Here's an interesting article I ran across today: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0309.marshall.html It's too long to post, and my comments here won't really do the argument justice, so I suggest reading it yourself. It starts by talking a little about the nature of Presidential deception, and how Bush's particular style is the "confidently expressed, but currently undisprovable assertion." It goes on to explain why Bush finds it necessary to engage in deception to achieve his agenda. The reference to post-modernism refers to one of the traits I've found most distinctive about the Bush administration -- deciding on policy goals first, and then coming up with a rationalization for them, instead of vice versa. Several examples of this are given in the article, the most obvious being how drilling in ANWR is suggested as part of the solution to every problem that comes along. Another interesting section talks about the Bush tax cut. I'm going to quote part of that one directly: '...cutting taxes was a fundamental goal of his agenda. Politically, it was a policy on which each part of the once-fractious conservative base could agree on. It also rewarded the party's biggest donors. But most importantly, tax cuts would help shift the very premises of American governance. Republicans had come to view progressive federal taxation as the linchpin of Democrat strength. As Rep. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), an up-and-coming conservative, told The New Yorker's Nicholas Lemann during the 2001 tax debate, "[t]oday fewer and fewer people pay taxes, and more and more are dependent on government, so the politician who promises the most from government is likely to win. Every day, the Republican Party is losing constituents, because every day more people can vote themselves more benefits without paying for it." By this theory, the more the tax burden shifted from upper-middle-class and wealthy voters to those of the middle class, the more average voters would feel the sting of each new government program, and the less likely they would be to support the Democrats who call for such programs. To put it another way, it was a policy designed to turn more voters into Republicans, particularly the middle class. Without massive upper-bracket tax cuts, DeMint worried, "The Reagan message"--smaller government--"won't work anymore." 'But telling the majority of voters that your tax policies are designed to shift more of the burden of paying for federal government onto them is not a very effective way of eliciting their support. So, instead, Bush pitched his tax cuts as the solution to whatever problems were most in the news at the time.' Finally, the article discusses the Bush administration's habit of dismissing any facts that disagree with their pre-conceived agenda, and how this has often cut them off from the very experts whose knowledge they needed to give their plans any chance of success.36 responses total.
An interesting article - thanks for the pointer.
I like the "Like orthodox Marxists....." observation. Bush and Co have a fixed ideologie and pick and choose - and distort - their facts to suit their preconceived passions. I think they are getting stuck deeper and deeper into a swamp of their own making. "O, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." (Sir Walter Scott)
"I never had sex with that young woman."
Frankly, I care a lot more about what America is doing in Iraq than about what Bill did with Monica. However, if you want to compare mendacity levels for recent presidents, this page (referenced in the article above) is helpful: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0309.mendacity-index.html
I like their ranking of the valdity of their survey too.
This response has been erased.
I'm all for what the article claims Bush is trying to do. Actually, I'm not, but recognize on conservation-of-mass-energy principles that it is necessary. But why not simply come clean, and tell the American people straight, that government programs have to be paid for *somehow*, and that the super-rich simply don't generate the income to pay for it themselves - not for a quarter of a billion people they don't. Sooner or later people are simply going to have to realize this. Now this isn't to say that we can't make everyone richer in real terms. I've pointed out the way to do this. But it is not by simple transfer of wealth.
tautology - quoting an article that says what you want it to say and then refering to it as it proves your point.
> government programs have to be paid for *somehow*, ... the super-rich > simply don't generate the income to pay for it themselves - not for a > quarter of a billion people they don't. But just a few years ago, we had a budget surplus. We couldn't be *that* from being able to pay for things under the old tax system. So telling the people that would have the weakness of being obvious nonsense.
No we didn't. We only had a "surplus" because Social Security payments and taxes are not considered to be a part of the "budget". When added in, government dollars spent still exceeded dollars collected. The signs of it are evident at the supermarket, the gas pump, the housing market, etc.
Re #9: A number of companies are re-stating their earnings from the bubble years... and filing to reclaim overpaid taxes. The surplus was tied to the bubble and its magnitude was equally illusory.
So, wait...they're admitting they lied to everyone about their earnings, and now they're expecting to get back the taxes they overpaid because of those lies? Hell, no. They should have to pay for their deception.
Recent poll numbers from Zogby: - 45% rate Bush's job performance as "good" or "excellent. 54% rate it as "fair" or "poor". - 52% say it's time for someone new in the White House. 40% say Bush should be reelected. Likewise, 52% say the country is headed in the wrong direction, and 40% say it's headed in the right direction. - Overall opinion of Bush is 54% favorable, 45% unfavorable. - 40% say they'd choose Bush if the election were held today. 47% say they'd choose the Democratic candidate. (In August people split 43%-43% on the same question.) (Margin of error of the poll is 3.2%. The complete article is here: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=732)
We need to have a likely Democrat candidate before the poll means much. I recall the polls also show hardly anyone knows who the potential Democrat candidates are.
You not only need to have a "likely" candidate, you need to subject him and his record to close public scrutiny.
Okay, let's do those things. I hereby order, within the next year, that the Democrats produce a likely presidential candidate, and further direct all media sources to subject that person to close scrutiny. But in order that we not be trend-followers here, let's go ahead and discuss the president and his opposition as it suits us here on Grex.
re15: does that "close public scrutiny" include the currently serving guy?
No, he's protected by "executive privilage", apparently.
/whew! i wonder if he has a toy carrier to play with in the bathtub?
It's pretty funny to hear Republicans talking about possible Vietnam problems from Dean and/or Kerry's past. Yup, they bring that up, maybe the press can bother to address how Bush not only didn't serve in the war, but couldn't even bother to finish his National Guard hitch?
This response has been erased.
even the dude that lost his kicker? ;)
(Kerry was a SEAL in-country in the late 1960's. It's quite possible that he was involved in some less than salutory . . . events. That is, he was if I have the right Kerry.)
Bob Kerry is the one who lost his leg, and who ran for President a few primaries ago. John Kerry is the current candidate, but I don't know what his military record is. I suspect military records will become less and less of a political issue, if they haven't already. For my generation, joining the military just wasn't something people from upper middle class backgrounds did.
I didn't know the Kerry who's running now was a different Kerry than the one who ran a few elections ago. Thanks, Steve!
Re #12: Apparently you don't understand accounting rules. Any business over a certain size (a half-dozen employees, IIRC) is required to perform accounting using the accrual method, rather than on a cash basis. "Accrual" means that taxes are due and payable when income is booked, not when it is actually received. If a customer, or a bunch of customers suddenly find themselves unable to pay for products or services that are already booked, then that revenue has to be restated and the business is owed a refund on the overpaid taxes. Same as you. (Which doesn't mean that the system isn't gamed, and too often; just that some of this is a consequence of the law.)
Yeah, there are two: Bob Kerry of Oklahoma and John Kerry of Massachusetts. (I think BK is from Oklahoma and not Nebraska.)
He's from Nebraska.
zero for two; I should play for the Tigers. :(
Re #23: I suspect they'll try to suggest that there is possible psychological damage, like they did with McCain. This is just their way of trying to neutralize any advantage Kerry could get from having actually served, unlike Bush and Cheney.
Bob Kerry may, indeed, be from Oklahoma; however, Bob Kerrey was a senator from Nebraska who ran for presidential nomination of the Democratic Party.
zero for three. Thanks, folks. :)
John Kerry (Massachusetts senator) served in Vietnam, with some distinction, and afterwards protested against the war. Howard Dean was found medically unfit to serve for some reason. Someone pointed out, though, that if you put Dean and Kerry side by side, anyone who doesn't know their histories, told that one of them is a war veteran, and the other never served in the military, would unhesitatingly choose Dean as having been the veteran. One of Kerry's most controversial actions, when he was protesting against the war, was to supposedly throw his war medals over the fence onto the Capitol lawn or some such. He now says, no, he never threw his medals away; he still has them. But three other guys (who weren't able to be in Washington that day) had given him their medals and asked him to throw them over the fence on their behalf. So, he says, he threw his own ribbons, and some other guys' medals, but not his own medals. Slate's article about this calls this explanation "extremely nuanced." See http://slate.msn.com/id/2087554/
Heh. I believe it, if only because I can't see how he'd expect any political gain from telling a story like that. I think the sentiment he was expressing is probably more important than the exact actions he took, anyway.
How does throwing his medals/ribbons make him a less suitable candidate? IMHO, he should come out and openly state that he was against the war (including the medal throwing thing). However, as a law abiding citizen he served in the army and later, as a good citizen, protested against what he thought was a flawed US foreign policy. He did his duty so he has every right to protest peacefully.
This response has been erased.
You have several choices: