Slashdot Mirror
Economist Endorses Kerry, Reluctantly
An anonymous reader writes "The Economist has picked John Kerry as its preferred presidential candidate, over George W. Bush. Though a British publication, the magazine points out that almost half of its readers are based in the U.S. The Economist leans right on trade issues and supported going to war in Iraq, but has been critical on Bush's policies on tax cuts and the deficit."
I've heard a lot of newspaper endorsements both ways this time around. Does anyone know how much effect endorsements actually have on vote counts?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I am sure that CowboyNeal endorsing Michael Badnarik and Libertarians at large would have more of an impact than most newspaper endorsements. :-)
> The Economist has supported the tax cuts, But not the increase of government spending.
Indeed. The "tax and spend" Democrats have been replaced by "tax cut and spend" Republicans. All the rhetoric about fiscal responsibility is just a facade for the real debate, "pay now or pay later".
It's hard for the party in power to cut spending, because pork is one of the primary ways for legislators to buy votes.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
as Mr Bush has often said, there is a need in life for accountability. He has refused to impose it himself, and so voters should, in our view, impose it on him ...
it's in my head
According to German press articles, many more newspapers recommend to vote for Kerry this time, than did support Gore in 2000. Is this true? If so, is this a trend in the more intellectual America? Is this a division between the more intellectual America reading and writing newspapers, and the popular opinion? Or is there another explanation for the fact that this tendency is not reflected in the popular opinion (according to polls)?
Interestingly, it also endorsed Tony Blair in the last British election. From what I can tell, this is more of a reaction to the Democratic and Labour Parties moving toward the center rather than the editorial board moving toward the Left.
Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
Is this a division between the more intellectual America reading and writing newspapers, and the popular opinion?
More of a reflection that newspaper editorials only have a limited impact. There is far more of an impact from the previously mentioned propaganda network: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, etc., etc. In my hometown (Dallas) there are currently *two* radio stations, with pretty significant market share, whose only purpose is to spread GOP propaganda, 24 hours a day. The Democrats have no such partisan network.
I blame the line item veto (the real reason the budget declined during the Clinton years), which was removed following the impeachment trial. It was passed following the Perot candidacy (and strong showing and became a part of the Republican congressional takeover platform, AFAIK). With a line item veto pork could be removed from a bill by the President and a 2/3s vote was required to override it. For those who haven't looked into the sausage factory that is Congress a large bill (annual highway, farm, defense, appropriations, tax, or similar) usually gets a series of amendments added to it that provide for things like a Norwegian-American interpretive center to be built in a congressional district that elected a representative or senator whose support is needed to pass the bill. Since the total bill might be for spending of several billion dollars the expenditure of a few million to secure a marginal vote is good for both parties (those who support the bill for other reasons and the senator whose support was bought). With a line item veto the president could strike the section of the bill that provided for the cultural center, highway, school etc without striking the whole bill and sending it back for another round. Now we shouldn't kid ourselves Presidents were likely to use this to hurt opponents, but overall it cut a whole bunch of wasteful spending. Without that there is no one with an incentive to reduce government spending who is in a position to do so.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
I blame the line item veto (the real reason the budget declined during the Clinton years), which was removed following the impeachment trial.
The line item veto was never actually implemented. As soon as the bill was signed by Clinton it was challenged on constitutional grounds and kept from going into effect. The SCOTUS eventually ruled it unconstitutional, and the OMB afterwards announced that the 40 items that were line item vetoed would have their funds released.
The budget deficit looked good because Clinton was a fiscally responsible president.
Increases in non-defense discretionary spending over the past six administrations:
Nixon/Ford: 6.8% per year
Carter: 2.0% per year
Reagan: -1.3% per year
Bush 1: 4.0% per year
Clinton: 2.5% per year
Bush Jr: 8.2% per year
Source
And here is a nice graph.
John Carmack fan, browsing at +5 since 1999.
Is it obvious much that michael is a Kerry supporter? Is it any surprise that anyone critical of this blatant astroturfing is modded down? I didn't realise Slashdot was a forum in which to impose your political views on others, I thought it was a bookmark collator for IT news. How stupid of me.
Wahh wahh wahh whine whine whine. Look I'm a Republican! Media bias! It's not FAIR! MOMMY! MOMMY! Wah wah wah!
How many stories has the token Republican editor Pudge posted here? Would it be not a million miles from ZERO?
Here, have a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up, pussy. You want Republican propaganda go turn on the radio or point your browser at Free Republic, k? Bush is a complete and utter fuckup and the whole world realizes it, at least those who don't suck Sean Hannity's (et al) cock on a daily basis.
T..
Now can you come up with something that is actually truthfull and isn't political rhetoric BS?
Besides "dogging the other side" can you actually show why we should consider voting for Bush?
This is yet another case of a Kerry republican. In all, there have been over two dozen publications which endorsed Bush for president in 2000 and this time around are behind Kerry. In contrast, half a dozen newspapers have gone the opposite way, that is, from endorsing Gore in 2000 to endorsing Bush in 2004.
I believe history won't be kind on the 43rd president of the USA. He had the support of the entire world post-9/11, plus the largest fiscal surplus ever and he blew away both of them in less than three years.
and what happens if you add in defense spending I wonder? Why pull that out?
.... and because he happened to be president during the longest largest boom in human history.
>
Also, I'm not convinced that it's fair to lie everything at the president's feet. The Congress has a huge impact on our national spending habits too.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Awwww, precious! The testimony of former American prisoners of war is political rhetoric BS? Videotape of young men openly inventing atrocities to report in 1971 is political rhetoric BS? Iranians risking their lives to protest the mullahrocracy is political rhetoric BS? Videotape of your candidate openly engaging in pro-Communist propoganda is political rhetoric BS?
Okay, let's talk about reasons to vote for Bush:
Treats the War on Terrorism as a War, not a law enforcement problem (as Kerry has repeatedly called for)
Treats the Poles, Italians, British, Australians and the 28 other nations allied to us in our fight against terrorism as valued friends, not bribed stooges
Realizes that if France, Germany, and Russia are on the take from Saddaam's Oil for Food program (and they were) then they won't be good allies against Iraq.
Actually paid taxes on his income instead of sheltering most of it from funding the government (that one's got to REALLY gall you, doesn't it?)
Understands that a "plan" is more than just a laundry-list of Monday-morning complaints you throw out whenever your opponent actually accomplishes something in the big game Sunday evening.
Has liberated 50 million people from totalitarian regimes, including liberated millions of women from the yolk of religious oppression.
But you knew all that already, didn't you?
"Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
1. It's called Due Process. If you can't abide by it, you are in danger of unjust and immoral practices. That's why it exists. That's why doing without it should be a very last resort indeed.
2. On the one hand you have a country with death squads and the world's best military equipment and training, and on the other you have poor people throwing stones and blowing themselves up to kill civilians. Morally equivalent, perhaps not exactly, but they are not so far apart. It sounds like Sharon is chilling out in his old age though... maybe good things are ahead, we'll see.
3. Protests are great, are they gonna stop Iran from developing Nukes?
4. "Aid and comfort". Fuck off. Vietnam was a total political bullshit war, just like Iraq, and I for one salute every single person who had the balls to stand up and call a spade a spade.
That's because, despite popular belief, the Republicans are not the party of small government. They're the party of "government growing at a slower rate than the Democrats would." Economically, Reagan was a Libertarian, the party actually working for less government.
You are another example of a Republican who turned into a communist once in power.
I think the touchstone of TRUE conservatism is emboddied in the Boy Scout's policy on camp ground cleanup: Always leave the place better than when you came. That means, that if you want to pull off a big operation like such as invading a random country while you are already have your hands full in a war on terror, you pay for it. You don't leave your dirty dishes in the sink for the next guy to wash. The fact is, you can claim that Kerry would make a bigger mess, but at the end, no one can leave behind as much a mess as W has.
As far as your comments about the deficit being less than GDB growth, that makes no sense unless you plan in the future to confiscate all the GDP growth to pay for government expenses. I prefer a plan that allows for a future that is continually getting more and more prosperous; I say we should pay for what we spend NOW, whether that means paying more or better yet, spending less, and next year KEEP that GDP growth and use it to do whatever we want, not give it to the Federal Government.
If you continously spend more than you take in, eventually you end up like Argentina. Either your government collapses back to just a tax-extortion system that offers no services for decades while it is paid off, or your debtors begin to use your huge amounts of bonds just like money, trading them among themselves, creating massive inflation, so all our savings are worthless and our wages can't pay the electric bill. This happens even if the economy is booming. If the economy booms, you have to COLLECT enough of that money to PAY the spending, if it is to make a difference in the your budget.
Awwww, Precious! If Vietnam was a total political bullshit war, why is it that John Kerry takes every opportunity he can to point out that he fought there for 4 months?
"Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
The deficit looked good because Newt Gingrich shutdown the government, and reduced spending to the point that the government borrowed less; without bonds to put the money into, big institutional investors and foreign banks had to invest it elsewhere, leading to a boom in the stock market and the economy in general. I think Clinton is considerably more conservative that people give him credit for; he probably wasn't as unhappy with the Gingrich freeze as he put on.
But Gingrich represents a completely different party than the Republicans of today. These fuckers have never seen something they didn't want to buy with your child's credit card.
Understand that the Gaza plan (which is what I assume you are reffering to) is designed to halt negotiations. Read the Haaretz interview with Sharon advisor Weisglass to understand what's really going on here.
A brief excerpt:
I'd like to also give you a huge "right on" for your point #4:
4. "Aid and comfort". Fuck off. Vietnam was a total political bullshit war, just like Iraq, and I for one salute every single person who had the balls to stand up and call a spade a spade.
Anyone who thinks Kerry "invented" the atrocites might want to look into Tiger Force.
Yeah, an "obscure Crawford newspaper" which happens to be his home town paper. And don't forget that bush said "if you want to know about me talk to the texans that know me" (not an exact quote).
a vote for bush is an accessory to murder
Because he is a political opportunist, and his advisors told him it would help his poll numbers. It was also a big factor in him winning the Democratic nomination. He's trying to beat Bush at his own game, playing the tough guy. I personaly don't think it's working.
Kerry's present-day bullshit PR stunts have no relation to whether or not Vietnam was a just war.
> I voted the C. Neal / N. Portman write-in ticket this morning in early voting. (Seriously -- I think these two presidential candidates are essentially the same
If you can't tell the difference between Cowboy Neal and Natalie Portman...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
If you add Defence spending, I'm sure Bush's spending increase % would skyrocket. With the data included, people would generally state that the incease in spending was due to the war in Iraq. Seeing the numbers without defense spending shows that Bush has been fiscally irresponsible, even after including the increased costs due to the war.
Fuck man, it is a law enforcement problem if it's any one area at all. That's why it's the FBI/CIA that tracks/arrests terrorists. The laws as they are set up give those powers to the law enforcement community, not the armed forces.
Personally I belive that we could quench the flow of terrorism a lot if we could deal with sucky economies in other countries and get Saudi Arabia to end the welfare-state additude common there. People need something to live for, and while there will always be crazies, people who work on what they want to work on are probably less likely to fly planes into buildings.
By the way, Saddam was hated by Bin Laden. You want to know why? He had a secular state. It wasn't perfect in rights for women, but it was a damn slight better than across any of Iraq's borders.
And the US does give out billions to other countries, and most of those countries live off that money. By the way, Poland's PM has gone on the record stating that the only reason he gave troops(special forces) was so that Polish companies could get a slice of the oil action.
"For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
well, actually, the post's argument was that Republicans' government outpaces Democrats, but AFAICare, they both pork everything up.
What amazes me is that the "down home" americans, the 50% or so that make up the "working class" rural vote, believe that they somehow benefit from backing the party that spends in deficit and supports smaller government oversight in business alone, since in personal matters, we have abortion fights, patriots acts, and DCMA/internet nonsense.
These people end up the victims of closed factories, large corporate farming buyouts, and other corporate stomping, all while voting for people what have a "homeboy" appeal to their local nature. Sure, the local congressperson or senator may have a nice chuckle and win a government contract to build an extra submarine for 10$billion, but are these folks actually creating a sustainable lifestyle? nope. contracts end, environmental abuses catch up with you, and large corporations migrate to where the best manufacturering is. ask anyone in so many has-been towns - long after the politicos are done stumping, their constituents are screwed.
Personally I belive that we could quench the flow of terrorism a lot if we could deal with sucky economies in other countries and get Saudi Arabia to end the welfare-state additude common there.
I absolutely agree. However, how do you propose we do this when all money flowing into or out of a country goes through a single, corrupt, dictatorial ruler? Or, rather(since I suppose each dinar didn't cross Hussein's hand), the money flow is directly controlled by him? It can't be done. That's one of the problems with sending oodles of money to Africa right now; no enforcable way to make sure it gets where it should go.
Economic resolutions need to start at the root, and that root is the leadership of a given area. If the leadership is corrupt, there's no chance for economic reform.
--trb
The Wall Street Journal has not endorsed anyone for President, yet. They normally abstain from endorsements.
The Financial Times did endorse Kerry for what its worth.
"BEHOLD, CORN!!" - Dr. Weird, ATHF
You're totally missing Bush's strategery: You don't have to "pay later" if the apocolypse comes! Didn't Nostradamus predict these events?! Yea, these are the end times, people. </sarcasm>
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
awww, because he actually stepped up, did his duty, and went when he was called... served... came back and spoke out on what he saw. He has something to talk about. The fact that he actually did his duty is something he's got up on Mr. Bush.
Just because he spoke out on the war, he shouldn't be able to take credit for actually doing his duty like thousands of others (but not Bush) did?
.... and because he happened to be president during the longest largest boom in human history.
Sure- if you count the DOW hitting 10,000 while the soup kitchens get overcrowded as a BOOM. I consider it to be more of a bust myself- and the harbinger of the process to turn the United States into the third world bananna republic it is today.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Treats the War on Terrorism as a War, not a law enforcement problem
Which is why we've been searching for WMD's in Iraq, at the cost of over 100,000 civilian casualties + 200 billion some odd dollars, and 1,000 lives of US forces.
Treats the Poles, Italians, British, Australians and the 28 other nations allied to us in our fight against terrorism as valued friends
Friends, yea, but 28 nations that constitute about 10% of the total resources being used to invade, I mean, remove Sadam from power.
Actually paid taxes on his income instead of sheltering most of it from funding the government
Why shelter it when you can simply cut it? Bush policy actually allows more companies to hide their incomes. Here's an interesting site BTW. I didn't know that being the VP of the US was that lucrative.
Understands that a "plan" is more than just a laundry-list of Monday-morning complaints you throw out whenever your opponent actually accomplishes something in the big game Sunday evening.
Name those accomplishments exactly. And what exactly is Kerry complaining about that isn't something of importance? If there is an important issue that a president is not addressing or is not handling properly to the detriment of his country, shouldn't it be addressed? Get a grip!
Has liberated 50 million people from totalitarian regimes, including liberated millions of women from the yolk of religious oppression.
No, he's still president, remember?
Seriously though, the administration never talks about Afghanistan except in soundbites. Then we talk about elections and womens rights, elections that have been delayed for over three years and are still continuing. Women just came under the opression of totalitarian warlords. Why are they still there anyways? And as for Iraq, well, we're still there, they are not free, and we've killed over 100,000 of them, not counting those injured. And you can make every argument you want about it being the fault of the terrorists, but because of our administrations inability to truly win the peace, more and more suppore is gained for the side of the terrorists. And we still look like the bad guy because there is almost no one else there except us. We started it, now we can't finish it.
All we had before was a bunch of crazies shouting
"They're evil! they're destroying our country"
And nobody really listened, cause they were crazy.
Now we've got a bunch of crazies shouting
"See! They're evil! They're destroying our country!"
And people are starting to listen because they might not be so crazy.
Now, quick! Who am I talking about? Us or them?
FDR was borrowing 30% of GDP during WWII, and left with public debt 110% of GDP, a much bigger 'mess' and we were just fine. We just grew the economy. The deadline to pay off the national debt is NEVER. The debt can keep growing forever as long as GDP grows more. It is spending that matters. Whether borrowing or taxing, spending takes the same amount out of the economy today. Borrowing just means that the debt will be transferred later from the public to the public. Borrowing is voluntary, while taxes are involuntary, and harm the economy.
Argentina collapsed because they pegged their currency to the dollar. Instead of simply devaluating everyone redeemed their pesos to dollars until their treasury was bare. The six depressions in the history of the USA (1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, and 1929) all began during or immediately following periods of budget surplus. Only Bush has had a big surplus not turn into a depression.
So, the journal supports both extremely liberal positions and extremely conservative positions.
By contrast, the Fox News Channel is moderate in a pervasive sense. For example, Bill O'Reilly supports using the national guard to protect the borders yet supports allowing a limited number of Mexicans to enter the USA as migrant workers under the stipulation that they must return to Mexico at the end of their stint.
Regardless of the nature of the boom, government had no problem with revenue during the 90's. That was not because of Clinton.
Kerry's the one.
The paper is published by a individual that lives in another town and is the mayor of that town. This individual set up shop in Crawford while Bush was running for President. The large majority of the town does not agree with this "outsider."
ArticleI always thought of Clinton as someone that would have been fun to go drinking with and probably someone that would have been a good friend. I never thought of him as someone who would make a great friend because I figure he would turn on me if he thought he had too. I also figured he was not the kind of person that I would want my daughter to bring home as her fiancee.
But I still think he would be an excellent drinking buddy that your wife doesn't like you hanging around with.
Who cares whether the GOVERNMENT had enough revenue? Or whether investors had enough revenue? The purpose of bothering with having a stable money supply and economy to begin with is so that the PEOPLE have enough revenue to live lives without government help- and that simply didn't happen very well at any time in the last 40 years, let alone during the Clinton Administration. In fact, it hasn't really happened since Ronald Reagan, President of the Screen Actors Guild, talked Congress into reducing the top tax rate from 95% to 75% during the Eisenhower Administration. Everything since then has been bad news for the middle class and good news for select groups of friends of the party in charge (whichever party that happened to be).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
> They're the party of "government growing at a slower rate than the Democrats would."
No, just as with spending the biggest difference between Republicans and Democrats is who gets the advantage out of it. The current government claims to be big on states' rights, but watch what happens when a state wants to legalize marijuana, import medicine from Canada, allow gay marriage or euthanasia, etc.
Also, if the newscast I heard a couple of nights ago was correct, the federal government has hired 800,000 people under the current administration (meaning the job loss figures would look even worse if not for growing government).
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The rationale is that defense is (a) vital and (b) not an accurate reflection of policy, because it depends heavily on the behaiours of the rest of the world. There's a lot to that, and a lot to the observation that it should be included, as Bush's foreign policy shows, because it actually is "discretionary spending".
But, there you go, that's the reasoning.
I forget what 8 was for.
Here's a good list of media endorsements for the various candidates.
You're naive if you think the line-item veto would have made any difference. Just like campaign finance reform, had the line-item veto gone into effect politicians would have found loopholes, such as making one line-item contingent upon another not being vetoed, therefore rendering the whole effort useless.
Heinlein (via Lazarus Long):
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck."
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Wish I had mod points...
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
You cannot justify bad behavior with worse behavior. The deficit is a big problem that needs to be addressed. Also, Bush has done nothing in regards to Social Security reform, other then happily spend its surplus on other government programs. The only reform of Social Security you will get through the Bush administration will be to allow you to put a small percentage into a heavily regulated government account.
If anyone is concerned with the fiscal policies of this administration and getting rid of Social Security, they should be voting Libertarian.
From the cover of the series:
They go on to endorse the Constitution Party candidate, Michael Peroutka - not John Kerry.
no shit, but that wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about Clinton's fiscal responsibility. I put forth that it wasn't his fiscal responsibility that set the tone for the 90's budgets and surpluses, it was gobs of available revenue for the government.
What you're saying has a few valid points, but isn't at all relevant to what we were discussing.
How could there be a surplus when the Federal Government didn't start collecting taxes until 1894, and not reliably until 1913 (16th amendment). References please, oh wait, this is slashdot politics.
When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get evil, vote Libertarian.
furthermore, what are you saying? That if it weren't a just war, that the soldiers who fought in it should be ashamed? I thought the reasonable stance, that we all learned from vietnam, is you don't shit on the soldiers, you shit on the administration that wasted their lives. A man doing his duty is worthy of respect. A man sending others to die for nothng is worthy of charges of treason, or murder.
Sure- if you count the DOW hitting 10,000 while the soup kitchens get overcrowded as a BOOM.
What are you talking about? Poverty went down massively under the Clinton administration. In 1999 the poverty rate was 11.9%, the lowest rate since 1979, child porverty went down by amazing amounts, median incomes were up, unemployment was down, and more people had health care than ever before.
No matter how you measure it, the Clinton years were great for Americans of all income levels. This was due to a combination of sound fiscal policy (not ideological: libertarian, Marxist, or trickle-down) and economic conditions. But they fed off of the other.
It's possible that the poor fool actually believes what he's saying.
On the other hand, since he has 5 recent posts modded at -1, the more reasonable explanation is that he's a stupid political troll.
It's actually huge news that The Economist endorsed Kerry. The Economist tends to side with Republicans, supports free trade and globalized economies, and businesses.
I was shocked to see The Economist supporting Kerry, as it generally gave fair marks to the President on most issues (and this is addressed in the endorsement quite well).
The fact that The Economist is vehemently in support of fiscal responsibility is also an important issue.
Give the bias issue a break. It's a typical conservative trump card when they want control of the media. If the media has any articles at all that don't fully support Republicans they cry bias. Stop whining about bias, it has never been true and still isn't. The articles just go on the facts, and that should be a suggestion regarding the feasibility and logic behind your ideals.
This from a magazine that prides itself in being the in-flight magazine of Air Force One.
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Tariff's
u pa/Abe/Recess ionsDepressionsPanics.asp
History of the Debt
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm
History of Depressions
http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/2
Check it out, It's really true.
Unlike Heinlein, I'm not a Randroid. But I must admit- I've always liked this quote; as well as the whole concept of exiling criminals internally.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Worse- it would have killed political comprimise. WHile a lot of ammendments are pork, more are comprimises to make it acceptable to both parties. With a line item veto, the president can veto the ammendment, making the comprimise null and void. Basicly if you weren't from the presidents party, you would have no chance of getting your laws through.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
The increasing market-cap of Treasury bonds (deficit) is not a problem. Debt/GDP is the meaningful number, and it has a very small effect on interest rates.
Compulsory taxation is not earning money. Borrowing money is voluntary. The government doesn't earn very much money from voluntary exchange for goods and services. (that would be socialism) The budget is nothing close to balanced in a business sense, nor should it be. Why the libertarian party is debt-phobic and would rather fund the government with involuntary taxation instead of voluntary borrowing is a mystery to me.
Private accounts for Social Security is the only thing Bush can hope to pass with today's Congress. Fill the Senate with 100 L's and R's and let's see what happens.
Do you have a counterexample? I don't recall Kerry voting on much of anything in the last year, since the $87 billion.
What is stupid is the AC calling me a communist for wanting to cut taxes and cut spending.
It's the economy
I completely agree that Bush spending is out of control. I think the defense spending is mostly necessary and anything spent on homeland security. But faith based initiatives are stupid. Church groups should easily be able to get funding from their membership as mine does.
That being said, where would the economy be if there were no tax cuts?
It wasn't great for the Textile Workers- NAFTA laid them off by the tens of thousands. Wasn't great for most manufacturing actually. And while the poverty rate did go down- it bounced right back up after 1998 and the begining of the dot bomb crash. The Clinton years were the the tail end of the manufacturing phase of the American Worker Replacement Program- and with the H-1b bill, pushed through Congress late at night in early October 2000 and signed into law by Clinton, the Knowledge Worker Phase began (and was acellerated under W until I personally began to wonder if we'd have any middle class left by now).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
You should read more about the Libertarian party, they don't want to have any federal taxes at all. What the states do is up to them. We would go back to a fed that survives only on tarifs, and is drastically cut in size. We don't believe in taking someones property to give to someone else (AKA involuntary taxation).
Libertarian sounds like a neat idea, until you read the platform they advocate and realize its concentrated Big Business Republican wacko. Break away from the UN? Eliminate minimum wage? Eliminate the Federal Reserve? Make pollution a civil offense? Sell National Reserves and Parks to private owners? Fullscale withdrawl from Iraq?
If you want to raise the domestic income and prosperity, you absolutely need to put money where it will be spent. Its an economic law that increased spending raises income, and saving/investing is the opposite side of this coin. I mean, you don't think that Microsoft is going to begin massive hiring now that the dividend tax rate has been cut, do you? Eliminating the minimum wage really isn't as drastic as it seems, except for those immigrants that Badnarik claims are vital to American prosperity.
I'd rather not cut off the face to spite my nose, if you see what I mean.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
There is a time when increased taxes are appropriate to fiscal conservatism. That time is now, when your deficit is so severe that, even while cutting spending, you will be unable to recoup your losses without increasing the cash flow into the government. Fiscal conservatism demands more than a tax break.
That being said, where would the economy be if there were no tax cuts?
I recall hearing that the tax cuts were so large that many of the large banks and other financial drivers became more cautious (though the cuts would cause huge deficits that would be long term burdens on the economy) and played real conservative, slowing down the recovery.
Personally (nobody can prove anything in this fight, as there is no control economy available) I think the tax cuts have had no benificial effect on the economy...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
There is much evidence that Jane Fonda visited Vietnam as past of her protest movement. Calling me a fucktard isn't going to change much. Though yes it was a bit far off for me to imply that he would have gone. He had a political carrer to think about.
Indeed. The "tax and spend" Democrats have been replaced by "tax cut and spend" Republicans. All the rhetoric about fiscal responsibility is just a facade for the real debate, "pay now or pay later".
And don't forget that when you "pay later" you pay with interest.
That is why I believe that the Republican party, and especially GWB are no longer conservative.
Nobody died when Nixon lied.
I'm meeting you half way you stupid hippies!
With a line item veto, the president can veto the ammendment, making the comprimise null and void.
Well, maybe they could implement the line item veto differently than the regular veto.
Let's say to override the veto of the entire bill still requires 2/3 majority, but to override a line item veto only requires a simple majority.
If it is really pork that is being killed with the line item veto, the politicians will be less likely to support an override, because then next election time people can look at the vote record and say "Hey, you supported Pork when you overrode the line item veto for 5 million to build statues of something something, and that's not kosher!"
Nobody died when Nixon lied.
I'm meeting you half way you stupid hippies!
Except 2/3 is int he constitution, that makes it hard to change.
Also, 1 person's pork is another key deal. If its 5 billion to welfare- is it pork or not? Depends on your political beliefs.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
You sound like a well intended individual, it's just unfortunate that all your good intentions have bad consequences. Point by point:
the platform they advocate and realize its concentrated Big Business Republican
No, take the power away from government to regulate and aid business, and you're left with more small businesses.
Sell National Reserves and Parks to private owners
The largest polluter in this country is the federal government. People who own private land take better care of it because they have a greater interest in it
Make pollution a civil offense?
Right now you're prevented from suing polluters because they lobby the federal government into passing laws so that it's not even a civil offence
Eliminating the minimum wage really isn't as drastic as it seems, except for those immigrants that Badnarik claims are vital to American prosperity
The minimum wage causes unemployment. People can choose where they want to work, and if they wish to seek a greater wage.
How about you quit spending all your time letting politicians run your life and worry about yourself. You will find that it's better for everyone if you worry about yourself, and not everyone else. Any time you give the government the power to do good, that power will eventually be used to do evil. The problem is not the corruption of power, rather the power to corrupt. - Michael Cloud
So, you'd have to have a continuing increase in tax revenue that would at least match the increase in the interest upon the debt. And just matching it would mean that you're not improving the situation.
A fiscal conservative's first priority is reduced spending. Anyone who calls them self a fiscal conservative because they call a vote for a tax increase a vote to reduce the deficit is a fraud. Kerry's health plan is less than half of the new spending he is proposing, and how can he get credit for both being better for health care and better fiscally because his health plan won't pass? The only spending Kerry has voted to cut recently is the $87 billion to support our troops.
Well, give Kerry credit for at least voting against some spending bills - Bush hasn't vetoed a damn thing since he's been in office.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
Slashdot readers tend to work in scientific or technical fields, are well educated and well read, secular, and take an interest in social and economic matters. There are also a lot of people here with the hacker ethic: make just as much money as you need, and put the rest back into the pool. On all those counts, Bush has scored terribly, by politicising science screwing up the economy, and by blurring the line between church and state. This is a man who goes on instinct rather than reason, is devoid of intellectual curiousity, and fights for the interests of the rich and powerful. When told that someone wrote a book while attending Yale, he quipped "I read a book at Yale." His is the epitome of what Steve Allen called Dumbth.
And you're suprised that the majority of Slashdotters can't stand Bush? I'm amazed that anyone here would support him.
But I'm still not convinced.
Without regulations, businesses tend to collude and merge. And even with regulations, some find it more profitable to ignore anti-competitive measures and destroy opposition alongside the fundamental nessecities of an open market.
The minimum wage law does impact certain markets, but let me provide a counter example. I recently attended a local state University, and part of this education included a rudimentary course in macroeconomics. While discussing the elementary models of price ceilings and price floors, the man teaching the course asked a simple question. "How many people work and earn minimum wage?" he asked. Of a classroom holding roughly 300, two raised their hands, as I recall. "Are you waitresses?" Yes, they relied. I'm no economics major, so I can't tell you how the minimum wage intersects service jobs where tips represent a significant income in interesting ways. But generally speaking, the minimum wage affects high school students working at the local laser tag and people who speak english as their next language. I'm more inclined to believe my personal experience and education over a one man think tank (especially one that doesn't even have its own web search in proper order). When nurses near a rural University don't even make a living wage, more than just the local students and populace are in danger.
I'm actually surprised you didn't bring up the Federal Reserve. Thats quite a nutcase position that isn't supported by most businessmen of any variety, be it large, small or imaginary. It seems he backs a Monetarist policy, given his stance on hard currency and the dissolution of the Federal Reserve. This totally ignores that even the founder of the monetarism school of thought reguards the gold standard as untenable and outdated. Dissolving the Fed would have the secondary measure of making small business loans more difficult to obtain, not easier. And this is ignoring the effect that would happen overnight as overseas investment in american markets suddenly drops off the face of the planet and into the stables of the newly formed Euro. If you thought the moaning of people who's portfolios took a hit with the MS lawsuits was bad, wait till you hear how loudly everyone with a 401k, bond traders, pensioners and generally everyone with more than three dollars to their name watches their money shrivel on paper.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Tariffs compromise free trade, and cannot raise near as much money as selling bonds.
That is the paleoconservative position. The deficit is so 'severe' that treasury interest rates, along with interest rates in general, have fallen and are hanging around all time lows. There is no cash flow problem, the deficit is tiny compared to the total volume of bond sales. The current Nobel Economist winner is calling the Bush tax cuts too small.
Except of course that 100,000 Iraqi civilians haven't dies due to our liberation of Iraq. The Lancet used notoriously inappropriate sampling for an estimate rather than some kind of actual tally. I know, it's shameful that such an august body would trade its credibility and respectability for cheap political grandstanding. Shameful, but as The Economist has shown, hardly unprecedented.
"Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
So you're saying that if it's only 10,000 to 30,000 civilian casualties, pluse whatever other injuried, that's ok?
No, I'm saying that the previous poster is choosing incorrect data to advance a general feeling against liberating the Middle East, which has been the cesspool of the world for the past several hundred years... Uh, wait. Since the advent of Islam. Yeah. That's it.
You're asking me if 10,000-30,000 is an acceptable number? It might very well be. How many were killed by Saddam hanchmen and Islamofascists trying to stop those who are striving to implement the rule of law?
I understand that you'd rather live on your knees than die on your feet. Speaking as someone who served in the infantry in the late 80's, I wouldn't.
"Wow. Now THAT'S a lot of angry Indians." - Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer
There are more issues at hand than economics. Even if the economy tanked at the hands of Bush, I still wouldn't vote for Kerry given what he did after Vietnam. If you don't know what I'm referring to, watch the Stolen Honor video.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
How is the government going to pay back the interest and principal of those bonds. Oh, thats right, they'll tax you.
To live on my knees? No. I stand on my own two feet. Thanks. However, what needs to be recognized are the long term effects of these types of actions. Yes, Sadam was evil, yes, he killed/maimed/raped/etc... however many thousands of peoples. However, he was the SOB. And from a world perspective, that was the general consensus. But us going in under false pretenses for base assumptions like we did, only made US look like the SOB. The real reasons for our invasion (yes, I use the 'i' word, the transfer of power as such is not a liberation) are more likely for control of oil. Cross reference and search subject matter 'Peak Oil', and do some fact finding. This still does not excuse our actions. The death of 30,000 citizens (if we'll agree on that number as a minimum) may be viewed as acceptable in our POV, but perhaps not in theirs. Did anybody ask the Iraqi's? The fact that there is still so much support for these guerilla soldiers should indicate something about the social mentality of this nation. Before, it was warring tribal states with thousand year old feuds. They hated each other. Now, we've given them a common ground to stand upon to strike out at something. Us.
To say that Islam is the reason for the 'cesspool' nature of the Middle East is a horribly ignorant statement to make. Islam predates Christianty. Surprise! And Christianity was responsible for how many deaths, how many years of suffering and respresion, and how many dividing lines have been driven between even those who profess to follow the word of God? So is it any better? I apologize if I am making a presumption about your beliefs, but because you would reference it directly, I can only assume that you believe that some other religion is 'better'. Religion is a weapon and a tool. It can be used equally for creation and peace or war and destruction. It depends only on the one who would wield its word.
No great movement forward in society has ever been borne in the ideaology of closed minded men.
I stand on My Own Two Feet and I will not bow down to any other mans ignorance and righteousness. Shoot me where I stand, but the truth will still remain.
Oh, man. Absolutely sigged. Oh no! It's the yolk of opression! It's going to get me, um, gooey and yellow or something.
But it shouldn't really be a surprise that Bush's supporters tend to have Bush's great grammatical skill, and the spelling ability of his daddy's veep.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go out behind the Bushes.