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

[Al DeFlorio]

"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.

[nyc94]

"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.

[Adam \'01]

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.

[nyc94]

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?

[Erica]

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... :-))

[nyc94]

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

[Tub(a)]

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.

[Josh '99]

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.

[nyc94]

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.:-))

[Al DeFlorio]

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.

[jd212]

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?

[Adam \'01]

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.

[nyc94]

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?

[Adam \'01]

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.

[nyc94]

"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."