Can Bush Sr. save his son?

[shesulsa]

Ask thy father, and he will show thee: advice that, at long last, George W. Bush seems to be taking. Last week the president lost both houses of Congress and 16 more Americans died in Iraq, bringing the U.S. death toll to 2,844, with little discernible progress in sight. The war there has now lasted 44 months, the amount of time that elapsed between Pearl Harbor and VJ Day.

Link to Article

You mean King George I will council King George II? Who knew?

 

[Jonathan Randall]

No. The damage is done.

1. No easy answers left in Iraq

2. National Debt TOO high - and JUST as the Baby Boomers are about to retire - and Poppy Bush was a deficit spender par excellence as well.

3. Expansion of Government Powers too great - no new President of either party will want to seriously relinquish them.

4. China and Russia have realized that they have a LOT more in common than they ever thought and Soviet style military technology (not as good as the West's but still very lethal) is now allied with Chinese economic power.

5. We've lost or alienated TOO many nations to easily overcome. Our superior military technology and economy will not be able to ultimately overcome this alignment of nations scared ****less by President Bush.

6. Trust damaged or destroyed.


On the bright side, Republicans still get to call themselves "conservatives" without being so and the country is "protected" from gay marriage... Oh, forgot, the Republicans got to, in their short time of one party-rule, sell everything that wasn't nailed down.

On edit: forgot to mention that Joe Sixpack, who listened to hours of Right Wing Talk radio and memorized talking points about why we MUST invade Iraq, then called folks like myself who opposed the Invasion (on the grounds that it was not in America's best interests) anti-American left-wing appeasers gets to COMPLETELY EVADE HIS(Joe or Joann Sixpack) OR HER OWN RESPONSIBILITY IN FACILITATING THIS DEBACLE IN IRAQ. Nah, they get to claim it was the all powerful Liberals who stabbed them in the back by not allowing them to turn Iraq into a Jeffersonian Democracy like they could 've. After all, that's what happened in Yugoslavia (a nation of similiar religious and ethnic divides) after the powerful Tito died - they became a peaceful democracy, didn't they? Heck, if you remove Saddam Hussein you could probably get the same thing in Iraq as they got in Yugoslavia. Freedom is on the march, folks. God Bless America, and if you disagree with American Foreign Policy in any way - you are an American Hating Libr'al why sympathizes with Osama Bin Laden!

Darn, I keep editing this. Perhaps I dislike the Bush Administration?

Unlike the Tax and Spend Democrats, the Republicans got to be Don't Tax, but SPEND MORE THAN ANY DEMOCRAT COULD IN THEIR WILDEST DREAMS. Then bust the budget!

Oh, and terrorist recruitment pool has skyrocketed and Iran is close to being reunited with their Shiite brothers in Iraq.

 

[Hand Sword]

I don't think it matters. He's going to do, what he's going to do for a couple of more years and be gone. Maybe, it's more of a "save the Republican Party" for the presidential election coming?

 

[Carol]

On the bright side, Republicans still get to call themselves "conservatives" without being so and the country is "protected" from gay marriage...

And what is a name, anyway?

There was an article in the 11/9/06 Christian Science Monitor that caught my eye. The title said

"After losses, GOP asks: Now what?
Some Republicans are calling for a return to Goldwater-Reagan ideals of limited government and fiscal restraint."

In 2000, I was a member of the RNC, and these weren't seen as Goldwater-Reagan ideals, these were put forward as the backbone of the party. After President Bush was elected, I received a mass-produced note of thanks from President Bush and Vice President Chaney thanking me for their support in supporting a presidency devoted to these principles. To say they haven't delivered has been an understatement.

President Bush asked for America to trust him. He hasn't delivered on that trust.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

"After losses, GOP asks: Now what?
Some Republicans are calling for a return to Goldwater-Reagan ideals of limited government and fiscal restraint."

I may be able to vote for them again if they do this. However; given the huge gap between their campaign rhetoric (Presidential as well as post-Class of1994 Congressional), I doubt it. Heck, I voted for Dole in 1996.

OTOH, fear of a police state (not a reality, yet, despite such complaints) has turned a number of my left-wing friends against gun control and TOWARD the right to bear arms.

 

[Carol]

I may be able to vote for them again if they do this. However; given the huge gap between their campaign rhetoric (Presidential as well as post-Class of1994 Congressional). Heck, I voted for Dole in 1996.

That's a big if though. IMO it would be a welcome change but there is a lot of baggage that needs to be gotten rid of between the scandals linked to the administration and the Neo-Con power grab which ran completely counter to those ideals.

 

[Makalakumu]

I don't know if there is much that Poppy can do. I agree with Jonathan. The damage is already done.

The real question is how in the heck are the Democrats going to fix all of this? None of the solutions that I see are going to be pretty or popular.

Especially concerning the national debt. This one thing along threatens all of our futures. It basically nullifies any investment you could make.

My advice. Pay off your debt. Hold on to your money. And hold on for the ride.

upnorthkyosa

ps - and maybe buy a few firearms...

 

[heretic888]

There was an article in the 11/9/06 Christian Science Monitor that caught my eye. The title said

"After losses, GOP asks: Now what?
Some Republicans are calling for a return to Goldwater-Reagan ideals of limited government and fiscal restraint."

I get the appeal to the Goldwater branch of liberterian conservatism, but Reagan?? Is someone seriously suggesting Ronald Reagan advocated policies of "limited government" and "fiscl restraint"?? I mean, seriously??

ALL of the neo-cons are Reaganite conservatives. Hell, go to the PNAC website. They specifically describe themselves as "Neo-Reaganite" on their Mission Statement. The idea behind this, apparently, being a dramatically increased spending on America's military and defense resources (which is also what Reagan did).

In fact, I would say the Bush Administration's legacy of unparalleled federal spending (particularly on military projects) coupled with selective tax cuts to the wealthiest strata of American society ("trickle down" Reaganomics) is a perfect continuation of Reaganite tradition.

In many ways, Ronald Reagan was the beginning of the neo-conservative.

Laterz.

 

[mrhnau]

The real question is how in the heck are the Democrats going to fix all of this? None of the solutions that I see are going to be pretty or popular.

Especially concerning the national debt. This one thing along threatens all of our futures. It basically nullifies any investment you could make.

My advice. Pay off your debt. Hold on to your money. And hold on for the ride.

ps - and maybe buy a few firearms...

Lets see... you are right, no fix is popular. More concerning to me than national debt is social security. In the future that is going to be a HUGE burden and Democrats are refusing to look at some of the viable solutions that have been offered, ie privitized SS. Thats going either be a HUGE debt burden or unmanagable tax burden.

National debt does not nullify investment. Just makes them less profitable and is likely going to drive up inflation in the long run.

With regards to your advice:

Pay off debt: thats good advice regardless of economic environment, depending on type of debt. I think alot of people will have problems paying off their house.

Hold on to your money: umm... I'm still planning on investing. Make yourself diversified. I think thats the more secure option for the future... stocks, bonds, cash, materials (ie gold, Pt, etc). Even in a bad economic environment thats wise. I don't suggest everyone hide their money under their bed. That type of fear is one of the things that sparked the Great Depression. Everyone tried laying their hands on their cash at one time. In order for this economy to work people need to invest. If everyone takes it out, you create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Hold on for the ride: it will be interesting, no doubt.

Get a firearm: I encourage that regardless of economic environment, but stating this in your post seems in this manner smells of conspiracy craze and paranoia, inspiring mental images of some kind of post-apocolyptic USA where everyone is crazy eyed, gun toting and murdering over a can of peas.... At least thats the impression I got

 

[mrhnau]

In fact, I would say the Bush Administration's legacy of unparalleled federal spending (particularly on military projects) coupled with selective tax cuts to the wealthiest strata of American society ("trickle down" Reaganomics) is a perfect continuation of Reaganite tradition.

In many ways, Ronald Reagan was the beginning of the neo-conservative.

Unless you missed it, tax cuts tend to increase revenues. Check out the tax revenues since Bush installed the tax cuts. Same thing happened with Reagan and just about every tax cut that has happened in the last century. I've heard a few economists mention that a large part of the Clinton "economic boom" was sparked by cash infused into the economy from the Reagan tax cuts.

If you create an environment that encourages investment and lets those that are smart/clever/hard-working enough to make good money keep/reinvest their money, its good for the economy.

I've heard of an interesting gedanken... suppose you give everyone in the US the exact same amount of cash. In a few years, its no longer going to be equal. You start getting individuals that start accumulating again, and likely its going to be the same ones that started out with more before redistribution.... just food for thought...

 

[TonyMac]

Restraint and reagon is an oxymoron. Knight of malta ron reagon stood in front of the American people in a campaign advertisement with two shopping carts. One had a half dozen items in it and ron pointed to it and said; "This is Jimmy Carter inflation." then he pointed to the other cart that was overflowing and said; "This is what you will get with a reagon administration." In the second third and fourth years of his first presidency he spent more money than in the entire existance of the nation.

 

[heretic888]

Unless you missed it, tax cuts tend to increase revenues. Check out the tax revenues since Bush installed the tax cuts. Same thing happened with Reagan and just about every tax cut that has happened in the last century. I've heard a few economists mention that a large part of the Clinton "economic boom" was sparked by cash infused into the economy from the Reagan tax cuts.

If you create an environment that encourages investment and lets those that are smart/clever/hard-working enough to make good money keep/reinvest their money, its good for the economy.

Sure. Can't disagree with most of that, even if I do add the qualification that both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts were designed to selectively benefit the wealthiest (i.e., the rich got bigger and better cuts than the rest of us).

However, that only takes into account the effect tax cuts have on "the economy" (which, in this context, generally only affects the wealthiest anyway). When "the economy" is facing some hardship but the rest of the nation's priorities are hunky-dory, then tax cuts are gravy. If, however, one is spending more than a drunken Democrat on New Year's Eve, then tax cuts are a completely asenine and retarded way of "balancing the budget" --- as in, they don't do so at all.

And all this military spending we're doing to finance two wars (well, three if Our Leader decides to invade Iran) doesn't even take into account other deficit black holes like bankrupt Social Security or rebuilding in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

You don't have to be an economist to see that Tax Cuts + Absurd Federal Spending = Oh, Crap.

Laterz.

 

[Ray]

Sure. Can't disagree with most of that, even if I do add the qualification that both the Reagan and Bush tax cuts were designed to selectively benefit the wealthiest (i.e., the rich got bigger and better cuts than the rest of us).

The Reagan tax cuts to businesses meant that businesses could reduce their prices (to try to undercut the competitor, and sell more items), the reduced price increased purchases of product. In turn the manufacturers were busier, causing them to hire more people. More people working meant more people with money to spend.

Granted, the average joe (or the bunch of people below the "average" line) didn't get rich--but he was more likely to have a job. You have to contrast the Reagan years with the years of LBJ, Nixon, Carter.

Insofar as "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." It's an old saying and probably a truism.

And all this military spending we're doing to finance two wars (well, three if Our Leader decides to invade Iran)...

Sadly, military spending puts factories to work. And creates a demand for soldiers (which may result in an increase in employment).

 

[Makalakumu]

Lets see... you are right, no fix is popular. More concerning to me than national debt is social security. In the future that is going to be a HUGE burden and Democrats are refusing to look at some of the viable solutions that have been offered, ie privitized SS. Thats going either be a HUGE debt burden or unmanagable tax burden.

The national debt and social security go hand in hand. What people fail to realize is that deficit spending and debt are two different things. Deficit spending means spending more money then you take in. Debt is the total amount of money owed. Both Republicans and Democrats talk only of the former and not the latter.

The reason...the national debt is approximately 40% of our GDP...and growing. Our government is bankrupt. There is no money for anything...including social security. People keep saying that social security won't be around when they are older, but they don't realize that it is already gone.

National debt does not nullify investment. Just makes them less profitable and is likely going to drive up inflation in the long run.

Paying off the national debt would require pulling over 40% of the wealth out of our GDP. This contraction of wealth will be ruinous to our country. During the Great Depression, we saw a contraction of roughly 30%. The longer we wait, the worse this will get.

All small time investors will be wiped out by this debt. Kiss your 401Ks good bye...

Pay off debt: thats good advice regardless of economic environment, depending on type of debt. I think alot of people will have problems paying off their house.

Paying off personal debt is going to be a tall order for most people, but I think the ultimate hardship of the debt-based economy that we have developed will be taller still.

Hold on to your money: umm... I'm still planning on investing. Make yourself diversified. I think thats the more secure option for the future... stocks, bonds, cash, materials (ie gold, Pt, etc). Even in a bad economic environment thats wise. I don't suggest everyone hide their money under their bed. That type of fear is one of the things that sparked the Great Depression. Everyone tried laying their hands on their cash at one time. In order for this economy to work people need to invest. If everyone takes it out, you create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Actually, the only thing that caused the Great Depression was the wealth contraction that the Federal Reserve instituted. Milton Friedman, who died today, writes extensively about this.

Radical Monetary Reform may be the only way to solve this mess...

Get a firearm: I encourage that regardless of economic environment, but stating this in your post seems in this manner smells of conspiracy craze and paranoia, inspiring mental images of some kind of post-apocolyptic USA where everyone is crazy eyed, gun toting and murdering over a can of peas.... At least thats the impression I got

An armed state is difficult to turn into a police state.

 

[Flying Crane]

Sadly, military spending puts factories to work. And creates a demand for soldiers (which may result in an increase in employment).

um, i guess I find it hard to justify runaway military spending on a couple of crazy wars in the middle east where hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed, chaos has reined, and recruitment for "terrorists" flourishes, on the grounds that we have managed to create a few more jobs here stateside...

maybe some jobs should never be filled...

 

[Ray]

um, i guess I find it hard to justify runaway military spending on a couple of crazy wars in the middle east where hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed, chaos has reined, and recruitment for "terrorists" flourishes, on the grounds that we have managed to create a few more jobs here stateside...

Just to be clear I'm not justifying runaway military spending as a means to create jobs. Just pointing out the cold facts as I see them.

Although I'm certain that the war will be over soon now that the dems have the house & senate. Some enterprising thug will wait until we leave and then take over, making Saddam look like Shirley Temple. It will send a sign to the rest of the world that we are weak and cowering puppies who cannot see any difficult task through.

 

[michaeledward]

It will send a sign to the rest of the world that we are weak and cowering puppies who cannot see any difficult task through.

I am wondering why you believe that this would be the message. It seems to be a steady refrain. I am wondering what evidence there might be to support this position.

Perhaps it is a more civil way of accusing the loyal political opposition of 'cut and run'; remains one step away from crying 'Treason'.

But, I am not certain that stopping the killing in Iraq, killing of Iraqis at the hands of the United States military, and the killing of American soldiers, will send any message at all; Other than, its time to stop the killing.

. . .

I could see the argument that ending the killing would send a message that: IED weapons are an effective way of countering a military moving around in Bradley Fighting Vehicles.

I'm not sure we can extrapolate from that argument, "cowering puppies".

I'll listen to your argument, if you wish.

Mike

 

[mrhnau]

I am wondering why you believe that this would be the message. It seems to be a steady refrain. I am wondering what evidence there might be to support this position.

Perhaps it is a more civil way of accusing the loyal political opposition of 'cut and run'; remains one step away from crying 'Treason'.

But, I am not certain that stopping the killing in Iraq, killing of Iraqis at the hands of the United States military, and the killing of American soldiers, will send any message at all; Other than, its time to stop the killing.

I could see the argument that ending the killing would send a message that: IED weapons are an effective way of countering a military moving around in Bradley Fighting Vehicles.

I'm not sure we can extrapolate from that argument, "cowering puppies".

I'll listen to your argument, if you wish.

I tend to like the message of "stop killing". I've mentioned this in the past. If terrorists lay down their arms, alot of killing stops. After the Iraqi militia can take control, we leave. Its quite simple.

Now, if they continue placing IED's all over the place and shooting up our guys and their neighbors, should we lay down arms and run? That gives the message that their tactics of terror are working, not that we want to "stop killing". Do you think the terrorist would not call that a victory and there would be celebration on the streets by these terrorists? If we leave before our objectives are accomplished, the only message that can be sent is that we are bowing to terror and that killing Americans is a great way to get them to change their plans/tactics/desires. I'll be expecting more terror as a result, and not just in Iraq. For people insane enough to strap on a suicide vest and blow up fellow Iraqis, this would likely sound like good news.

We have had a couple of objectives. 1) Remove Saddam from power 2) instill a decent democratic government 3) get out after they can substain themselves. If we leave now, our mission is incomplete and we have bowed to the terrorists tactics.


A question for you... why do you think there has been a flood of foreign terrorist coming into Iraq? Why are they killing fellow muslims? Why do you think they are not laying down their arms? What kind of message is leaving going to send the terrorist? Think we instantly become friends and terror immediately ends? Think it will not inspire terror tactics since they work so efffectively on us?

 

[michaeledward]

A couple of thoughts.

First, I do not believe that the killing taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan is strictly limited to 'terrorists'. If we are going to define all the killing as such, we are diluting the term 'terrorist' to a point where it is meaningless.

Second, our objective was 'to eliminate President Hussein's ability to threaten the world and with Weapons of Mass Destruction'. Any broadening of scope from that objective will lead to a 'slippery slope' that lead us to another black wall on the country's front lawn.

How do we apply the brakes before helicopters are evacuating the last Americans from the roofs of the embassy in Baghdad?

 

[Ray]

I am wondering why you believe that this would be the message. It seems to be a steady refrain. I am wondering what evidence there might be to support this position.

Perhaps it is a more civil way of accusing the loyal political opposition of 'cut and run'; remains one step away from crying 'Treason'.

But, I am not certain that stopping the killing in Iraq, killing of Iraqis at the hands of the United States military, and the killing of American soldiers, will send any message at all; Other than, its time to stop the killing.

Lord Chamberlain was a peaceful man. Probably a good man. We learn history so that we can say to ourselves "how about that, we keep making the same mistakes."

Do you believe that the terrorists in Iraq, who kill not only americans but Iraqis as well, will put their weapons down and stop killing? Do you believe that Cat Stevens became the "John Lennon" of the Islamic world? He certainly isn't singing Peace Train now; and I haven't heard him cut an Arabic version of "Give Peace a Chance." In fact, I believe he said that the bounty on Salomon Rusdhi (sp?) was completely justified and in accordance with sharia.

I could see the argument that ending the killing would send a message that: IED weapons are an effective way of countering a military moving around in Bradley Fighting Vehicles.

I'm not sure we can extrapolate from that argument, "cowering puppies".

I'll listen to your argument, if you wish.

Cowering puppies was my reference to mammal societal structures, like wolf packs and primate colonies. The "top dogs" (or alpha males) vrs the lower ranks. If we back down, if we "cut and run" (cut what?, our losses?) we reinforce the idea that america will back out when the going is rough. We must certainly be viewed by the hearty, physically and mentally strong/tough Arabic peoples as a nation of weak, fat slobs who live in luxary.

How can they learn peace and self governance except someone should teach them? I think it would be magnificiant to be willing to give our life to give them something to live for. And since I am personally too old for the military, I would be proud of any of my sons or grandsons who would fight that good fight.

But I have no real arguement to win, nor any desire to change your heart. I just have my opinions.