How big is the mess gonna be for the next President after Bush?

Great Debates
21

I’ll agree with december in that it’s hard to guess what the “biggest messes” will be when Bush leaves office (whether that’s in '05 or '09). I can hazard a few guesses, though.

For one thing, I don’t see the NK problem as going away any time soon. I think the problem will force itself to be addressed at some point, and that this addressing may necessarily take the form of military action (though I would love to be wrong). It may be Bush that has to tackle this, though it may not be. Iran I don’t foresee as being as large a mess as some believe - I’m optimistic that the current dissent among the Iranian people will lead to a relatively peaceful government overhaul.

On the domestic front, I think one of the larger problems will be the enormous expansion of government we’re seeing under Bush - a small-government conservative he ain’t. This is going to come back and bite us. Also, the eventual implosion of Social Security is going to be a huge issue if it’s not addressed soon, and Bush seems to have all but given up on the idea of partial privatization, and privatization is the only solution that will work in the long term. Anything short of that involves either a cut in benefits or huge increases in taxes, and at any rate will do nothing but shove off the problem onto a future administration. Medicare is going to be another serious problem. Bush had an excellent chance to force some serious reform upon the system, and instead seems to have opted for throwing more cash at the problem in the form of an ill-conceived prescription drug expansion. Color me unimpressed.

Yet another problem I think will fall upon whoever wins the '04 election is gay marriage. As soon as a state decides to legalize gay marriage, somebody is get married there, move to another state, and sue on Full Faith and Credit grounds. I predict such a case will make both the Michigan AA and the Texas sodomy cases seem small potatoes, and while the ultimate decision (provided legislation or an Constitutional amendment is not passed beforehand) will rest with the SCOTUS, the input of the president will be important on the matter at large.

Deficit, Kyoto, ICC, income equality, race relations? None of these are quite the catastrophe that some paint them as. Heck, many of them (cough Kyoto cough) are practically non-issues.
Jeff

22

No, in foreign policy, the US will be in OK shape when Bush leaves office in 2009. Certainly better than he inherited it. ObL had two cracks at the WTC under Clinton, who didn’t do much about it. When Osama tried it again under Bush, we busted up his training camps under the Taliban.

Same in North Korea. Clinton negotiated a no-nukes treaty with the NK Commies, which they ignored, and now Bush has to deal with that. It seems they are marginally more willing to negotiate now that the Iraq thing has made it clear that Bush and Co. are not to be trifled with.

It seems to me that Bush has improved our standing in the world. Machievelli said it is better to be feared than loved, and at least the rest of the world has been sent a good clear message that we mean business, and are not prepared to wait for months before getting what we want. No, the French and the Russians may not like it, and think we are assholes. Tough noogies - the French have been assholes since the 60s, and we still manage to do business with them. Who are the Russians going to cozy up with - the Chinese?

The economy will have recovered by later next year, and will likely be chugging along as it usually does by 2009. Others have been correct in pointing out the big jump in entitlement spending - I see government shut downs in the future. We need to balance the budget, but there is no chance that any Democrat is going to do that.

In short, I suspect President Condoleeza Rice and Vice-President Powell (IhopeIhopeIhope) will inherit the usual mixed bag of problems. Not nearly as big a mess as Reagan picked up in 1981, and not anything like what Bush Sr. got, but some good and some bad as usual.

You need to avoid the tendency of treating Democratic talking points as if they were the vital issues of our day. Race relations and Kyoto are not all that important, except to Democratic core constituencies. Same with stuff like income equality and whether or not Iraq is pissed at us. The great American center doesn’t really vote based on envy. The UN isn’t going to change in the near term, except to get more irrelevant, so no issues there.

I suspect the situation between Israel and the PA may be marginally better. I am sure the Dems would rather die than credit Bush for it, but at worst it will free up some attention in the Middle East for the rest of the problems there.

Regards,
Shodan

23

It’s becomming clear that forgot your medication again.
Take it and re-read your post, you’ll be in for a laugh.

24

Do you even read your own posts? Here’s one of yours: “'If the previous administration knew they were such serious issues, you’d think the previous administration would have done more to deal with them.” What “previous administration” might that be?
If you’ll look back to the december statement to which I was replying, the subject being Afghanistan and Al Qaeda should have been clear to you. But perhaps you were referring to a different previous administration?

Why is it ridiculous that people who had been dealing the problem for years might be aware that it was a problem, and try to make the next guys aware of it too?

Once again, read the damn thread. I referred to people “such as yourself” - to wit, those whose partisan blinkers are so strong that they cannot imagine that anyone of another party could ever be right or even principled, or that anyone of their own could not. That mindset, which you show as strongly as anyone on this board, is how the dogwagging allegation arose.

Back atcha.

Reread that part too. The reference was to the pre-9/11 period, when Bush did absolutely squat - as the hearings he’s been stalling ever since will eventually confirm. If you know otherwise, please say so.

Which, you’ll note, was written by someone else, although you attributed it to me.

Quite.

That was an attempt to nip in the bud your false claim to authority on the matter. Read up on debating methods.

That, even if you intended your misquote to be a paraphrase, it shows no understanding of what I’ve really said.

Start with the assumption that Iraqis are people like us, with similar needs and desires. The rest follows. And you don’t even have to consider the endless list of historical parallels to other occupations to understand why.

Now please do us all a favor and don’t waste any more time, including your own, with this kind of slop, okay?