w1ld wrote:
] I would be interested in your feedback on this article.

Ted Rall is a crackpot. He is entertaining but he is not a reasonable source of information.

I don't really like Bush. I like him better the Rall. Trying to analyse this article puts me, of course, in the preverse position of defending Bush. You'll never hear this out of me again.

Bush does not make unilateral tax cut decisions. Most of the tax related decisions mentioned here, including the estate tax mess, were passed by a democratic Congress. The estate tax is just flat stupid for reasons Rall doesn't mention and I don't feel like explaining. Its basically an ass backwards committee style nightmare. His observation that this is what caused the budget problems with the states is interesting, but I doubt its the whole truth. The estate tax cut takes ten years to wind up, yet all the states are having money problems now. If a tax cut to the states caused their budges to break, this obviously did not occur in proportion to the decrease in estate tax income. Therefore it must be more complex then that.

I imagine the economic slowdown was a much bigger factor in this situation then any policy decision. The only thing that could have been done about that is greater action on the Clinton's part to stomp on an obvious economic bubble. I doubt Bush would have done better there then Clinton.

Bush DID propose an across the board $300 tax cut. This benefits the poor more then the rich. Rall ignores this.

Homeland security is all kinds of questionable. Yes this is democratesque authoritarian government. I'm not going to argue with that. Its probably better then the previous notion of retooling the FBI. I'm still not convinced it will be effective. Obviously this is a reaction to September 11th and not a premeditated policy direction. That doesn't make it good, but it also doesn't make Bush a big government guy at heart.

There is no Social Security Trust fund and there never was. Social Security has been and will continue to be fucked. The people who control it now benefit from it too much to fix it. Our generation will be the ones benefiting when it finally breaks down, and we won't bother to fix it because we aren't, in general, that kind of greedy. (BTW, if anyone wants to challenge that predicition you better come well armed with information.) I agree with the republican's efforts to construct a federalized system of personal investment. Haven't seen anything out of the dems on this to speak of. At least they are TRYING to fix it.

Obviously neither Bush nor the republicans nor the democrats agree with the thoughtful economic analysis offered by the anti-globalization movement. Its not unrepublican to support free trade. Of course, ask the Canadians what they think of Bush's free trade policies if you want an earful. They think he is more protectionist then any recent administration and they are hopping mad about it.

... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Decius wrote:

] Ted Rall is a crackpot. He is entertaining but he is not a
] reasonable source of information.

I didn't read the article, so I have no comments on it. But I do have comments on W1ld's initial comment and the jist of the article, that being that Bush is acting contrary to typical GOP values.

] My issues with Bush:
] 1. He is not a very inspiring leader. They should have run
] Powell, but I guess that would appear "radical" because there
] are still too many racists in this country.

McCain would've been a better candidate, IMHO. He had a much better resume, and actually could articulate himself without embarassment. Powell is very strong with affairs of diplomacy, but has very little experience in terms of operational experience within the state. Bush got picked because he could raise money. Period. But this is a scary trend for the GOP. They could've put Dole over Clinton had they let Dole act like himself before the election. The GOP is too distracted with trying to appease the far right in order to get anything useful done.

Ironically, most of the dems that are getting elected in congress, the senate, and in state g'ment, are GOP leaning. Cooper and Bredesen notwithstanding locally.

] 2. Iraq is a cop out. I, for one, am prepared to handle the
] fact that dealing with Al'Q is not simple, and I don't need
] the US to beat Iraq over the head to know that Americans are
] fearsome enemies and that they are doing something about the
] problem. I'd rather he be straight forward about this. The
] ruse is too thin.

It's a sin, not just a cop out.

It's motivated by all the wrong things. It has very little to do with terrorism, proliferation of WoMD, or militant fundementalism and more to do with oil investment, appeasing the Israelis, giving the military something to do with all their new found budget, and settling a score for 'Daddy'. It's unconciounable. If it was truly about the former things, then we'd be bombing the Saudi's.

I predict the UN inspectors won't find jack shit, but we'll still bomb Saddam anyways.

] 3. The economy is fucked. What it NEEDS is a carrot. People
] need to beleive that things are moving somewhere. They need to
] be inspired to work hard. Bush is not offering a carrot. I
] want to see long term planning on what is going to happen in
] the next ten years economically, of the sort the Dems were
] busting out in the early 90's. If it exists, I don't know
] where it is. I don't think it does. Bush doesn't seem to be
] doing anything at all on this front.

I disagree here sorta. The economy is not fucked. The economy is doing fine. Productivity is WAY up. Growth is a healthy 3%. Considering that growth was at 7% in 1999, and that half of that was probably froth from the dot com explosion and Y2K spending, 3% is about where we should be. The problem is that EARNING... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

w1ld wrote:
] ] "Bush has given us the worst of both political worlds:
] ] the wasteful tax-and-spend big government of wild-eyed
] ] liberalism without any of the compassion or desire for
] ] justice that normally goes along with bleeding-heart
] ] bureaucracy; the most tyrannical aspects of right-wing
] ] demagoguery--scapegoating, depriving people of basic
] ] rights, domestic spying, warmongering--without any of the
] ] positive attributes that usually accompany it, such as
] ] attention to reducing waste and balancing the budget."
]
] I would be interested in your feedback on this article.

I have said this all along. The tax n spend aspect alone makes me cringe. I can't figure out why the GOP hasn't caught on to this.

Alright, I've changed my mind. It's a reasonable article. I just disagree with Rall's definition of a liberal, I guess. And I mis-read some of it originally which caused some confusion on my part.