Ivoted for Bush in 00 and 04!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Please accept my apology

You'll learn how to live with it.

Quote

Domestic spying, what a bunch of shit!

Yeah, I saw guys in black suits following me too...go figure. Come on, really, tell me how your rights have been directly infringed upon.

Quote

Latest tax cut will save me 60 bucks a year, wow.

Well, if you get a better paying job, that number might go up. Why would you complain about the government taking less money from you, no matter how much?

Quote

Around 2,500 dead Americans in Iraq. How come?!?

As one who was there, I can tell you the mission was worth it, you will need to dig past the mainstream press and find some real stories. Having seen the "gleam" of freedom and pride in some people's eyes over there, I don't need any further explanation.

Quote

I'm no lib and I served in Vietnam, but Bush & Co. need to go.

I'm still wondering why you're whining.

Quote

I hope he doesn't completely wreck the constitution prior to 08

Weird thing, this constitution has endured quite a lot over the past couple of centuries and there were far worse intrusions placed upon Americans during the 20th century.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 2,384]

>Why would you complain about the government taking less money
>from you, no matter how much?

Same reason I would complain about my bank involuntarily changing me from a 6.125% fixed rate mortgage to a 5.75% ARM. Sure, I would pay less money now, but owe far more in the long run. It would be a fool's bargain.

>this constitution has endured quite a lot over the past couple of centuries . . . .

Primarily because good men have stood up to defend it from threats by outsiders who would destroy it and politicians who detest the protections it provides. We need to defend it from both threats if it is to retain its worth to us.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

>Spoken like a true liberal..........

Yep. Reality has a well-known liberal bias. A world where you can spend as much as you like and never have to pay it back is much nicer to imagine, even if reality isn't like that.

Half truths when it comes to tax revenues recieved! At least in the context of my post.....

Right, there are amounts taken in in the way of taxes and expenditures that tally the annual budget, ultimately the national debt; it's all a series of these components. Point is, Clinton did well on all accounts, Reagan, Bush, Bush have failed miserably; can you differ?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>The debt isn't manageable, however it can be reduced, but only by taxx increases for the rich and a great GNP/GDP. <

Spoken like a true liberal..........

I agree!!!

My favorite way to pay down a debt is to spend less than what I'm taking in (something the US government isn't doing all that well with lately) and to take the difference and apply it towards my debts. Sure one can add to the government coffers by taxing their citizens more. But what ever happened to spending less?

Agreed! Add to that more tax revenue by taxing people less and it works even faster!

That's an idea, but can you historically establish that it has successfully worked? Exeamples of long-tern, sustained viability.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I'm libertarian - don't recall us ever having control of either legislative hour or the executive branch. When you left leaning people cease bemoaning eliminating programs that have no measurable effect and stop calliing for increases in mandatory spending, perhaps we right leaning people will do something other than laugh when you speak of deficits.

I voted for Perot in 92, so I can vote for can candidates that have no chance of winning too. The Libertarian platform is as viable as Star Trek. Show me a country that utilizes Libertarian principles. You're saying we can't denounce Libertarianism because we can't establish that it doesn't work, OTOH we can't propose it's viable due to it never being applied anywhere.

Libertarianism is like the Theory of Evolution: parts of it are believeable, bit the whole concept is yet unproven.

Furthermore, a Libertarian is a person who believs in Republican fiscal measures and liberal social issues in regard to freedoms, so fiscally your beliefs are close to the Republicans. Here's an example:

Quote

I'm libertarian

and..

Quote

perhaps we right leaning people

Thank you.

[TheAnvil 0]

You're most welcome, but one wonders why you're thanking me. Perhaps for showing you've no credibility when it comes to discussing deficits? That's not really that hard - no thanks required, but you're welcome anyway. I'd think anyone who reads my posts as much as you do would realize I lean to the right from a fiscal perspective.

Your beliefs about the views of most libertarians is a bit misguided. You'd be hard put to find any of us who agree with the entire party platform - just like most republicans and democrats with three digit IQ's. Most libertarians I'm familiar with admit they're hypocritical libertarians - like myself.

With the Republicans alienating their base as of late by abandoning fiscal conservatism and the democrats simply out to lunch, perhaps the Libertarian party will be able to carve out a niche at the national level in the next few years. Lots of people for less government who realize that legalizing some - if not all - drugs would be a good thing.

Regardless, when you bemoan deficits whilst decrying the elimination of programs that do not work and promoting increasing social spending, I'll always be laughing.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Tenshi 0]

Quote

Ivoted for Bush in 00 and 04!

Good for you.

I'm anxiously anticipating zero hour. There's no fireworks like 50 kilotons worth of fireworks. All hail.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You're most welcome, but one wonders why you're thanking me. Perhaps for showing you've no credibility when it comes to discussing deficits? That's not really that hard - no thanks required, but you're welcome anyway. I'd think anyone who reads my posts as much as you do would realize I lean to the right from a fiscal perspective.

Your beliefs about the views of most libertarians is a bit misguided. You'd be hard put to find any of us who agree with the entire party platform - just like most republicans and democrats with three digit IQ's. Most libertarians I'm familiar with admit they're hypocritical libertarians - like myself.

With the Republicans alienating their base as of late by abandoning fiscal conservatism and the democrats simply out to lunch, perhaps the Libertarian party will be able to carve out a niche at the national level in the next few years. Lots of people for less government who realize that legalizing some - if not all - drugs would be a good thing.

Regardless, when you bemoan deficits whilst decrying the elimination of programs that do not work and promoting increasing social spending, I'll always be laughing.

Quote

Regardless, when you bemoan deficits whilst decrying the elimination of programs that do not work and promoting increasing social spending, I'll always be laughing.

Yes, compassion towards our fellow countrymen and women is a bad thing, then on with the patriotic rhetoric.....

You have NEVER established how it was that Clinton was able to:

A) Take a 45 degree climbing debt,
B) horrible all-around economy and
C) negative fiscal sentiment and:

turn it into a balanced debt, 230B annual surplus and mnay more social programs than did either Reagan, Bush or Bush.

Your argument deflates when you say that entitlments are the evil-all, then acknowledge that Clinton had more social progs than either of the 3 Republican presidents. Perhaps consumer-side economics work, as you give money to the poor, they spend it immediatley and it activates the economy. Perhaps your scenario worls on paper, but Clinton's works in application.....

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You're most welcome, but one wonders why you're thanking me. Perhaps for showing you've no credibility when it comes to discussing deficits? That's not really that hard - no thanks required, but you're welcome anyway. I'd think anyone who reads my posts as much as you do would realize I lean to the right from a fiscal perspective.

Your beliefs about the views of most libertarians is a bit misguided. You'd be hard put to find any of us who agree with the entire party platform - just like most republicans and democrats with three digit IQ's. Most libertarians I'm familiar with admit they're hypocritical libertarians - like myself.

With the Republicans alienating their base as of late by abandoning fiscal conservatism and the democrats simply out to lunch, perhaps the Libertarian party will be able to carve out a niche at the national level in the next few years. Lots of people for less government who realize that legalizing some - if not all - drugs would be a good thing.

Regardless, when you bemoan deficits whilst decrying the elimination of programs that do not work and promoting increasing social spending, I'll always be laughing.

Quote

Perhaps for showing you've no credibility when it comes to discussing deficits?

Again, making the argument personal. The facts and data are what they are, regardless of what I know or don;t know. You continue to attack my knowledge, when that is meaningless. Why not attack the data I submit or the merits of my arguments rather than to attack and defame me?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Spoken like a true liberal..........

Yep. Reality has a well-known liberal bias. A world where you can spend as much as you like and never have to pay it back is much nicer to imagine, even if reality isn't like that.

Half truths when it comes to tax revenues recieved! At least in the context of my post.....

Right, there are amounts taken in in the way of taxes and expenditures that tally the annual budget, ultimately the national debt; it's all a series of these components. Point is, Clinton did well on all accounts, Reagan, Bush, Bush have failed miserably; can you differ?

Yes I differ. What you post is the not true.

You need to look into the whole context of incoming money, spending, situations and the economy.

Example, the money coming in during the Clinton admin was huge. This started before he came to office. In truth the if the Repubs did not have the Contract With America and reduced the spending the buget would not have been what it was.

In the current Bush admin the Repubs need to take full blame. While natural disasters, (that cause an economic slow down) an inherited near ression economy (that was caused in part by the Clinton tax increases) 911 (that also caused a slow down ) a war (big expenditures) and a spend drunk congress have all helped to cause the current situation.

Now, the tax cuts have turned the revenue problem and if the congress can continue to cut spending things will turn

Quote

.

As for Reagen? His tax cuts also cause record revenues at the time. The military and intilligence had been torn to pieces by his predisesors and Mr O,Neil said (when Reagen sent in the budget proposal that it was dead on arival.

So, I am consistant with the spending blame and the revenue credit.

Ya I differ........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>The debt isn't manageable, however it can be reduced, but only by taxx increases for the rich and a great GNP/GDP. <

Spoken like a true liberal..........

I agree!!!

My favorite way to pay down a debt is to spend less than what I'm taking in (something the US government isn't doing all that well with lately) and to take the difference and apply it towards my debts. Sure one can add to the government coffers by taxing their citizens more. But what ever happened to spending less?

Agreed! Add to that more tax revenue by taxing people less and it works even faster!

That's an idea, but can you historically establish that it has successfully worked? Exeamples of long-tern, sustained viability.

Reagans tax cuts caused the single largest growing economy in history. Clinton inherited that. He made no economic policy chages that he can be given credit for until he raised taxes and caused the down turn that Bush inherited.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

I just remembered you failed to explain to me how your boy could submit budgets that did not balance and end up with a surplus. If you want your questions answered, then I suggest you start answering a few.

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/FY98CBOR.JT.htm

America must have misunderstood. Evidently what Bill Clinton meant five years ago was that he would plan for five years to balance the budget -- but never do it. At least that's the way it has worked out. Every year he has been in office, President Clinton has submitted a budget that does not balance. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Clinton's FY 1998 budget leaves a deficit of $69 billion in 2002. It's time for him to admit that there's only one way to achieve true, lasting balance -- a balanced budget constitutional amendment.

Instead of doing what it takes to balance the budget, the White House did what it took to increase spending. According to CBO, President Clinton's latest budget spends nine trillion dollars over the next five years -- $132 billion more than the White House admitted to. In order to hide this fact, the White House budgeteers produced favorable economic assumptions and a gimmicky automatic-spending-reduction mechanism that they claimed would allow for more spending and still balance. When these are stripped away, as CBO has done, we are left with a budget that leaves the deficit higher than last year's $107 billion for the next four years.

In the last Congress, after shutting down the government and vetoing the first balanced budget bill since 1969, President Clinton promised three things: To balance the budget, to balance the budget by 2002, and to balance the budget by 2002 using CBO's numbers. With his latest budget, he has not kept even one of those three promises.

Clinton's budget spends $9.119 trillion over the next five years.
In its first year, Clinton's budget increases the deficit $38 billion above last year's, $30 billion above the estimate of this year's, and $24 billion above the estimate of next year's.
Clinton's budget leaves a $69 billion deficit in 2002 and adds $586 billion in deficit spending over the next five years.
98.5 percent of the deficit reduction occurs after Clinton leaves office. In fact, under Clinton's latest budget deficits will not go below last year's deficit ($107 billion) or even below $100 billion until 2001 (when it will reach $95 billion).
During his term, Clinton's budget reduces the deficit just $1 billion from CBO's currently projected levels.
Clinton's budget only eliminates 35% of last year's $107 billion deficit from 1998-2002.
More Spending = More Deficits

President Clinton's budget will spend $9.119 trillion over the next five years. That is $132.2 billion more than the White House admitted to when they released it.
To hide that spending, the Administration relied on favorable assumptions, one-time savings, and a gimmick providing that all but $1 billion -- 98.5 percent -- of the necessary deficit reduction will be made in the next century -- and by another President.
As CBO demonstrates, without these devices, there is no balance, only more deficits -- $69 billion in 2002, and $586 billion over five years; the deficit even increases over what it was projected to be both this year ($116 billion vs. $115 billion) and next year ($145 billion vs. $121 billion).
Clinton's budget leaves spending higher throughout his final term than it was last year -- in 2000 the deficit would be $137 billion vs. $107 billion in 1996. During his last term, Clinton's budget would add $110 billion in additional deficits on top of last year's $107 billion deficit: $116 billion in 1997, $145 billion in 1998, $142 billion in 1999, and $135 billion in 2000 -- $28 billion higher in Clinton's last year than last year's deficit.
Under Clinton's budget, the deficit will not go below last year's $107 billion level until the next century and the next President -- when it hit $95 billion in 2001.
Hiding these Deficits Behind Phony Assumptions Won't Work

Despite OMB's best efforts of optimistic obfuscation, CBO stripped away the gimmicks. While Clinton recognized CBO as its official estimator last year, CBO now states: interest rates (10-year Treasury rates: 5.5% vs. 5.1%), inflation (CPI-U: 3.0% vs. 2.7%), and unemployment (Civilian Unemployment: 6.0% vs. 5.5%) will all be higher and GDP lower (Real GDP Change: 2.3% vs. 2.1%) in 2002 than Clinton forecast.
According to CBO, one-time asset sales -- like selling part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which can only be sold once and therefore reduce spending just once -- will bring in less than the President claims (for the spectrum, $11 billion less in 2002).
After increasing the deficit to $135 billion over the next four years, Clinton then claims to eliminate it in the next President's first two with a so-called trigger mechanism that would reduce spending he increased and end the tax cut he barely delivered (just $18 billion from FY97-02, according to the Joint Tax Committee).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[TheAnvil 0]

I was laughing. Now I'm laughing harder.

Tell us, please - what is a 45 degree climbing debt? 45 degrees of pitch? Yaw? Down angle on the bow planes of a submarine perhaps? How do you consider the economy El Jefe Clintonista inherited to be bad? A cursory examination of the DJIA or NASDAQ shows both of them on the increase when he took office. NEPA perhaps? Please by all means enlighten us to how a balanced debt equates to a surplus as well! We're anxiously awaiting that one! Negative fiscal sentiment, eh? The same kind Reagan inherited from Carter? Don't recall any gas lines in '92 - do you?

Find one social program funded under Clinton that is not currently funded under GWB.

Perhaps you should look at CBO and OMB data, BLS data, the DJIA, NASDAQ, and perhaps BPD data prior to attempting to speak about the economy and the U.S. national debt with someone familiar with the subject.

As I have told you in other threads that Clinton and the different sessions of Congress convened under his tenure were able to achieve fiscal success in his last couple of years in office by keeping discretionary spending under control while simultaneously benefitting from high tax revenues resulting from the economic explosion fueled by the internet revolution. Economic boom=increased tax revenues.

Anytime people complain about the deficit while vilifying anyone seeking eliminte gov't programs that do not work and touting increases in mandatory spending, I give them all the credibility they deserve - ZILCH! ZERO! NADA! ZEEEEEEEEROOOOOOO!

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

I attack nobody. I merely state a fact.

Complaining about deficits whilst touting increased government spending and bemoaning the elimination of government programs that do not work equates to ZERO credibility when discussing deficit reduction.

If you choose to do the above - as you've done repeatedly, then you have no credibility when discussing the issue. No attack at all - merely a fact.

How's about giving us a few facts yourself...such as why you think the country is trashed...one social program funded under Clinton that is not currently funded...data to support why Clinton inherited a sour economy...etc.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

That mentions the evil letters CBO. CBO isn't a completely left wing organization devoted to bashing conservatives, therefore Bush Bashers are incapable of looking at data that organizaton might produce.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Why would you complain about the government taking less money
>from you, no matter how much?

Same reason I would complain about my bank involuntarily changing me from a 6.125% fixed rate mortgage to a 5.75% ARM. Sure, I would pay less money now, but owe far more in the long run. It would be a fool's bargain.

Not when tax receipts are up by near record numbers. Your example is completely different. A mortgage is not a tax.

Quote

>this constitution has endured quite a lot over the past couple of centuries . . . .

Primarily because good men have stood up to defend it from threats by outsiders who would destroy it and politicians who detest the protections it provides. We need to defend it from both threats if it is to retain its worth to us.

Just like they stood up in 1941 when the Japanese were rounded up and put in camps? Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the context of the action at the time, but that makes phone-number pattern tracking (along with email data mining tracking, etc) look like small peanuts to me.

If this news came out in October 2001 no one would be in a clamour over it. These are leaks of information. These leaks are deliberate and timed. The actual affect it has had over any single American is completely unknown. You and I do not know if my cell number 931-217-xxxx was ever tracked to another number pattern. That information can be used without compromising CPNI.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Find one social program funded under Clinton that is not currently funded under GWB.

I've seen this assertion enough that I need point out something. Yes, we had medicare under Clinton and Bush. But under Clinton did it include a massively expensive drug program that legally prohibits the federal government from bargaining for bulk pricing? So yea, the programs are still there, Bush just makes them cost more.

[penniless 0]

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=asA0TA0A1PGA&refer=us

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>The debt isn't manageable, however it can be reduced, but only by taxx increases for the rich and a great GNP/GDP. <

Spoken like a true liberal..........

I agree!!!

My favorite way to pay down a debt is to spend less than what I'm taking in (something the US government isn't doing all that well with lately) and to take the difference and apply it towards my debts. Sure one can add to the government coffers by taxing their citizens more. But what ever happened to spending less?

Agreed! Add to that more tax revenue by taxing people less and it works even faster!

That's an idea, but can you historically establish that it has successfully worked? Exeamples of long-tern, sustained viability.

Reagans tax cuts caused the single largest growing economy in history. Clinton inherited that. He made no economic policy chages that he can be given credit for until he raised taxes and caused the down turn that Bush inherited.........

At the time, Reagan also had the highest deficit in history (only GWB has beaten it), and GWHB inherited a recession from Reagan. You appear to have forgotten that GWHB came between Reagan and Clinton.

Republicans create the illusion of prosperity by borrow borrow borrow.

[billvon 2,384]

>Your example is completely different. A mortgage is not a tax.

It is a financial obligation; surely paying less on a mortgage or on income tax is ALWAYS better, yes?

>Just like they stood up in 1941 when the Japanese were rounded
>up and put in camps?

Hysteria and fear often lead to people sacrificing their rights for a feeling of security. To our credit, we fixed that problem once we realized that it was a huge mistake. I think we will show similar wisdom here, once we get beyond the fear.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Clinton's FY 1998 budget leaves a deficit of $69 billion in 2002. It's time for him to admit that there's only one way to achieve true, lasting balance -- a balanced budget constitutional amendment.

Funny earlier in this thread a conservative "stood up" with great pride to show us all GREAT news...the budget deficit was going to be only $300 billion.

So a couple of years ago a president was bad for running a $69 billion deficit, but now the president is hailed for having only a $300 billion deficit?

What a fucking joke.

[billvon 2,384]

The sentiment seems to be spreading . . .
--------------------
AN APOLOGY FROM A BUSH VOTER

By Doug McIntyre
Host, McIntyre in the Morning
Talk Radio 790 KABC

There’s nothing harder in public life than admitting you’re wrong. By the way, admitting you’re wrong can be even tougher in private life. If you don’t believe me, just ask Bill Clinton or Charlie Sheen. But when you go out on the limb in public, it’s out there where everyone can see it, or in my case, hear it.

So, I’m saying today, I was wrong to have voted for George W. Bush. In historic terms, I believe George W. Bush is the worst two-term President in the history of the country. Worse than Grant. I also believe a case can be made that he’s the worst President, period.

In 2000, I was a McCain guy. I wasn’t sure about the Texas Governor. He had name recognition and a lot of money behind him, but other than that? What? Still, I was sick of all the Clinton shenanigans and the thought of President Gore was… unthinkable. So, GWB became my guy.

For the first few months he was just flubbing along like most new Presidents, no great shakes, but no disasters either. He cut taxes and I like tax cuts.

Then September 11th happened. September 11th changed everything for me, like it did for so many of you. After September 11th, all the intramural idiocy of American politics stopped being funny. We had been attacked by a vicious and determined enemy and it was time for all of us to row in the same direction.

And we did for the blink of an eye. I believed the President when he said we were going to hunt down Bin Laden and all those responsible for the 9-11 murders. I believed President Bush when he said we would go after the terrorists and the nations that harbored them.

I supported the President when he sent our troops into Afghanistan, after all, that’s where the Taliban was, that’s where al-Qaida trained the killers, that’s where Bin Laden was.

And I cheered when we quickly toppled the Taliban government, but winced when we let Bin Laden escape from Tora-Bora.

Then, the talk turned to Iraq and I winced again.

I thought the connection to 9-11 was sketchy at best. But Colin Powell impressed me at the UN, and Tony Blair was in, and after all, he was a Clinton guy, not a Bush guy, so I thought the case had to be strong. I was worried though, because I had read the Wolfowitz paper, “The Project for the New American Century.” It’s been around since ‘92, and it raised alarm bells because it was based on a theory, “Democratizing the Middle East” and I prefer pragmatism over theory. I was worried because Iraq was being justified on a radical new basis, “pre-emptive war.” Any time we do something without historical precedent I get nervous.

But the President shifted the argument to WMDs and the urgent threat of Iraq getting atomic weapons. The debate turned to Saddam passing nukes on to terror groups. After 9-11, the risk was too great. As the President said, “The next smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud.” At least that’s what I thought at the time.

I grew up in New York and watched them build the World Trade Center. I worked with a guy, Frank O’Brien, who put the elevators in both towers. I lost a very close friend on September 11th. 103 floor, tower one, Cantor Fitzgerald. Tim Coughlin was his name. If we had to take out Iraq to make sure something like that, or worse, never happened again, so be it. I knew the consequences. We have a soldier in our house. None of this was theoretical in my house.

But in the months and years since shock and awe I have been shocked repeatedly by a consistent litany of excuses, alibis, double-talk, inaccuracies, bogus predictions, and flat out lies. I have watched as the President and his administration changed the goals, redefined the reasons for going into Iraq, and fumbled the good will of the world and the focus necessary to catch the real killers of September 11th.

I have watched the President say the commanders on the ground will make the battlefield decisions, and the war won’t be run from Washington. Yet, politics has consistently determined what the troops can and can’t do on the ground and any commander who did not go along with the administration was sacked, and in some cases, maligned.

I watched and tried to justify the looting in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. I watched and tried to justify the dismantling of the entire Iraqi army. I tired to explain the complexities of building a functional new Iraqi army. I urged patience when no WMDs were found. Then the Vice President told us we were in the “waning days of the insurgency.” And I started wincing again. The President says we have to stay the course but what if it’s the wrong course?

It was the wrong course. All of it was wrong. We are not on the road to victory. We’re about to slink home with our tail between our legs, leaving civil war in Iraq and a nuclear armed Iran in our wake. Bali was bombed. Madrid was bombed. London was bombed. And Bin Laden is still making tapes. It’s unspeakable. The liberal media didn’t create this reality, bad policy did.

Most historians believe it takes 30-50 years before we get a reasonably accurate take on a President’s place in history. So, maybe 50 years from now Iraq will be a peaceful member of the brotherhood of nations and George W. Bush will be celebrated as a visionary genius.

But we don’t live fifty years in the future. We live now. We have to make public policy decisions now. We have to live with the consequences of the votes we cast and the leaders we chose now.

After five years of carefully watching George W. Bush I’ve reached the conclusion he’s either grossly incompetent, or a hand puppet for a gaggle of detached theorists with their own private view of how the world works. Or both.

Presidential failures. James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, Jimmy Carter, Warren Harding-— the competition is fierce for the worst of the worst. Still, the damage this President has done is enormous. It will take decades to undo, and that’s assuming we do everything right from now on. His mistakes have global implications, while the other failed Presidents mostly authored domestic embarrassments.

And speaking of domestic embarrassments, let’s talk for a minute about President Bush’s domestic record. Yes, he cut taxes. But tax cuts combined with reckless spending and borrowing is criminal mismanagement of the public’s money. We’re drunk at the mall with our great grandchildren’s credit cards. Whatever happened to the party of fiscal responsibility?

Bush created a giant new entitlement, the prescription drug plan. He lied to his own party to get it passed. He lied to the country about its true cost. It was written by and for the pharmaceutical industry. It helps nobody except the multinationals that lobbied for it. So much for smaller government. In fact, virtually every tentacle of government has grown exponentially under Bush. Unless, of course, it was an agency to look after the public interest, or environmental protection, and/or worker’s rights.

I’ve talked so often about the border issue, I won’t bore you with a rehash. It’s enough to say this President has been a catastrophe for the wages of working people; he’s debased the work ethic itself. “Jobs Americans won’t do!” He doesn’t believe in the sovereign borders of the country he’s sworn to protect and defend. And his devotion to cheap labor for his corporate benefactors, along with his worship of multinational trade deals, makes an utter mockery of homeland security in a post 9-11 world. The President’s January 7th, 2004 speech on immigration, his first trial balloon on his guest worker scheme, was a deal breaker for me. I couldn’t and didn’t vote for him in 2004. And I’m glad I didn’t.

Katrina, Harriet Myers, The Dubai Port Deal, skyrocketing gas prices, shrinking wages for working people, staggering debt, astronomical foreign debt, outsourcing, open borders, contempt for the opinion of the American people, the war on science, media manipulation, faith based initives, a cavalier attitude toward fundamental freedoms-- this President has run the most arrogant and out-of-touch administration in my lifetime, perhaps, in any American’s lifetime.

You can make a case that Abraham Lincoln did what he had to do, the public be damned. If you roll the dice on your gut and you’re right, history remembers you well. But, when your gut led you from one business failure to another, when your gut told you to trade Sammy Sosa to the White Sox, and you use the same gut to send our sons and daughters to fight and die in a distraction from the real war on terror, then history will and should be unapologetic in its condemnation.

None of this, by the way, should be interpreted as an endorsement of the opposition party. The Democrats are equally bankrupt. This is the second crime of our age. Again, historically speaking, its times like these when America needs a vibrant opposition to check the power of a run-amuck majority party. It requires it. It doesn’t work without one. Like the high and low tides keep the oceans alive, a healthy, positive opposition offers a path back to the center where all healthy societies live.

Tragically, the Democrats have allowed crackpots, leftists and demagogic cowards to snipe from the sidelines while taking no responsibility for anything. In fairness, I don’t believe a Democrat president would have gone into Iraq. Unfortunately, I don’t know if President Gore would have gone into Afghanistan. And that’s one of the many problems with the Democrats.

The two party system has always been clumsy and imperfect, but it has only collapsed once, in the 1850s, and the result was civil war.

I believe, as I have said countless times, the two party system is on the brink of a second collapse. It’s currently running on spin, anger, revenge, and pots and pots and pots of money.

We’re being governed by paper-mache patriots; brightly painted red, white and blue, but hollow to the core. Both parties have mastered the cynical arts of media manipulation and fund raising. They’ve learned the lessons of Watergate and burn the tapes. They have learned to divide the nation for their own gain. They have demonstrated the willingness to exploit any tragedy for personal advantage. The contempt they have for the American people is without parallel.

This is painful to say, and I’m sure for many of you, painful to read. But it’s impossible to heal the country until we’re willing to acknowledge the truth no matter how painful. We have to wean ourselves off sugar coated partisan lies.

With a belated tip of the cap to Ralph Nader, the system is broken, so broken, it’s almost inevitable it pukes up the Al Gores and George W. Bushes. Where are the Trumans and the Eisenhowers? Where are the men and women of vision and accomplishment? Why do we have to settle for recycled hacks and malleable ciphers? Greatness is always rare, but is basic competence and simple honesty too much to ask?

It may be decades before we have the full picture of how paranoid and contemptuous this administration has been. And I am open to the possibility that I’m all wet about everything I’ve just said. But I’m putting it out there, because I have to call it as I see it, and this is how I see it today. I don’t say any of this lightly. I’ve thought about this for months and months. But eventually, the weight of evidence takes on a gravitational force of its own.

I believe that George W. Bush has taken us down a terrible road. I don’t believe the Democrats are offering an alternative. That means we’re on our own to save this magnificent country. The United States of America is a gift to the world, but it has been badly abused and it’s rightful owners, We the People, had better step up to the plate and reclaim it before the damage becomes irreparable.

So, accept my apology for allowing partisanship to blind me to an obvious truth; our President is incapable of the tasks he is charged with. I almost feel sorry for him. He is clearly in over his head. Yet, he doesn’t generate the sympathy Warren Harding earned. Harding, a spectacular mediocrity, had the self-knowledge to tell any and all he shouldn’t be President. George W. Bush continues to act the part, but at this point whose buying the act?

Does this make me a waffler? A flip-flopper? Maybe, although I prefer to call it realism. And, for those of you who never supported Bush, its also fair to accuse me of kicking Bush while he’s down. After all, you were kicking him while he was up.

You were right, I was wrong.

[MC208B 0]

pretty much sums up my thoughts on Bush and the democrats. I did vote for Bush in 2004 tho, or actually, voted against Kerry

[kallend 1,621]

Some of us have been saying those things for years, but that was an exceptionally well written piece.

At this time only knaves and fools can continue to support Bush.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[hairyjuan 0]

Quote

Some of us have been saying those things for years, but that was an exceptionally well written piece.

At this time only knaves and fools can continue to support Bush.

you may have voted for him, but the supreme court ILLEGALLY appointed him

we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish