T Nation

Bush Bites It Huge!

I agree with Professor X, Kerry’s position is not hard to understand, and it has never been confusing to me… Saddam was a bad guy but going to war in Iraq was not an emergency situation as it was portrayed by the administration.

By using the WMD rationale, it prevented the nation from having an honest discussion on the pros and cons of invading Iraq. Most Americans would not support invading Iraq just based on the idea that Saddam is a bad guy. There are lots of more dangerous countries in the world.

BostonBarrister likes to say that just because a lifeguard can’t rescue everyone who is drowning, doesn’t mean the lifeguard shouldn’t rescue anybody at all. The assumption there is that everyone thinks America’s role is to be the lifeguard for the rest of the world. Personally, I don’t think that America is responsible for policing the world. But if we are going to do that, lets be smart and not sell weapons to the bad guys ahead of time. If America wants to police the world, then we should be prepared for decades of continuous war.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Jodgey,

“I know way too many people that have graduated college with decent degrees and have to live at home, because the market isnt paying them enough, because there arent the jobs available, and because the cost of living is skyrocketing.”

And President controls this how?

By supporting legislation that allows corporations to get tax breaks for going offshore for cheap labor. By supporting legislation that allows more people to come into this country on work visas. By not urging providing penalties for companies that go offshore. True, it is not just the president but congress also.

Perhaps this is a topic for a different time, since the debate was about foreign policy, but I am atwitter at hearing exactly - exactly - how a President, Democratic or Republican, can ensure that the ‘market’ pays people ‘enough’.

Well, if you allow less foreign workers to come and and make it less lucrative for companies to go offshore, then you raise demand for the American worker. Higher demand means higher wages.

Bush unleashes every Keynesian and supply-side tool to keep the economy afloat, with the help of the Fed’s monetary policy, and I am curious to know the alternative.[/quote]

I think eroding the consumer base by putting them out of work and keeping them underemployed goes against keynes theory.

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Jodgey,

“I know way too many people that have graduated college with decent degrees and have to live at home, because the market isnt paying them enough, because there arent the jobs available, and because the cost of living is skyrocketing.”

And President controls this how?

Perhaps this is a topic for a different time, since the debate was about foreign policy, but I am atwitter at hearing exactly - exactly - how a President, Democratic or Republican, can ensure that the ‘market’ pays people ‘enough’.

Bush unleashes every Keynesian and supply-side tool to keep the economy afloat, with the help of the Fed’s monetary policy, and I am curious to know the alternative.

I agree. Contrary to what people think, neither the President nor the government in general have much control over the economy. Nor should they. They tried an experiment once where the government controlled all aspects of the economy as opposed to letting the free market rule - it was called Communism.[/quote]

I have to disagree…the president and the government have quite a bit of control over the economy. The free market doesnt necessarily rule in America.

YEah, I have to agree, Kerry’s position on Iraq has been perfectly clear for some time. The repubs are always taking his remarks out of context and trying to make him appear indecisive, but in fact his position is very simply for anyone who cares enough to listen to it or read it.

It’s a sad day in America when a sitting president is counting on the stupidity of swing voters to go in his favor. Kerry has a hard time articulating a clear position because the president has a hard time sticking to an objective and because we have new information now that we didn’t have before.
[begin rant]
Only an idiot would continue to stick to his original positions despite the new information he receives and the dissenting voices in his own administration. It’s like being the passenger in a car with a driver who won’t acknowledge he’s lost and won’t ask for directions. Hell, this president won’t even push the damn on-star button!

Don’t we all have friends who won’t admit they’re wrong no matter how much proof you offer? I sure do, and I wouldn’t vote for them either. God Himself could come down from on high and with a pen of fire inscribe the words “You’re wrong George” on Mt. Rushmore, the next day you’d see campaign adds calling God a flip-flopper for saying “eye for an eye” and then “turn the other cheek”!

Anyone that watched last night’s debate with an open mind and not looking for any turn of phrase to exploit can easily see what Kerry believes and knows how he initially plans to fix things. What’s more, I like the idea that when Kerry is in the oval office and suddenly gets new information, he won’t be afraid to CHANGE HIS DAMN MIND and do the right thing. I can’t wait to see how the absentee ballots from overseas come in, to see how the soldiers on the ground feel about risking their lives for a war they know was fought on false pretenses and has no clear leadership from above. And of course, well see the spin doctors claim it was liberal expatriots and not disgruntled soldiers to made them go overwhelmingly pro-Kerry.

When a president starts actively courting and counting on the dumb vote, I have to vote for the other guy.
[rant over]

[quote]RoadWarrior wrote:
My favorite quoute was “A free Iraq will secure Israel” excuuuuse me the Israilie’s have a problem with the Palestinians’s not Iraq. Over and Over he showed his true stupidity. I can’t wait for the second debate! [/quote]

Stupidity, eh? Well it just so happens to be that Saddam Hussein financially supported Palestianian terrrorists. This HAS been proved. Saddam also had contacts with Al-Quaida terrorists. Bin Ladens second in command (you’ll have to forgive me I always forget their names) even went to Iraq to heal-up when he was wounded in Afghanistan after a US attack.

I’ll give you some stupidity:

Kerry saying there isn’t really a coalition even though there a re more than 30 nations involved in Iraq now. Kerry stating that those nations don’t send that many troops. Does that mean that they don’t contribute? Maybe thay can’t afford to send more troops. They do put their citizens in harms way. He’s talking about forming a coalition but is insulting the countries who ARE in a coalition. He accuses Bush of scaring away other countries, while he’s doing it himself right there! But then again “coalition” in Kerry’s words probably means France and Germany. Two countries that have already stated not to get involved in Iraq no matter who wins the election. In the meantime his sister is doing all she can to damage the coalition with Australia.

Kerry accuses Bush of not arming his soldiers well. He stated that the soldiers don’t get enough armour and only 2000 out of 12000 humvee’s had armour plates. Funny that he voted against the 87 million that was supposed to give the soldiers this gear.

Then there’s the north Korea issue:
Kerry states that Bush should’ve paid more attention to North Korea (NK). Fact is that Bush has formed a coalition with countries surrounding NK. And they are working on the problem multi-laterally. If the US will engage in negotiations on it’s owon then it’ll insult it’s coalition partners. YET this is what Kerry expected Bush to do. Fact of the matter is that as far as NK is concerned Bush is doing exactly what Kerry supposedly wants. Use diplomacy and work multilaterally. YET Kerry would’ve done things different.

He also doesn’t seem to understand that Saddam was a more eminent threat. Saddam as opposed to Kim Jung II has a track record of starting wars. In Saddam’s case diplomacy hadn’t worked over the past 10+ years, whereas the diplomatic road is not closed as far as NK is concerned.

Then there’s the afghanistan issue. Kerry kept saying that the focus of the war on terrorism should be on Afghanistan. Well we’re doing all we could possibly do in Afghanistan. We don’t need half the US army in there. It would be like killing a fly with a bazooka!

I don’t think Bush lost. I will admit that I feel he should’ve done better. He seemed a bit off, I’ll admit that. But his arguments, as his policy are rock solid! I don’t think Kerry COULD have done better. His speeches were well articulated, and he looker like his wife’s million bucks, but on substance… he was no match for Bush.

Donjaymz,

“I think eroding the consumer base by putting them out of work and keeping them underemployed goes against keynes theory.”

How did Bush do this? DId he pass a bill I am unaware of that requires companies to lay people off? Do tell.

“I have to disagree…the president and the government have quite a bit of control over the economy. The free market doesnt necessarily rule in America.”

True - tariffs and tax policy, to name a few. Now tell me which policies Bush adopted that caused unemployment and the recession.

Operaman,

On this, we completely disagree.

I follow Kerry. I read his press releases. I review his voting history.

And I still don’t know exactly where Kerry stands on the issue of the war against Islamism and what has happened in Iraq.

The war resolution speaks for itself. He knew it was a vote for war, so if he wanted more diplomacy, why authorize unambiguous use of force?

If Kerry wanted more diplomacy, no problem. So did Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich didn’t vote to authorize war.

Kerry knew his vote wasn’t for more diplomacy - but did it anyway?

Why? What was his mission?

I am a long time social and economic conservative, and I typically vote Republican is this 2 party system of ours. And I typically support Bush. But here’s a thought. Let Kerry win. You know the Clinton’s are secretly wanting Bush to win…why? Because if Kerry wins then Hillary (practically speaking) can’t run for president for 8 more years. Don’t kid yourselfs…the Clintons run the democratic party, and if Kerry gets elected that will lessen their control.

And what does it mean to be president anyway? It’s more of a pissing contest between republicans and democrats. Granted the president is more or less the most powerful/recognized/influntial man in the world, but the last time I checked the president doesnt make law…the congress does.

Like I said, I am conservative, and for all intents and purposes a republican, but I dont think its a bad thing if Kerry wins. Who knows, he may even be able to do some good working with a republican congress. And for nothing else, keep Hillary out of the race as long as possible.

Kerry admitted he wanted to double our military force and send them to all the countries that needed help like Africa. Ok, where is this money going to come from?? doubling our military, then you have to pay for their equipment. This is in the multi billions. Who is going to pay for this?? we are!!!

Kerry criticizes Bush for sending our troops to Iraq, but he wants to send them to Africa because there is genocide there. Im sorry, but Iraq have been committing genocide a long time ago.

Kerry criticizes Bush for the tax cuts, that should of went to defense of homeland security, well, alot of money did go to homeland, and he did the tax cuts to help our economy kick it back up. A presidents focus is not on just forein policy and security, but it is also of domestic policy and economics.

Kerry kept changing his mind and is very wishy washy. He criticized Bush for not having enough troops in Iraq, but then he says he is going to take out alot of troops. which is it???

Kerry is just stating stuff to get voted, he is just saying what everyone wants him to say.

Bush is being a leader, he makes the choices as a leader to lead, even though it might go against what others say, he is not wishy washy. He is a strong leader.

Just ask yourself, who do you think the terrorist wants as president??? They want Kerry, because they know America will become weak with Kerry as president.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Kerry knew his vote wasn’t for more diplomacy - but did it anyway?

[/quote]

Prove this. Please prove that his vote was not with underlying hopes for diplomacy and, even though you claim to not know where he stands, that you somehow do know where he stands.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

…I still don’t know exactly where Kerry stands on the issue of the war against Islamism and what has happened in Iraq…

[/quote]

When Bush used a coalition - it was the wrong coalition. If he acted unilaterally - he should have used the UN. If he was letting the UN handle a situation - we should have acted unilaterally.

Bush could’ve said that the sky was blue, and Kerry would have said that it was the wrong color, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. And there would have been thousands of left-wing lemmings praising Kerry for his vision.

I can’t see a plan that Kerry has laid out. Not even his spokepeople can tell you what his plans for any issue are - excepting tax increases, kissing France/Germany’s ass, and socialized medicine.

Hahahahah. Did you even watch the debate?

“I think eroding the consumer base by putting them out of work and keeping them underemployed goes against keynes theory.”
How did Bush do this? Did he pass a bill I am unaware of that requires companies to lay people off? Do tell.

Of course he has not passed legislation requiring companies to lay off americans. But he has failed to support any closure of tax loopholes which which give American firms tax breaks for outsourcing. I should have worded that statement better. “Allowing the erosion of the consumer base”…“allowing the displacement of the American worker”.
http://techpolicy.typepad.com/tpp/2004/03/tax_breaks_for_.html

He is also supporting legislation (S.1637) that will give an additional $37 billion in tax breaks for offshoring.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/108-2/s1637sap-s.pdf

My previous post was cut short somehow and at least one part was left out. I stated that the glut of cheap foreign labor made abundant by this administrations policies has lowered the demand for the american worker and has lead to a decrease in wages. Why pay a software engineer $40/hr here in America when you can pay an Indian $7/hr? What happened to the blue collar worker in Reagan’s administration is now happening the white collar worker.

“I have to disagree…the president and the government have quite a bit of control over the economy. The free market doesnt necessarily rule in America.”
True - tariffs and tax policy, to name a few. Now tell me which policies Bush adopted that caused unemployment and the recession.

I also forgot to mention, subsidies, set-asides, no-bid contracts, interest rates.
Recession? Just part of the business cycle, never he caused that or that the lack of jobs we see today is even related to the recession years ago. I am thinking of outsourcing.

How is he instituting Keynsian theory?

thunderbolt - "And I still don’t know exactly where Kerry stands on the issue of the —> war against Islamism <---- and what has happened in Iraq. "
Wohhh…hope that was a typo!

kyubert - “Kerry kept changing his mind and is very wishy washy. He criticized Bush for not having enough troops in Iraq, but then he says he is going to take out alot of troops. which is it???”
He said there aren’t enough troops there right now to do the job properly, so he wants to send more to get the job done (since Bush already started it). By doing this he hopes to get the troops home as soon as possible. It’s easy to think he’s flip flopping if you don’t realize he’s talking about different points in time.

[quote]donjaymz wrote:

I stated that the glut of cheap foreign labor made abundant by this administrations policies has lowered the demand for the american worker and has lead to a decrease in wages. Why pay a software engineer $40/hr here in America when you can pay an Indian $7/hr? What happened to the blue collar worker in Reagan’s administration is now happening the white collar worker.

[/quote]

Do you buy anything made in China? How about Taiwan? Japan? How about India?

Look on the bottom of your keyboard. Look at the tag inside your shoes. Look at the plates at your gym. Where are they made?

You participate in a global economy. A global economy that is growing, is also a competition to get the best quality at the lowest cost.

I think it is hypocritical of people to bash Bush for sending jobs overseas when you own virtually nothing that is made here in the USA.

Want to stop sending jobs overseas? then quit blaming Bush(or any other admin) and buy only those things that are made in America.

I just read that W. spent the debate day comforting hurricane survivors in Florida. He was cheering them up and there are pictures of him hugging them.

May not have helped him in the debate, but, he was being the President.

While Kerry was furiously buffing off his fake-bake, and writhing around with his snake-like handlers, W. was busy expressing his compassion to Americans.

Democrats can obsess over “um’s” and “oh’s.” Maybe they will make a video of W’s reactions and body language.

I’ll stick with the straight shooter.

Hey RSU, care to take Zeb up on his challenge? Kerry is fantastic!!! What a debater!!! He has had “one consistent position on Iraq!!!” What resolve!!! What a smooth salesman!!! He can’t lose!!!

Can’t wait for November 2nd!!!

JeffR

It is interesting to note that Kerry is now trying to paint himself as a hawk and a take charge warfighter…when he has a 20 yr. record to the contrary.

I don’t think Bush bit it big. I think it was a draw. Kerry did better then everyone he expected and Bush countered his negative attacks.

In the end Kerry has to actually stand for something. A lot more people watching that debate indentify with W then with Kerry.

donjaymz wrote:

I stated that the glut of cheap foreign labor made abundant by this administrations policies has lowered the demand for the american worker and has lead to a decrease in wages. Why pay a software engineer $40/hr here in America when you can pay an Indian $7/hr? What happened to the blue collar worker in Reagan’s administration is now happening the white collar worker.

Do you buy anything made in China? How about Taiwan? Japan? How about India?

Look on the bottom of your keyboard. Look at the tag inside your shoes. Look at the plates at your gym. Where are they made?

You participate in a global economy. A global economy that is growing, is also a competition to get the best quality at the lowest cost.

I think it is hypocritical of people to bash Bush for sending jobs overseas when you own virtually nothing that is made here in the USA.

Want to stop sending jobs overseas? then quit blaming Bush(or any other admin) and buy only those things that are made in America.

I think you need to do both; Support American products and seek change in the administration. How far does outsourcing go? Don’t you think some protection is necessary? We defend our borders, why not our standard of living? Would you be OK with giving up your job to someone in china or india? Would you accept $7/hr? I am not trying to be hostile towards you, but I just want to know how you feel about the whole thing. How will you feel when your job is sent overseas? Will you be OK with a job at McDonald’s?

Buy American? Absolutely, when you can. Truth be told I do own some stuff that is made overseas. Does that mean I can’t complain about not being able to get a job in software due to the fact that they just aren’t there? I don’t think so. Hypocrite? aren’t we all to some extent? Just how “global” is acceptable?

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I just read that W. spent the debate day comforting hurricane survivors in Florida. He was cheering them up and there are pictures of him hugging them.

May not have helped him in the debate, but, he was being the President.

While Kerry was furiously buffing off his fake-bake, and writhing around with his snake-like handlers, W. was busy expressing his compassion to Americans.

Democrats can obsess over “um’s” and “oh’s.” Maybe they will make a video of W’s reactions and body language.

I’ll stick with the straight shooter.

Hey RSU, care to take Zeb up on his challenge? Kerry is fantastic!!! What a debater!!! He has had “one consistent position on Iraq!!!” What resolve!!! What a smooth salesman!!! He can’t lose!!!

Can’t wait for November 2nd!!!

JeffR

[/quote]

Jeff, do you think Bush really cares about the hurricane victims? It’s a cynical publicity stunt. He’s taking advantage of their plight for his gain.

I think your writing is improving, Jeff. You are starting to use periods instead of exclamation marks in every sentence.

Bush looking immature and unpresidential, in the split screen that most viewers saw.

David Letterman had a good joke tonight…

Bush isn’t going to do any more debates - his Dad got him out of it.