Posted on 09/26/2005 8:32:01 AM PDT by Happy2BMe
~snip~
Do I sound disgruntled? I am also perplexed, left to focus on the inscrutability of such symbolism because the narrative thread of this presidency has become so hard to follow.
For example, Katrina isn't our only crisis. What's up with our borders, for instance? Why doesn't the president bring them under control? So far, the White House solution to the immigration crisis is to plot against border-control advocate Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), conjure up visions of alien amnesty, and now -- final-straw time -- appoint a novice to head up the crucial U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. "I will seek to work with those who are knowledgeable in this area, who know more than I do," 36-year-old Julie Myers told lawmakers at her Senate confirmation hearing last week.
It's not just that Myers' admitted inexperience fails to inspire confidence. It's not just that she is the latest in a string of what columnist Michelle Malkin has called "clueless cronies" appointed to Bush administration jobs in immigration and border security. (Myers is the niece of outgoing Joint Chiefs chairman Gen. Richard B. Myers, and she just married Secretary Chertoff's chief of staff, John F. Wood.) Downright scary is the symbolism of her appointment -- that President Bush considers immigration law enforcement a handy place to park a well-connected novice.
What's the president thinking? Maybe for the first time in his administration, I haven't a clue. What's really going on in the Middle East? I get the "staying" part of the "staying the course" in Iraq, but frankly the "course" could use some re-tooling to take into account the hard lessons learned (I wish) about fighting Islamic jihad.
And what's really going on with Israel? Having withdrawn from Gaza, Israel doesn't even get Washington lip service when it comes to its determination not to assist in Palestinian Authority elections that feature Hamas terrorists. Which begs the question: Whatever happened to George W. Bush's raison d'etre -- namely, that we oppose terror networks and the countries that support them?
Maybe the answer lies in what passes for tea leaves these days -- as in the fact that the new U.S. ambassador to Israel, Richard Jones, who was most recently Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's right-hand man on Iraq, has "roots in the Arab world so deep," reports The Washington Post, "that his beloved greyhound is named Kisa -- for Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, his first posting in the Arab world." Explains Mr. Jones about his appointment, "Maybe they wanted someone who could provide the Arab perspective, too." Which is weird, at best. Of all countries, Israel certainly knows the Arab point of view, historically delivered at gunpoint. But why, oh why, is the American ambassador concerned with presenting the Arab point of view? Is the Arab point of view the American point of view? And where does that leave us in the so-called war on terror?
Earlier this month, the shocking plan for the memorial to the heroes of Flight 93 was released -- a memorial in the shape of an Islamic crescent. The only elected official to call for a better plan to honor these brave Americans (who, having saved Washington from further destruction on 9/11, plunged to earth hearing Al Qaeda hijackers cry, "Allah is the greatest") was Tom Tancredo. The president and the rest of our leaders were, of course, silent. Maybe we don't expect much more of them anymore, which in itself is symbolic. But if the symbolism is clear, the leadership is not.
I do? What I quoted was a pretty broad statement of general principles. If Bush can't live up to that, it certainly isn't because it's too "narrow" a standard.
Hasn't he cut taxes ?
Of everything you mentioned in that long post, that's the only thing that would begin to qualify as a step in a conservative direction. The problem is, however, that the tax cuts are temporary, and far from being accompanied by spending cuts, they've been followed by drastic increases in domestic spending well outstripping what happened during the Clinton years. That means the cuts have almost no chance of becoming permanent, and with federal spending taking us deeper into the hole, it makes it pretty unlikely that taxes could be cut at any time thereafter. So in terms of any solid, lasting moves, even small ones, that have taken us in a direction that any reasonable person would describe as conservative, there's precious little if anything.
[[You seek to adhere to a narrow definition of conservatism
I do? What I quoted was a pretty broad statement of general principles. If Bush can't live up to that, it certainly isn't because it's too "narrow" a standard.
Hasn't he cut taxes ?
Of everything you mentioned in that long post, that's the only thing that would begin to qualify as a step in a conservative direction. The problem is, however, that the tax cuts are temporary, and far from being accompanied by spending cuts, they've been followed by drastic increases in domestic spending well outstripping what happened during the Clinton years. That means the cuts have almost no chance of becoming permanent, and with federal spending taking us deeper into the hole, it makes it pretty unlikely that taxes could be cut at any time thereafter. So in terms of any solid, lasting moves, even small ones, that have taken us in a direction that any reasonable person would describe as conservative, there's precious little if anything.]]
You only prove my point. Ideological entrenchment with no wiggle room. A total lack of big picture perspective and little, if any, grasp of economics. The tax cuts have increased government tax receipts, the deficit is decreasing as a percentage of GDP, the only relevant statistic. Personal retirement accounts, tax reform, personal health accounts are all things Bush has proposed that are in line with conservative principles. Bankruptcy and tort reform are conservative accomplishments. Don't get me wrong, Congress has not lived up to their end of the bargain and reigned in spending, they control the purse strings, not Bush. Without the line item veto, it is politically impossible for Bush to exercise economic restraint, because to veto bad spending in bills, he also has to veto good spending, and the republicans would get hammered and hand the democrats ammunition to use in elections.
Give Bush the line item veto, and if he refuses to use it, then I will join you in criticism of his fiscal policies. Until then, you are merely showing political naivete. Political reality and ideological entrenchment will always be at odds.
No, at least one other relevant statistic is debt as a percentage of GDP. The deficit keeps adding on to the debt. The deficit from each year is in addition to the one from the year before, and that process shows no sign of halting. There's going to be a limit to the amount of debt we can build up before we start to see some economic blowback, and the more it builds up, the closer we get to that point.
Don't get me wrong, Congress has not lived up to their end of the bargain and reigned in spending, they control the purse strings, not Bush.
Yeah, yeah, I know how it is - every time something good happens, Bush is the one to credit for it. Everytime something goes in the wrong direction, it's Congress's fault. Somehow that's true even when Congress is implementing Bush's very proposals.
Give Bush the line item veto,
and you'll see even more blackmailing and bribing of individual Congressmen. Why the hell should he get more power when he's raised nary a peep of protest against Congress's freespending ways?
You are no different than the left wing 'I hate Bush' crowd. You continue to point out the similarities between the fringe right and fringe left. You won't be satisfied unless someone agrees it is all Bush's fault.
You, just as those on the left, engage in economic deception. You fail to look at either the debt or deficit in historical perspective, in 1943, the deficit was over 30% of GDP, today it is less than 4% (2004 was 3.6% to be exact) of GDP.
I recommend you read:
The Overstretch Myth
David H. Levey and Stuart S. Brown
Summary: The United States' current account deficit and foreign debt are not dire threats to its global position, as would-be Cassandras warn. U.S. power is firmly grounded on economic superiority and financial stability that will not end soon.
- David H. Levey recently retired after 19 years as Managing Director of Moody's Sovereign Ratings Service. Stuart S. Brown is Professor of Economics and International Relations in the Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050301facomment84201/david-h-levey-stuart-s-brown/the-overstretch-myth.html
Instead of relying on Cassandras like paleo-con Paul Craig Roberts.
The 2005 deficit is projected to be 2.7% of GDP (smaller than the deficits in 15 of the last 25 years as a percentage of GDP), falling to 1.1% by 2008. GDP, in the meantime, is increasing at a healthy 3.5%+, which to anyone conversant in math means the overall debt will also decrease as a percentage of GDP.
Now, let's talk about debt historically, in 1946 the debt was 122% of GDP, the 2004 debt was 63.7% of GDP, compared to 1996 when it was 67.3%. As stated above, if GDP increases faster than the rate of the deficit, the debt percentage of GDP correspondingly goes down. Since 1940, the economy has grown 5 times as fast as the debt.
More suggested reading for you:
Why America’s Debt Burden Is Declining
Brian M. Riedl
Conclusion
The obsessive focus on budget deficits is misguided.
The debt ratio, a superior measure of government’s
debt burden, is as dependent on
economic growth as federal borrowing. The past
decade has shown that a growing economy can
absorb modestly increasing debt levels.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=74358
Economics is the one area where the public is deceived most easily because 99% of the public has no concept of government economics, which is vastly different than the business world. All they see are these huge numbers that overwhelm their ability to conceptualize and make them susceptible to anecdotal misrepresentations.
Nice selective use of statistics there. We built up a huge debt during the war, which was to be completely expected, and then we paid it way down. The percentage was higher in '96 than today, but what you fail to mention is that it was dropping rapidly in '96, and is on the increase now, as Chart #3 on your bottom link shows. And there's no excuse for it going up. The Republicans have been much looser with spending than they allowed Clinton to be, and it's not because of 9/11-related matters either.
Well, thank you Dr. Freud.
That is the second time, on this thread, that I've seen you use that old "horseshoe" nugget. I guess when you have something that works for you, you stick with it. I prefer the "road" model of the political spectrum myself, where the only things in the middle are dead skunks and yellow lines.
I think that the definition and understanding of just what constitutes "Conservative" is fairly clear. This is especially true here on FreeRepublic, based on the site mission statement. I can't speak for anyone else, but my major gripe with George W. Bush, and his alleged conservatism, is his continual violation of the "government largesse" clause. His apparent lack of back-bone in dealing with and responding to the sniping left has also lost him some points on my "conserv-o-meter."
The president may, indeed, fall within the "conservative" half of the political spectrum, but he's been much further to the left than the president I thought that I was voting for.
I won't bore you or anyone else with a point-by-point listing of my stances on political points. If you want to label me a "paleo-conservative" then go ahead. Besides, I think that your purpose for responding to my post was more designed to display your obvious navel-gazing and linguistic dexterity skills than it was to elicit more "specificity" in my "attribution."
As you like to engage in selective accusations, and ignore the other points, a little comprehension might be required in those selective points you assail. The point being that the debt as a percentage of GDP is declining after 2004. Shall we discuss why it rose after Bush was elected ? Try unfunded mandates left over from the previous administration (i.e. the Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996), shall we also talk about having to rebuild the military and intelligence capacity of this country which was cut and on whose back the debt was lowered ? Shall we add the dotcom bubble bursting and the ensuing recession ? Add to that 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq ?
If you want to play silly economic games, I suggest you arm yourself with more than talking points.
Would I prefer that Bush was more fiscally assertive ? Certainly. His proposed 2006 budget has finally shown some fiscal restraint. I would prefer him in the White House over any democrat out there.
You also ignored the points made about social security reform (social security reform), personal medical savings accounts (instead of government run healthcare) and tax code reform (personally I prefer the national sales tax to the flat tax). Are you saying the republican controlled Congress is not responsible for the failure to act ? Aren't those conservative issues Bush has put forth ? Unless this republican led Congress has the backbone to push these issues through, you are not going to reign in mandatory government spending on entitlement programs to any significant degree. Bush cannot sign them unless Congress passes them.
Only you can determine if you are, you only showed evidence of it with a claim to conservative ideological purity by passing some alleged test, while claiming Bush isn't. How elite of you to make yourself the determiner of all things conservative. I have no doubt you are a conservative, but there are other conservatives who disagree with you on some points and agree on others. Does that make them lesser conservatives than you are ? I merely stated that claim you made to delegitimize your target, Bush in your case, is often exhibited by those who reside on the fringe. It is a common debate tactic, but usually highly ineffective.
Are you saying it actually has declined, or that it's "projected" to decline?
Shall we discuss why it rose after Bush was elected ? Try unfunded mandates left over from the previous administration (i.e. the Veterans' Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996), shall we also talk about having to rebuild the military and intelligence capacity of this country which was cut and on whose back the debt was lowered ? Shall we add the dotcom bubble bursting and the ensuing recession ? Add to that 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq ?
As for the '96 law, that was in effect during the time the debt percentage was decreasing during the '90s, the dot-com recession is over, at least according to the administration, and as I've said, the increased spending is above and beyond 9/11-related matters. Compare non-defense discretionary spending in Bush's presidency to the same in Clinton's, and it's been going up faster in Bush's. Excuse it, rationalize it, justify it however you like, but you can't claim it's conservative, even by a broad definition of the word.
Would I prefer that Bush was more fiscally assertive ? Certainly. His proposed 2006 budget has finally shown some fiscal restraint.
And then what happens when Congress adds on all the grease that it wants, and Bush signs it without registering any protest at all? I judge him by his results, not by what he's proposed. If his results fall short of his proposals, then I should be satisfied that it's not for lack of trying on his part. As it is, I'm hardly satisfied of that with him, because he never plays hardball with Congress when they screw things up.
Likewise, that answers your questions in your last paragraph about his other proposals. He's very good at proposing. Getting in there and fighting for what he's proposing is a different matter.
You've been on FR long enough to know that it's exhibited by Bushbots as well. Only they have an even narrower criterion for conservativeness than the "fringers" do. To them, "conservative" is defined solely according to one's willingness to support Bush. It's defined around a single person.
[[Are you saying it actually has declined, or that it's "projected" to decline?]]
Rhetorical question ? If fiscal year 2005 has not come to a close, any figures can only be projected. Tax revenues, to date, are up 15%, GDP is growing at a healthy 3.5%+, federal spending has not gone up a corresponding amount, you do the math.
I just find the hypocrisy amusing, federal spending and the debt under Reagan, one of this country's greatest presidents, increased at a far faster pace than it has under Bush. Is Reagan attacked for not being a conservative ?
[[As for the '96 law, that was in effect during the time the debt percentage was decreasing during the '90s, the dot-com recession is over, at least according to the administration, and as I've said, the increased spending is above and beyond 9/11-related matters.]]
The '96 law was an unfunded mandate, so fo course, if you do not fund it, it will help decrease the debt while passing on the cost to the next administration. Why do you think the VA has had so many budget problems ? The VA was never intended to be a healthcare program for non-military related health problems. Get your head out of the ground.
The dotcom recession is over ? As far as the economy and growth is concerned, but if you know anything about economics, you know economic effects do not simply end. You need to stop throwing out anecdotal rhetoric and show a grasp of economic reality. Irag and Afghanistan are part of 9/11, DHS is part of 9/11. Without 9/11 none of them occur.
[[Compare non-defense discretionary spending in Bush's presidency to the same in Clinton's, and it's been going up faster in Bush's. Excuse it, rationalize it, justify it however you like, but you can't claim it's conservative, even by a broad definition of the word.]]
You mislead, entitlement spending is not discretionary, it is mandatory. Do you understand the difference between discretionary and mandatory spending ? Homeland Security, disaster relief, education, Iraq and Afghanistan are discretionary spending, medicaid, medicare, social security, welfare are ALL mandatory.
Discretionary spending is about 33% of the federal budget, mandatory spending is 67%. Military spending is 54% of the discretionary spending, leaving you with less than 16% of the total budget for other discretionary spending.
Social security is 34% of mandatory spending and medicare is 19%, over 50% of mandatory spending, and 33% of the total budget, is going to these two entitlement programs.
You want to decrease the size of government and spending, this is where you have to make your efforts, changing entitlements and mandatory spending, anything else is smoke and mirrors and political rhetoric. What is amusing, is that what is labelled discretionary spending are mostly things the Constitution intended the federal government to do, while mandatory spending would be unconstitutional under the original Constitution.
Because Bush has had the stomach to address these issues and bring them before the public is why I support him, no politician has been willing to touch this 'alleged' third rail of government for fear of the political cost. It is also why I groaned over his Prescription Drug Bill, even though I understood the politics behind it.
The relative size of the federal government has been remarkably stable for over 50 years. In 1952, the third year of the Korean War, federal spending was 20.3 percent of GDP; in 2005 to date, the third year of the Iraq War, federal spending is 20.4 percent of GDP. The average over that period, 1952 to the present, is 19.85%. What has changed is how big a percentage is spent on entitlement programs.
[[He's very good at proposing. Getting in there and fighting for what he's proposing is a different matter.]]
Like many, you seem to have a disconnect with political reality and a need for immediate gratification. Gauging how far one can push on certain topics and issues without alienating or causing a public outcry or negative publicity or giving ammo to the opposition is a very tenuous but important part of politics. You and I are not the only people that have to be appealed to to get elected or to keep control of Congress. Republicans do not have the iron lock on Congress that democrats did for so long. In this polarized country, a misstep can cause the loss of control of Congress. It is a good thing that what at one time could not even be discussed (entitlement reform) is now on the table, that is a victory in itself.
I am a big picture conservative, I understand the political minefield that has to be traversed and that change does not happen overnight, but in incremental steps, slow and steady is the only way to achieve the end game, immediate gratification is not going to happen. If there is a demise to, or fracturing of, the conservative movement, it will be because of the lack of a big picture vision by those who cannot think outside their narrow ideological view.
Ah, standard Bushbot reply #4. No matter how much rationalization and excuse-making you engage in, you can not get around the fact that Republicans were more fiscally conservative when Clinton was in the White House than when Bush is. When he starts making an attempt to hold Congress to account for its freespending ways, then I could begin to believe that he's serious about wanting to be seen as fiscally conservative. Until then, or until there are some actual results beyond showy proposals, there's no reason to believe this is anything other than smoke and mirrors. Instant gratification has nothing to do with my position, no matter how desperately you want it to.
[[You've been on FR long enough to know that it's exhibited by Bushbots as well. Only they have an even narrower criterion for conservativeness than the "fringers" do. To them, "conservative" is defined solely according to one's willingness to support Bush. It's defined around a single person.]]
I have never stated that there aren't those who merely rubber stamp the Bush line, but I disagree they have an even 'narrower criterion', only a different one. You are enagaging in a rhetorical tit for tat. For conservatism to succeed, it has to cast a big umbrella, it has to exhibit tolerance for differences of opinion, whether one 'toes the Bush line' without questioning or one adheres inflexibly to an ideological ideal, they have to all fit under the umbrella. Disagree, yes, but disagree constructively, leave the demonization and alienation to the progressive left. The public responds favorably to positive images, even when there are disagreements, let the left self-destruct, we do not need to follow their path to the same fate.
Now I am a Bushbot. Your 'rationalization and excuse-making' are political realities. You certainly have to be one of the most deeply programmed I have come across. You are no different than the progressive left regurgitating talking points without substantive analysis. Your selective replies only evidence that. You could be hit in the face with reality and still deny it. You prove disingenuity is not only the purview of the far left.
Have a nice day.
It's beginning to look that way. Your use of the "instant gratification" strawman, and now the "You're-the-same-as-the-leftists-because-both-of-you-don't-like-Bush" foolishness, are showing your lack of ability to form a cogent argument.
[[Your use of the "instant gratification" strawman, and now the "You're-the-same-as-the-leftists-because-both-of-you-don't-like-Bush" foolishness, are showing your lack of ability to form a cogent argument.]]
I know the truth hurts, but one only has to look at your responses to see the accuracy. Perhaps you might seek trying to achieve a cogent and lucid argument of your own before trying to level a critique. All you did was provide anecdotal and rhetorical defense of your position. A typical ploy, which is often used by the fringe left also, demonize the messenger when you can't offer up a substantive defense of your position. Perhaps an 'inquest' into your own thought process is called for, comprehension seems to be in short supply in your world of conservative elitism.
The anecdotes (i.e., isolated, selective data points about debt percentages) were all yours, pal. It was left to me to put them into a more continuous context. And talk of instant gratification is about as insipidly rhetorical as anyone could come up with.
[[The anecdotes (i.e., isolated, selective data points about debt percentages) were all yours, pal. It was left to me to put them into a more continuous context. And talk of instant gratification is about as insipidly rhetorical as anyone could come up with.]]
None are so blind as an entrenched ideologue. Your reply above is simply more of your hackneyed rhetoric. Claims without substance, distortion without facts. (i.e. debt percentages showed that it has been worse and the country did not self-destruct, yet you went off on a diversionary tangent with the typical 'But, but...' defense. Maybe you should comprehend what the definition anecdotal evidence is, instead of cutting and pasting a definition without understanding, before making yourself look more 'insipid' and sophomoric.) Reagan's debt percentage was equal to or greater than the 2004 debt ratio in 5 of his 8 years in office. Were conservatives like you screaming then ? Claiming Reagan wasn't a conservative ?
Pay attention and don't get 'stuck on stupid'.
For someone who likes to go off talking about the big picture, your view is very selectively narrow. We can handle large debt for a time, in order to accomplish something specific (like win WWII or the Cold War), and then bring it back down. Letting it just rise and rise on general principles in exchange for some vague assurance that it'll eventually come back down, is not healthy and definitely not conservative, either for a person or for a country. This really isn't that difficult a concept.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.