bluepeter said:
An excellent analogy but I have a different take on it. Living beyond your means and hoping that your economic value increases exponentially to offset the enormous crush of your debt is not bad policy? You would never do this yourself because your smarter than that with your finances so why is it not a bad thing when your country is doing it?
I would like to see a Constitutional amendment against deficit spending, with maybe an exception for declared war. Certainly when one factors in the cost of servicing the debt (over $250B per year spent just to afford to spend more), questions about the viability of the economic policy should be asked.
However, a number by itself never justifies or condemns the number. So the next reasonable question is "Where does the money go?" Sadly, most of it goes places that constitute outright wealth redistribution, which I would agree is indeed bad economic policy. This redistribution is nothing more than a concerted effort toward vote buying (literally, vote buying). And both parties are guilty of it. This was the point of my comment, "Back to Square One".
If I pull up in a fleet of buses with a wad of $20 bills, and load the buses up to lead people to vote for Bush (or Kerry), it is illegal. If I pass legislation to give money to a certain group so that they vote for Bush (or Kerry), this OK. Only the delivery mechanisms are different. It is disgusting economic policy, it is hateful toward people, and it is business as usual on both sides of the aisle.
The value of the US GDP has actually slowed in the past quarter, does that change your opinion at all? It will not keep growing forever and then what happens? Bush and company appear determined to continue the war on terror (sic) which means that the situation is only going to get worse.
My opinion is best expressed in the last few paragraphs. One has to ask "What happens when servicing the debt gets too expensive?" What if the GDP no longer outgrows the debt? In my last analogy, one would ask "What if property values drop"? Answer: the homeowner's screwed. The homeowner is the US taxpayer.
The optimist in me would love to see a candidate run up a deficit so high that it forces massive budget cuts (i.e the end of many entitlements), but I fear that more taxation is the ultimate outcome. However, I don't see anything distinguishing Bush from Kerry (or republicans from democrats) in this regard, nor do I see any candidates or parties willing to take the lead on infrastructure-level economic reform.
Let's be fair and non-partisan here. If Kerry has nothing to say of substance here then neither does Bush. Not disagreeing with your questioning of budget allocation though.
I agree that much of the discussion going on is nonsense, useless, and political commercials an campaigns in general are an insult to anyone with higher than a 6th grade education.
What Bush has, for better or worse, is his record, which stands for review. Kerry, to his discredit, has not made much of his own record, preferring to use the 1970s as his frame of reference. This has been his strategy because Kerry's record bears out not Kerry's flaws, but the heart of the problem with our government: Kerry has often voted the Democratic party line (as all Congressmen do according to their party). Many times, Democrats (or the minority party) all vote against a measure as a protest. They know it will pass with a Republican majority, but they want to show that it is not passing unopposed or that it is not a perfect piece of legislation.
There is a Bush ad running now that talks about Kerry voting against appropriations for intelligence, against military upgrades, etc. Anyone with half a brain knows that Kerry does not want to send US troops off to war with water pistols. And Kerry would increase the intelligence spend as warranted, no doubt. But because of a history of party-line voting, which everyone does, Kerry can't even run on his record. So his campaign has focused on being "not Bush", and how bad Bush is. That's not really useful, nor inspiring. It may not be a "Kerry problem", rather, a problem with the position, but, Kerry is in the position.
It can't be defended because he has stated this ridiculous fact himself on more than 1 occasion. 'I see myself as doing God's work'.............in response to a question about the war in Iraq and the war on terror in general!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You must be kidding me. This could easily be construed as being on a modern day Crusade and being anti-muslim if you consider his actions and his apparent self-justification of those actions.
Again, I am not a religious person, so I have a visceral fear when I hear those terms being invoked. However, Bush may also feel like he has strong faith in God (I believe he does, it doesn't sway me either way buit I believe he tries to adhere to Christian values) and that he firmly believes he is doing what is right.
I can live with that, because at least it provides a framework of actions which can be supported or rejected in the election. Harder to live with, for me, is inaction and touchy-feely reactionary "leadership". This was Clintion's biggest problem...things were pretty good economically in his second term, so he became a "reactor" in many other areas, including foreign policy. It may have hurt us now....I'm not big on blaming Clinton or hating him or whatever.....he's gone...but I use him as an example of what happens when a leader is not leading.
We may disagree on what Bush has done, but one cannot call him a reactionary or say he has taken a path of least resistance. If, by "doing God's work" he means he is doing what he believes to be right, I can live with that. If his faith in God is the reason for his actions, I'm Ok with that. At least he has a concrete foundation of principles. We do, after all, have a recourse to remove him, as well as a term limit. It is not like North Korea, where they have a Sun King.
This is a tough one but I firmly believe it. See my previous point as part of it. Bush sees Islam and the secular societies where it is prevalent as the antithesis to his beliefs. He has attacked 2 such entities already (one justifiably and one not) and will attack more if re-elected.
We may choose to disagree here; I can say with some confidence that the lot of the Middle East can theoretically improve with the actions in Iraq. There is large scale discontent in Iran and Saudi Arabia, which many would agree are the true state sponsors of terrorism. Terrorism is an outlet for frustration - regimes have become masters at directing anger away from themselves (precluding violent revolution) toward an external enemy.
How else can the royalty in Saudi Arabia keep power and keep their sybaritic lifestyles while 1/3 of the country is unemployed. The big picture vision for the Middle east is a success in Iraq, cascading into infrastructure development in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and others. The jury is out for now, but it will happen eventually. Those people will not be enslaved forever. And when it does happen, it will be bloody.
Come on Matt, you can't tell me you envisioned the current Iraqi situation when dubya and crew were initially saber rattling. This administration certainly didn't because they've definitely been caught with their pants down. Painting the US as 'liberators', 'mission accomplished'? What a joke.
The propaganda coming out of the region is offensive. We are conquerors but we are not oppressors, and if the bigger picture vision works, it will literally improve the quality of life for the entire region.
In Bush Sr.'s book, he explains not wanting to go all the way to Baghdad because he foresaw a boondoggle such as this. This was understood. I do think the bigger picture is worth it, and I think that no matter how the dictators of the Middle east are deposed, it will be ugly, bloody, and make the area better.
Am I being too general? Not specific enough, for why I believe in this Iraq thing?
I agree with you that Saddam needed to be dealt with and should have been on Daddy's watch in 1991 but you cannot force another nation to accept what the US calls democracy without extreme consequences. It's never worked. It's certainly not working right now in Afghanistan or Iraq. He lied and he lied and he lied again about their reasons for invading this country. Clinton lies about a blowjob and is impeached but George lies about his reasons for invading another nation and killing thousands and he's re-elected? That's fucked up.
The Clinton-blowjob thing was silly, however, the impeachment arose out of Clinton lying under oath, which is not a small thing for a President. Ultimaltely, it was much ado about nothing, and it was a slow news cycle: peacetime, strong economy, etc.
I agree also that we cannot force another country to accept what we want without extreme consequences. However, after 9/11, drastic actions were warranted.
There is no diplomatic solution to a terrorist issue when the existing governments are engendering it. I think we would both agree that iraq was not a state sponsor of anti-US terror, and iraq (for the region)is a relatively secular country.
The question for Bush and co. on 9/12 was "how do we make sure this never happens again?" Diplomacy was not really an option, as no sitting leader is going to act against his own internal power to please an outsider. (We were not going to negotiate the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to step down, not the Supreme ruler of iran).
Thus, the Iraq invasion. The grounds were false. I don't think Bush intentionally lied about the WMD, but I think all along, the WMD was a paper tiger with some perceived political viability. Americans, for better or worse, don't have the stomach for a strong leader to sit down and explain why a war, and an ugly one, is needed and is right.
We're not Russians. We have short memory, a rich country, and have not had a war on our soil except against our colonizers and ourselves, in our entire history. We sort of expect others to be tough for us.
Now that, my friend, is the real issue here. Why can't the leaders of your country sit down and have a civilized debate about the real issues like you and I occasionally do? No shouting, no name calling, no smear campaign, just discuss your views of the current situation and the issues your constituents are concerned about. Those same constituents will then decide who they feel will better represent their interests at home and abroad.
Simple thing, this democracy. lol
Our political process kills leadership and fosters compromise. Compromise on details is one thing, on principles it is quite another. We compromise on the wrong things.....so a strong leader is quickly crushed under the mass of mediocrity.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
