Warning: Politics: Howard Dean...

[Cat]

Cat, I mention 9-11 because it is proof that extremists hated the USA before we went into Afghanistan or Iraq (excluding Desert Storm, of course.)

I hope that that didn't come as a surprise to you ... the USA on their turn with their foreign policy made of bullets should not be very surprised either.

It's also the single greatest turning point in the economy, and not at all attributable to GWB. You mentioned two other economic downturn factors (.com burst / Enron) that are equally not Bush's fault.

I never implied they were Bush's personal fault, but nevertheless they neither are an excuse for his actions. 9-11 is not a reason to invade Iraq: Iraq was in no way responisble for 9-11, no hijacker was from Iraq, Saddam did not have ties with Al-Quaeda, no fundamentalists were hiding in Iraq, Iraq was probably the most secular state in the middle-East. The USA helped Bin-Laden economically and directly with weapons and intelligence, to combat the "phantom menace" of the Sovject Republic. Now they reap their rewards. As a christian, I guess the line "who wields the sword shall die by the sword" should appeal to you ... the USA are the single greatest source of instability in the world right now, and it's coming back to bite them.

I view the Iraq issue as a very important issue, and not as a clever ploy to detract from some "real issue" or something. Is foreign policy not important? Maybe I'm not understanding your point on that.

Invading a country while unprovoked is not foreign policy, it is a criminal act in international legislation. "The coalition of the willing" is a scam: it simply means that the USA are going to do whatever they please and if you're not with them you're against them. No actual diplomatic efforts have been made on USA's behalf.

You can agree with Bush, you can disagree with my posts, but please give reasons for it: WHY do you agree with Bush? WHY do you respectfully disagree with a post that states well documented and published facts? Every single inspector up to now has stated the Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction after 1995, they did not develop them, they did not buy uranium from Nigeria, they did not hide them in Syria. You cannot disagree with facts. This is not slander, this is not a biased lefty communist atheist opinion. It is a fact. Can you disagree with gravity? No: you might find it inconvenient, but there is no way you can respectfully disagree with gravity!
You do live here in this world I hope, and here if you disagree or deny things you have to back them up. So, give reasons if you have them. The same counts for the other side. Hate Bush all you want, but give reasons, not generalisations.

I have reasons for thinking Bush is doing a bad job, and I am giving them. Most of my "disagreement" with Bush's administration is that they didn't have good reasons for doing what they did. This makes them dangerous. I fear the USA more than I fear the so-called "axis of evil". Here is a hint why:

Bush maintains that despite the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Saddam Hussein posed "a grave and gathering threat to America and the world."

This allegation simply is not true, however much a monster Saddam may be.

Let's look at the issue Harpers style:

US population: 295 million
Iraq population: 24 million
US per capita annual income: $37,600
Iraq per capita annual income: 700
US nuclear warheads: 10,455
Iraq nuclear warheads: 0
US tons of lethal chemical weapons (1997): 31,496
Iraq tons of lethal chemical weapons (1997): 0
Number of foreign troops and civilians US military has killed since 1968: approx. 2 million
Number of foreign troops and civilians Iraqi military has killed since 1968: approx. 250,000

 

[MDLarson]

Cat and others:
I admire and respect your passion and involvement in current events. But there are a few things that prohibit me from getting involved in yet another controversial thread. First, I just don't have a lot of time, because we are getting ready to move. Second, I suck at debates (I don't believe this is a matter of fact and fiction; just a shortcoming of myself). Third, I very much doubt it will benefit anyone. Even if I put together a good response, people who already claim outright hatred toward the person I would be defending would probably not change their mind about anything. Plus I would just get frustrated and get defensive anyway.

One opinion I do have is that the democratic community is placing an unproportinal amount of blame on Bush. The democratic community has been losing ground to republicans across the country and I view the target on Bush's back to be a rallying cry. I don't think this is a bad thing in itself, but I just think a lot of the blame is simply not legitimate. One example of this is the policy of regime change, which President Clinton supported. So often I hear that "Saddam wasn't a threat! Bush shouldn't have invaded!" Well, maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. But Bush wasn't the only one to believe that.

I don't agree with Bush on everything. But I will vote for him, and I have my reasons. If you can't accept that, well... that's your problem, not mine.

 

[speedfreak]

Could you tell me whether Bush plans to invest in building a good future for the USA at all, by investing in health care, job security, welfare, retirement, education, etc.?

Hmmm... I'm not sure about you but when I make an investment I expect a return. I am not entitled to receive or guaraunteed to receive a return. After investing/taking a risk I may or not be rewarded. If I make the wrong choices, I suck it up and learn from my mistakes. When I am rewarded, the reward is usually substantial. How exactly do you invest in healthcare, job security, welfare, retirement, education, etc.?
I personally invest in healthcare by purchasing a policy from an insurance company. I personally invest in my job security by going out everyday and finding new revenue for my company and its employees. I personally invest in welfare by donating to charities I feel do good work with the money. I personally invest in retirement by spending less than I make and saving and investing the difference. I personally invest in education by sending my children to a private school where they get a real education. On top of all that, I pay taxes to the government for various public services like defense(police on up to military), highways, parks, ect... AND so that people that do not look after healthcare, job security, welfare, retirement, education, etc.? for themselves are looked after. How much more do you want?
Don't you mean spend more money on healthcare, job security, welfare, retirement, education, etc.? Where does the money come from? Either increasing taxes or reallocating funds within the budget or debt.
Taxation - I really and truely believe that I already pay enough if not too much so you are not getting it from here.
Reallocate funding within the existing budget - I am all for this. I think the US spends far too much looking after things that people could easily do for themselves. Like making lunch for their children to take to school. I think the US spends far too much money defending Europe from itself. Lets bring home all the troops from Europe - see how long it takes before they go back to killing each other. Cat you already speak german so you won't have to adjust too much. I would much rather see all those $billions spent on better schools in America.
Debt - The US debt is currently smaller as a percentage relative to annual revenues than the average household. Debt can be useful in emergencies, for building infrastructure, and the purchase of assets. Debt to pay items or services that are comsumed is not wise. I am not a big fan of debt in general but I do use it myself when it is prudent. I am not really worried that the US govt has too much debt but adding $B 500 this year is a little scary to say the least. I am not pleased with Bush or the Congress for this xtreme ammount of overspending. Mostly because it makes it very unlikely that anymore taxcuts will be coming for the forseeable future.

 

[speedfreak]

PS America is not and never will be a nanny state like the EU

 

[RacerX]

This is a great post to work on, so I'll make some points here:

I'm not sure about you but when I make an investment I expect a return. I am not entitled to receive or guaraunteed to receive a return. After investing/taking a risk I may or not be rewarded. If I make the wrong choices, I suck it up and learn from my mistakes. When I am rewarded, the reward is usually substantial. How exactly do you invest in healthcare, job security, welfare, retirement, education, etc.?

Good, then you deserve what you are getting now. Lets point out what you are actually getting from your investment...

I personally invest in healthcare by purchasing a policy from an insurance company.

Insurance companies are in the business of making a profit... not helping people. This is very important to note. You are paying for insurance now... making an investment as you put it. What happens if you get sick? I mean really sick. Insurance companies drop people's coverage who have invested just like you when they are no longer profitable to cover. Insurance companies make money by covering the healthy, not the sick. You could find out that when you need your insurance the most it won't be there.

I personally invest in my job security by going out everyday and finding new revenue for my company and its employees.

Are you suggesting that everyone who has become unemployed over the last three years is out of work because of a lack of investing in their former jobs? That is the saddest idea I've ever heard of. I know many people who were very hard working that are still unemployed today because their former employers no longer exist. Entire markets have disappeared in the last three years, not for a lack of hard work, but from a lack of people using those services and products any more. Recession is an indiscriminate destroyer of jobs effecting both those who are hard working and those who just get by.

I personally invest in welfare by donating to charities I feel do good work with the money.

Nice, but is still no guarantee that you'll get help from that charity.

I personally invest in retirement by spending less than I make and saving and investing the difference.

A lot of people did that, and they are out much of their savings and investments. Many people trusted that their company was investing their money wisely in 401Ks, and the bonus of having the company produce matching funds was often hard to pass up... at least that was how it was before 2001.

I personally invest in education by sending my children to a private school where they get a real education.

Funny, I went to public schools for my education, it sure seemed real enough to me. My university is a public school and has had more Nobel Laureates than any other private school in the country and more than most countries in Europe.

Besides, the quality of education of the other kids your children are growing up with should be considered nearly as important as that of your children. When living together in this country, any poorly educated people effect all of us no matter what our own education status is. If over all education is poor, that is going to effect the quality of the rest of the country regardless of any individual's education. There are plenty of third world countries with a highly educated minority that have exceptionally low standards of living even for those educated few.

On top of all that, I pay taxes to the government for various public services like defense(police on up to military), highways, parks, ect... AND so that people that do not look after healthcare, job security, welfare, retirement, education, etc.? for themselves are looked after. How much more do you want?

I pay taxes too, I think a fair share should cover it. And for a while we were doing just that.

Don't you mean spend more money on healthcare, job security, welfare, retirement, education, etc.? Where does the money come from? Either increasing taxes or reallocating funds within the budget or debt.
Taxation - I really and truely believe that I already pay enough if not too much so you are not getting it from here.

I don't feel that we are paying too much. I thought the 1996-2000 levels of taxation were fine. In fact more than fine. In 2000 my state had a surplus, they cut taxes and within a year we were in deficits. The Federal government had been running surpluses for three years going in to 2001. We had projected surpluses stretching out for an additional ten years. Within one year of being in office Bush had turn surpluses as far as the eye could see into deficits. After three years we have the highest deficits in history (in total dollars, and the highest in 20+ years as a percentage of GNP).

What would be ideal would be if the government (a not-for-profit organization) would take over for things like health care. In that case you would be guaranteed that your investment in health care was there no matter what. I would even love to see a full coverage plan that would keep insurers from dropping people when they got sick. Both plans would effect the profits of insurers and are heavily lobbied against.

I think the US spends far too much looking after things that people could easily do for themselves.

The problem isn't looking out for things people could do for themselves. The problem is keeping people from taking advantage of other people. Lets look at examples...

Healthcare: A private system is based on one thing and one thing only... profit. Doctors these days tend to look for areas of medicine where they can make a profit instead of caring for their patients. We have become a nation of specialist with fewer and fewer general practitioners. The amount of money spent on big procedure is incredible. Specially when many of those procedures could have been prevented by being able to see a doctor earlier. There is no money in preventing illness, only in curing (or attempting to cure) major illness.

Military: Within the last few years we have retired a number of fully functional aircraft carriers... the last being the USS Constellation. Why? Because we ordered more carriers than we really needed. The Connie was sent up for the SLEP (Service Life Extension Program) about 10 years ago. She was almost completely refitted with an additional 15 to 20 years added to her functional life (the same was done for the Kitty Hawk, Independence and Saratoga). She was pulled from service in August to make way for the USS Reagan. Why? Because the navy can't support more than 13 carriers. So why did we build the Reagan (and the USS Bush)? The answer is hard to believe, but to keep the ship builders in practice. All that waste to fund profit making businesses.

And lets not forget Halliburton. They are currently doing the jobs that we used to have the Army and Navy Corp of engineers doing. What is wrong with that? Well, the Army and Navy aren't in the business of making a profit, Halliburton is. We shifted our resources from not-for-profit government agencies to profit-making firms and are surprised when the results aren't a savings of tax payers money.

There are many aspects of community living which should never be in the hands of people looking for profit. And if you look closely enough you'll see them spending a significant amount of that profit to secure that they are able to continue in their endeavors... at our expense.

The problem I see is that some people think that they have invested better than others... when their truly isn't (in this country) a way of investing wisely to begin with... unless you are already independently wealthy.

 

[speedfreak]

Are you suggesting that everyone who has become unemployed over the last three years is out of work because of a lack of investing in their former jobs?

No, but it is not the govt's fault nor the govt's responsibility to find them another job.

A lot of people did that, and they are out much of their savings and investments. Many people trusted that their company was investing their money wisely in 401Ks...

It was still their responsibility to look after their own investments. Hey I lost too. People know that the market is not a savings account. You take the bad with the good. I really feel bad for the people that took their money out when prices were depressed.

I pay taxes too, I think a fair share should cover it. And for a while we were doing just that.

How about a line on the tax form for those that want to pay more than they have to? You add what you think is fair.

The Federal government had been running surpluses for three years going in to 2001. We had projected surpluses stretching out for an additional ten years.

Those surpluses were primarily made up of revenues from the cap gains tax - market downturn = less cap gains = less revenue

Within one year of being in office Bush had turn surpluses as far as the eye could see into deficits. After three years we have the highest deficits in history (in total dollars, and the highest in 20+ years as a percentage of GNP).

Go back and research the deficit levels from WWII - We are at war afterall. I'm not advocating the war but you would certainly be more upset if another attack happened and nothing had been done.

I would even love to see a full coverage plan that would keep insurers from dropping people when they got sick. Both plans would effect the profits of insurers and are heavily lobbied against.

You are correct here. Mandated coverage would be good. Just let the market set the price. It is not evil for an insurance company to make a profit. If they are making too much profit a competetor will come in and undercut them.

Military: Within the last few years we have retired a number of fully functional aircraft carriers...

I'm not quite sure why we need so many weapons either. I agree there are better ways to spend the money. As for Haliburton, this certainly looks like a conflict of interest for the parties involved and should be stopped.

And if you look closely enough you'll see them spending a significant amount of that profit to secure that they are able to continue in their endeavors...

Yes they spend that profit on both political parties. They cover both bases. I don't vote for either party as a result.

The problem I see is that some people think that they have invested better than others... when their truly isn't (in this country) a way of investing wisely to begin with... unless you are already independently wealthy.

You seem to have made an assumption about me that is not correct. I work hard. I take risks. I fall flat on my face sometimes. I get back up and try again. I hope to be wealthy some day. I don't want the government to help me get there. I want the govt to trust me to be a good citezen not force me to be.

 

[Arden]

Good luck—I don't think the current administration trusts anyone who doesn't run a megacorporation.

 

[MDLarson]

Update / clarification of my opinion of President Bush:
I was listening to MN Public Radio today and heard some of the numbers the U.S. Government was plus (or minus). And... I'm a little disappointed. Me and my wife have recently appreciated the value of a family budget, and the feeling of financial responsibility is great (not to mention giving us more financial freedom, not less).

So... I heard Bush defending their spending policies, saying something like, "We went through a recession, and we're in a war." Yes, that's true, but it's also possible to tighten the belt in tougher times.

I continue to stand behind Bush in the issues, but I also like to be debt free - that's all I'm saying.

 

[Randman]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040218/D80PQTJO0.html

Dean's gone. Next?

 

[WeeZer51402]

Is he actually gone though, he said in his speech that he'll still be on the ballets and that he doesnt want his supporters to flock to the other canidates, is there some sort of strategy behind this or is it going to ultimately divide the democratic party...

 

[Satcomer]

Personally, I've a US vet and I can say to any US citizen, if you want national health care then look at the Veterans Administration. I can vouch that their health care system is absolutely horrible! I challenge any US citizen to go to a VA hospital and actually talk to the Vets. You'll change your mind about national health care after that!

Secondly, I want to vote for a Presidential candidate based on what they are going to do as President. all I have been hearing from the Democrat side is each one says " I'm not George Bush ....". John Edwards is probably the one Democratic candidate that I would vote for. John Kerry has just voted in the Senate in the past for too many things I have disagreed on.

Note: i will have nothing to say after this. Make your own decision. Plus, I'm really sorry to say this, but I wish the Europeans would let me decide on my own who I will vote for in Presidential elections. I hate being called stupid by a group of people who DONT EVEN KNOW ME!!!!!!

 

[Randman]

Satcomer, Europeans and many other politically minded non-Americans do have a stake in who is elected US president because the election is one of global significance due to the US' current standing as sole superpower and economic juggernaut.
I have no problem with anyone of any nationality discussing, intelligently, the pros and cons of any political candidate. I'd rather speak with someone from Europe about it than some Yank kid who reacts to every news annoucement as if it came down from Mount Sinai.
And if you did a little research, you'll find that citizens of another country, Puerto Rico, are allowed to vote in the US presidential election because of its commonwealth status.
And as a vet, you should be fully aware that with many American troops stationed abroad, it's one more reason why non-Americans become interested in an American election.
That said, my father is a veteran and I have to agree with your comments about VA hospitals.
And to (hopefully) end this rebuke on a light note, your comment on hating being called stupid by people who don't know you made me laugh, because it (by accident of course) implied that you don't mind be called stoopid by people who do know you.
Politics is like religion, it brings out the worst in people.