Why Vote Bush

I’m looking for Bush voters to give me reasons why they are voting for Bush.

What I don’t want:
Anything I can find on instapundit, freerepublic, etc… I can read those myself.
Anything about Kerry - an anti-Kerry vote is no better than an ABB vote.

What I do want:
Policies you agree with.
Vision and directions you agree with.
How you see those policies and visions helping the country in the next four years.
How those policies and visions contrast with Democratic policies and visions.


  • Hambil

Social Security is heading straight for the crapper- once the Baby Boomers start drawing on it in earnest, it’ll collapse like the Ponzi scheme it is. It needs major reform. Bush is willing to at least talk about privatization and other reforms; Kerry is not.

I feel that Bush will be better at fighting international terrorism than Kerry will.
Beyond that, it’s mostly standard disapproval for Democratic platforms (what you’d call and anyone-but-a-Democrat vote)- universal healthcare, higher taxes, higher minimum wages, higher tariffs, and this stupid new crusade to stop jobs from moving overseas.

The social security issue is a good one. I’m not sure what either canidates actual plans are, so far everyone seems to be saying and not doing, and continuing to raid the fund. But, I agree, the Republicans do favor reform in the form of privatization.

Why do you feel Bush will be better at fighting international terrorism?

Let me ask some questions on your ‘standard disapproval’ issues:
Healthcare: Do you believe there is anything that needs fixing? And if so, what and how? And does Bush have policies that agree with your ideas?
Higher taxes: The government clearly has some money issues. What is Bush’s plan? Do you agree with it?
Jobs moving overseas: What is the primary difference between Bush and Kerry on this? As I understand the ‘Kerry/Edwards’ position they want to ‘give incentives’ probably in the form of tax breaks, to keep jobs in the US. But, I’ve heard no discussion of legislating against outsourcing of jobs. What is Bush’s stance - completely hands off?

Why do you feel Bush will be better at fighting international terrorism?[/Hambil]

I feel that Bush has a good handle on the tools of military might, diplomacy, and internal justice systems, and is willing to use all of them. Kerry, I don’t know about- some of his statements seem to indicate that he is unwilling to use any military might. Really, when it comes down to it, the only thing I’ve heard about Kerry’s anti-terrorism policy is, “We’ll do what Bush is doing, but not as much, but we’ll be better at it.” Until he starts laying out specifics about what he will do, and gives concrete reasons as to why he’ll be better (other than the eyerolling, “well, anyone would”), I don’t see a reason to think he’ll do a better job than Bush.

I believe that rising medical costs are highly influenced by malpractice insurance and a fear by insurance companies of getting sued for everything they’re worth, so I agree with the President that tort reform is the first step to covering rising healthcare costs. I do think it’s a shame that people go without health insurance, but I also think it’s a shame that some people can’t afford a car, but I don’t want to see a “Jetta in every driveway” program by the government.

Bush’s plan is to keep taxes low and hope that growth increases revenues, which I agree with. He also seems to plan to keep spending money like a drunken sailor, which I don’t agree with, but after Kerry’s nomination speech where he promised a new individual government program from every American family, I think Bush still won’t be as bad. So I’m not in real agreement with either, but I lean towards Bush.

Bush’s stance seems to be “it’s a shame, but oh, well,” which is exactly my attitude. We can’t subsidize jobs that can’t really support themselves here any more than Ford could continue producing crappy cars in the '80’s compared to Japanese ones. Kerry’s plan to stem this tide through subsidization (and I do recall some Democrats, not Kerry specifically, talking about legislation) is just going to keep America uncompetitive in a market than cannot be deglobalized.

Like what?

Excluded middle. You’re using the fact that the problem cannot be eliminated entirely as a pretext for refusing to even address it.

As we say around here, “How’s that working out for you?” At some point, you do have to recognize that that approach hasn’t worked and isn’t going to, either.

Ford’s problem, and not just theirs of course, was loss of sales, due to poor product quality, due mainly to management arrogance, *not * labor costs (and do you think they were lower in Japan? Really now). Meanwhile, Japanese and German manufacturers set up shops *here * for their lower labor and transportation shops, and built market share through producing high-value products. Since the US manufacturers “got religion” about quality and service, their jobs have supported themselves just fine.

Since you brought up Ford, you might recall Henry’s rationale for introducing the five-dollar day: So his workers could afford their own product.

Wrong. He’s proposing to end the subsidy programs that promote outsourcing of labor to the lowest-bidder country. Companies can do that if they like, but we taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize it.

Perhaps this is one for Straight Dope to help out with. I found at least one reference saying that malpractice is not the problem:

I also found this on factcheck:

I agree. We need to be thinking about ways to compete, not turn isolationist. It’s tough, when faced with families suffer real hardships, but it has to be done. However, I don’t like the idea of companies doing things in other countries that are illegal here (like poluting and child labor) - but I guess that’s a related, but seperate issue.

Well, then, I was wrong. Thanks for illuminating me!

The question then, is, what is wrong with healthcare, and what can be done to lower prices? I don’t know the answer.

True. I don’t like the idea, either, but I also recognize that other countries are going to have a hell of a time building up an economy without allowing those sorts of things. Most modern economies were originally built on child labor and massive pollution, and insisting that underdeveloped countries force programs that either remove cheap labor or institute massive economic costs to growth seems to me the best way to ensure that 3rd world countries stay in the doldrums.

Well, the cost of malpractice insurance is only part of the problem. Add to that the cost of defensive medicine, patients suing their HMOs for experimental treatments, the extremely high cost of developing and testing new drugs and treatments, and a general lack of cost-benefit analysis in medical practice.

You may also want to consider if Sebok (the author of your article) and John Edwards, both of whom are lawyers, are the most objective source of data on the impact of tort reform on medical costs.

At any rate, I don’t think Bush believes that tort reform is the single magic bullet that will reduce health care costs.

The notion that capping damage awards will have no effect on health care costs isn’t nearly as established as the authors seem to assert. And again, Bush is not suggesting this as the only solution. But Kerry and the Democrats seem to be saying that they don’t want to do this at all. Therefore, even if we grant for the sake of argument that tort reform will only help a little, if we don’t enact tort reform as Edwards and Kerry suggest, it won’t help even a little.

So far, it is working out reasonably well. We are out of the recession Bush inherited from Clinton, we have more or less recovered from the popping of the dot-com bubble, the deficit has been cut for 2004 from its projected $531 billion to $445 billion (way too high, but trending in the right direction), and job growth is even starting to recover.

The economic predictors of the election favor Bush.


This is a common, but as far as I can tell somewhat dubious claim. According to The National Bureau of Economics Research the recession started in March of 2001 (link). The recession began two months after Bush took office.

Now, it’s a stretch to blame Bush for something that started after only two months, the implication that it started with Clinton is disingenuous. It would seem to me that at best you could say the switch of administrations and focus on campaigning (often complained about as it seriously detracts from a presidents effectiveness in his fourth year), and the changing business climate, make it pretty difficult to assign blame to either administration.

My major reason for voting for Bush is that I just can’t imagine turning the defense of the United State over to those bozos.

While I know that many (most on these boards) will vehemently disagree, I’m reasonably happy with the Bush presidency. I liked Bush’s response to 9/11; namely, removing the Taliban in Afganistan, I thought removing Saddam should have been done at least five years sooner, and, while I have some minor quibbles with his domestic policies, for the most part I approve.

By the way, quite a few of the critics of the Iraq war now claim to have supported the actions in Afganistan. But, I do remember marches in the streets by the usual crowd berating Bush and America for imperialist warmongering etc., etc., in the days after the start of the Afghan campaign…

I think it could be safely stated that the Clinton administration basically “rode out the wave” of the economic bubble without giving much thought or worry about what was going to happen next.

And *ended * in October 2001. After 3 years, the jobs are still gone, 1.8 million of them, the only presidency since Hoover’s with that record. “Job growth is tstarting to recover”, you say? Not by any plausible interpretation of the numbers. Bush’s *best * month or two ever for job creation are on par with Clinton’s average, and you’re happy?

Shodan, the fact that the administration-estimated (you know) deficit is only a slightly lower record high than the earlier one is a success? We had surpluses not that long ago, remember? You’d claim that a Republican president’s learning to tie his own shoes was a reason to vote for him, wouldn’t you?

Brother Cadfael, gotta ask for a cite about the anti-Afghanistan marches. If there were any of significance, enough to be representative of “the usual crowd” you deride, they’d surely have been reported, so it shouldn’t be too hard for you.

What do you believe would have been done different had Bush Sr. stayed in office? Also, the Republicans had control of congress, and I remember many Republicans claiming that the Republican congress was responsible for the balanced budget. That seems to indicate a lot of Republican control over the situation. What specific Republican economic initiatives did Clinton veto, or help defeat, that you feel would have made a difference? What policies did Clinton propose and get passed that harmed the economy?

So you think the Clinton Administration just laid back and watched the economy, and through incredible luck it was good? Does the Mexican crisis, Long Term Capital, and the Southeast Asian crisis ring a bell at all? There were plenty of opportunities for the economy to go south, but they managed to work past them all. The bubble would still have burst if Gore were elected, and there would be a recession, but with a reasonable demand side tax cut, I suspect there would be a lot less unemployment than there is today - and a lower deficit.

Job growth starting again? In the past two months fewer jobs were created than people entering the work force.

Oh, and the recession ended three years ago. The 9/11 spike was relatively short also. Time to stop blaming the economy’s problems on the mild, short, recession.

I think you misunderstood. I was refering to the claim that Bush inherited the recession as being dubious.

The Kerry plan is to have the government take over the cost of catastrophic illnesses. This spreads the cost more broadly, and will let the insurance companies cap their costs and thus reduce them. It will also make their outlays more predictable.

To be fair, he is also proposing health care coverage for children and others who cannot afford it. Since you seem to think that being sick without adequate treatment is about the same as not owning a car, I realize you won’t think this is a good idea.

Since recent studies have shown that health care costs have slowed job creation (and I know people without full time jobs exactly because of this) this sort of policy will be good for the overall economy, and is not just welfare.

Actually, the chairman of the committee at the NBER announced that, in his opinion, the recession began nearly at the end of Clinton’s last term. Cite, and cite. But you are correct, it is rather a stretch to blame Bush, since he had yet to pass his first budget even if it began in March 2001. It is equally a stretch to blame Clinton for the recession. More likely due to the collapse of the dot-coms, and made ineluctable by 9/11.

Yes, it is trending in the right direction, as I mentioned.

Yes. We also had a recession, the collapse of the dot-coms, 9/11, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and continued increases in the cost of health care. Remember?

No, and the suggestion is idiotic. Unsurprisingly.

True. All the alternatives are simply not serious people. Kerry is a waffler, with essentially nothing to show in 16 years in the Senate as far as significant legislation. Nader is a socialist crank. The third parties neither can nor should be able to get their agendas enacted.

John Corrado and BrotherCadfael have hit the high points of my support for Bush.

Plus I am looking forward to hearing the heads explode on the SDMB if he wins. :slight_smile:


hurries to pull up cooler and bowl of popcorn
It’ll be better the the 4th of July fireworks

Privatization could be a disaster. A current example is the wonderful Thrift Savings Plan that was imposed on government employees (like myself), with no concern as to whether we wanted that or to stay in the Civil Service system. To date, the TSP for short, has lost about 70 million dollars to bad hardware, sloppy programming, and general incompetence. Guess who gets to pay that bill? The people like me who were made to put into the system. It is, or was being investigated by Congress. This fund also has been losing money, even though other retirement plans at least appear to be making money. There’s nothing like having thousands of dollars deducted every year, only to see your grand total go lower each year. That’s privatization. :dubious:

Well gee. Everyone is raiding the fund, and then they declare it is going bust. I wonder why it is going bust. As far as outsourcing, Bush actively favors it. He is currently trying to outsource as much Government function as he can, under the heading of A-76 reviews. My job series was one of many that were under review. Factor in NAFTA and various free trade deals too. It’s the old trickle down economics, with a vengeance.