, what he really wants is someone to pay for his Honda since if he used that money to pay instead for his health care, he would have it. It’s not that he can’t afford health care, it’s that he wants someone else to buy it for him so he can have both it and his Honda. This is exactly why Medicaid now pays for nursing home care for people who were middle class their whole lives until they gave their money to their kids. A whole industry has been spawned to facilitate these transactions. This is where and why the discovery of new rights is so useful, popular and never ending. If everyone has a right to nursing home care, no one has to save for it. Instead, we can all buy espresso machines with the money we otherwise would have had to save.

I’m not very worried about who pays for the basic living standards of people, even non-Americans. Hell, I don’t even care if I buy HBO for somebody, even if I don’t have it. If people are starving, they will not be restrained by arguments about bio-engineered corn, let alone about rights. Nor should they be. In America, judging from the latest obesity statistics, lack is not the biggest dietary problem of anyone, especially the poor. You say “very basic” living standards should be met. I’d go as far as basic, eliminating the very. I’d even go somewhat beyond that. But we should always remember that basic means something and whatever that may be precisely, it is not unlimited.

OK, I'll give back a bit on the fact that government spending goes back into the economy. So your GDP equation is not incorrect, at least in the Econ 102 sense (at least I think so - my macro class was in '91). The question is whether the cost on the private sector is equaled (or even exceeded) by the benefits to growth and economy spurred by the public sector. To accurately reflect reality, you'd have to measure the efficiency at which the money is spent (in some sense that I can't define) in order to determine whether it's a wash or if one side comes out ahead.

My personal sense (=typical conservative view) is that government spending is much less efficient in terms of spurring growth than private spending, in general. This is the nature of large bureaucracies, central planning and politicans spending money that is not their own. Therefore, public spending is probably a net drag on the economy. Not to say that there is no appropriate role for government but I'd rather the people had the money as much as possible (aside from fairness reasons). There probably are plenty of studies by economists trying to guage this type of thing, but I suspect there is no easy answer so we're left with our gut feelings. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You also mention income redistribution. I don't believe the government's role is to redistribute money among it's citizens. That will happen to a certain degree with any form of entitlement program, some of which are warranted. But this is not, IMO, a legitimate goal.

Enough for now,
Keith
Member of the CEPDF (Cornell Economic and Political Discussion Forum)

Keith,

Okay, we've hit the point where it's personal preference, I agree that there's probably some small inherent 'loss' in the whole person -> government -> people process, but my personal values are that any loss in the overall is more than equalled by the benefits. My personal sense (=typical liberal view ) is that the government efficiency losses are relatively small, after all, any "bureaucracy" losses just means wages for the beaurocratic workers, and hence back to the economy.

Also on the matter of person preference, I think income/wealth distribution is vital and a very nobel goal, to make sure that every citizen has the basic needs in today's world - including, but not limited to food, shelter, transportation (not necessarily saying a car, but at least bus money), and a good quality local school - even if that means one less espresso machine, yatch, or beach house for the wealth (excuse me while I try not to cry too hard for them ).

-Fred

P.S. My family tends to be decently off, and, based on information from companies I've interviewed with, I think I will as well - so saying the gov't should redistribute isnt' bc I think I should personal get more... it's just cuz I have a bleeding heart .

P.P.S. Econ 302, thank you very much .

Sigh, I will just point out that any defense of the US vs Iraq on moral grounds had better be taken with a grain of salt. In the last 60 years the US has used its own citizens - military, inmates, African Americans - as guinea pigs over and over again - testing the effects of exposure to the A-bomb, testing the quality of protective clothing, infecting people with syphallis just to study the results!

This of course ignores slavery, Jim Crow laws that lasted into the 1960s, and imprisonment of Japanese Americans during WWII.

This "Great Nation" of ours has often flexed our muscles overseas - overtly and covertly, and then either abandoned the locals or installed a puppet who lived well as long as he protected our economic interests, often at the expense of his fellow countrymen.

I see no evidence that Afghanastan is going to end up better off because we invaded. The US does not have any true intention of installing a democracy, as long as whatever results will not be a breeding ground for more terrorists.

We were attacked by Osama binLadin, not Saddam. Any idea that they are interchangeable is laughable. Osama wants religious fundamentalism, and a religious state. If he thought that the fundamentalist movement could gain a foothold in Iraq he would be there encouraging an uprising.
Saddam is just your garden variety despot who happens to be sitting on tons of oil, so we are taking an interest. Other than attacking his own people and Kuwait, he has not actually done anything to the US. Iraq's aggression against Kuwait was stopped by a UN sanctioned, US led force.
He is in violation of UN resolutions. Any attempt to overthrow him should be UN sanctioned.

The only reason we are on a war footing with Iraq is that George W did not get his man (Osama), and he needed an issue to distract the American people from this fact. He also managed to time things so that 11 years of Saddam's defiance became a critical problem just as we approached mid-term elections. I am really frightened about what critical issue will be concocted to make the American people forget about the economy in 2004.


www.fuckitall.com/bsh

Okay, I'll weigh in here....

I've NEVER taken econ of any kind (high school econ from a football coach doesn't count). But in my mind, corporations are about creating value: take in raw materials worth X, spend money worth Y (wages), put out products worth 1.2(X+Y). Government, on the other hand, is purely a conduit for money and does not create value in that way - take in money worth X, spend money worth X (well, 1.2X ). Naturally, there is some sort of "inefficiency" in both processes, so the government is somehow a net drain (if a very small percentage), while corporations are a clear benefit. Therefore, we're better off if we let the companies keep more of the $$$ so they can go about growing and turning even more raw materials into valuable products.

After all, just as Democratic lawmakers don't burn bags of money in their offices, neither do corporations or taxpayers. How many jobs are created when a rich dude buys a yacht? Trust me, most of the folks who build yachts are every bit as blue collar as the next guy/gal.

My $0.02 (can't come up with an appropriate joke here)

I see your point, but from a more economics point of view, the products put out would really be worth X + Y. Any extra 'profit' is just reinvested into wages for the next round of products, and used as disposable income for the owers.

Yes, even a yatch does pay blue collar workers, but I don't think the economy would be worse off if there were a few less yatch workers and a few more healthy farmers (on the assumption that the income would go to food instead of yatchs).

The whole question here is what is fair, and on that we'll never convince each other. A pure market economy does produce the distribution which doesn't leave waste, but I happen to believe that part of the goal of civilization should be to make sure that no one is left behind. No child left behind in school, no adult left behind in the world. Sure, there will be a distribution of people, but no one should be unable to live. If you're comfortable saying that some poor people will die or live on the streets for the sake of a pure market economy, fine, but that's not the world I want to live in.

Depends on your standard for "left behind." Will more Americans literally starve to death because of Bush's tax cut? Dubious. More homlessness? More likely, but boy would it be tough to prove. The economy in general is sucking so badly that there is bound to be more homelessness in the next few years, but that certainly doesn't prove that any tax cut for the rich "caused" it.

The US doesn't need more farmers - we already produce WAY more food than we consume (which is quite scary...). Why do you think that farmers can't make a decent living? Supply exceeds demand so prices suck and the government has to prop up the prices to keep the farmers from giving up and getting jobs building yachts.

And those products certainly are "worth" 1.2(X+Y), at least according to the only people who matter - the customers who are willing to pay more than X+Y. Value = X+Y is not a more "economics" point of view - it's certainly a more Marxist point of view, though....

I wasn't really talking about the tax cut there, just talking about the general concept of wealth distrution. My problems with the tax cuts were stated above.

Mainly that it would leave a huge federal decifit... but why fix problems now when we can force someone to fix them later, right? This is only increased by the fact that the money wouldn't be going to the people who need it anyway. I'm not proposing some great new social program or form of wealth redistribution. I'm just saying that giving the wealthy more money seems pointless to me. I'd rather use the government money to send a kid to college than to give a $300,000 income family 25 grand back.

If you want to pump money into the economy, then give it to the working class and use the money that would have gone back to the wealthiest to fix our schools. Do you know how many schools the $300 billion dividend tax revenue can build? How many new teachers it could higher or social programs it could run in communities where they're needed.

Okay, I'm repeating myself, I think you all get my point.

Remember Austin Power's To Do list.

#10. Earn Daddy's respect.

There is way more evidence that the Saudi government has given support to anti-American terrorism than the Iraqis. Like... the content of their entire educational system. If we were going to try to clean up the region, we'd start there. But the Saudis are our hand-picked dictators, so they get to stay, and when the occasional few thousand US citizens get offed because of the Insane Wahabite Cleric of the Week, well... tough.

It will be a better world when Saddam's gone, so I don't have a problem with getting rid of him. I'd prefer we force the Kuwaitis and Saudis to pay X Billion in petty cash to the Baathistas to go on permanent vacation in Bahrain, but that doesn't make Bush look "Presidential." So, we do it with our own blood and treasure.

Oh well, it aint like we're gonna lose.

Definitely with you on the tax cut, DeltaOne. I'm so anti-deficit-spending that I think we ought to RAISE taxes, pay for our past mistakes, and get out of that game forever. And yes, I realize that this means taking more money from the people who have it (the rich) and giving it to people who currently own T-bills (probably mostly middle), but that is inevitible, brought on by years of excessive spending. I say we just bite the bullet now rather than later. Imagine how many schools we could build with the interest payments on the national debt....

Education is definitely one thing that Government should do for the people, and should do well. I've voted for every school budget increase I've ever been able to - best possible investment in our future, any way you slice it - economic, political, security, etc.

As long as we keep the small number of crazies on both sides at bay we'll be fine.

When the GOP finally cuts loose from their criminally insane radical donors and promotes decent paleocon policies again then moderates will lean back to the right to save us from the Mommy State totalitarians, just as we did in the late 70's when they were getting too deep into the cookie jar (and the Constitution). The immediate danger today is coming from the right, and they neither need nor deserve help from the center.