After carefully reading through all the posts in this thread by cheddarsnax I have found exactly zero instances in which he says, or even implies that the Bush economic policies in the first two months caused the recession. He has merely pointed out that the start of the recession in March is not a “leftist fabrication” as you had claimed.
Whew … was thinking otherwise …
The important question isn’t who or what caused the lasted recession, but what was done to recover from it.
I’m not going to get drawn into what has already been discussed on many other threads here, but IMO, Bush did not and has not not made the right economic choices for the country. The wealthy got their tax reduction but they haven’t used their money to create the jobs as we were promised they would do with their additional money. The last two positive job growth reports have proven to be statistical manipulations and/or consisted mainly of part-time jobs (go search the economic threads here where I have posted the details on this previously).
Furthermore, we are now saddled with AT LEAST a $500 billion deficit that some are saying could go as high as $7 TRILLION in the next few years. And I don’t think the cost of the Iraq war is figured into the current $500 billion number yet.
Lastly, the current high price of gas here will affect economic activity and if gas stays high, it could drive the current weak recovery back into recession.
Like Iraq, Bush has failed on the economic front.
Wow. A $7 trillion deficit! You might want to check your numbers again.
In actuality, the deficit projection for next year may be revised DOWN by $100 billion due to higher-than-anticipated growth and tax revenue. The CBO’s budget projection is that the deficit will be cut in half within four years.
And in constant dollars, today’s deficits are still lower than the peak deficits of the early 1980’s and 1991.
Not that deficits are a good thing, and Bush’s inability to control spending is one of the biggest strikes against him, but let’s not start fear-mongering.
I’m not American, but if I were, I would vote for Bush in a heartbeat. I have plenty of disagreements with him, but I think in broad strokes his policies are correct - a pro-active, aggressive war on terror. Reforming the middle east. The invasion of Iraq (yes, I still agree with it, quite strongly).
On economic matters, Bush believes in lower taxes and fewer regulations. He SAYS he also believes in smaller government, but there’s no evidence to support this. Given the choice, he prefers market-oriented solutions to big government. As do I.
And, I’d be an ABK voter (Anyone But Kerry). John Kerry strikes me as an obnoxious human being, an opportunist, a snotty elitist, and a man who is willing to twist with the prevailing winds if it will get him into power. If he can be said to beleive in anything, it’s that big government is your friend. He wants to ‘re-regulate’ business. He wants government to be your nanny, looking after you when you’re sick, looking after your kids while you work, protecting you from the vagaries of the marketplace, etc. These are all things that are deeply distasteful to me, and which I believe fly in the face of economic good sense.
Kerry is also a liar, and tends to blame other people for every mistake. When he fell skiing, it was the fault of the ‘son of a bitch’ Secret Service agent who got in his way. When he was criticized for calling American Businessmen who outsource “Benedict Arnold CEOs” (i.e. traitors), [urlhttp://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn09.html]he blamed his speechwriters:
See, “That’s not what he’s saying”. It’s those damned speechwriters. He keeps telling them to take the Benedict Arnold rhetoric out, and they keep putting it back into his speeches. So of course he HAS to say it. 746 times. But if you get mad about it, just remember: it’s not his fault. He is but a helpless slave to his speechwriters.
This is a pattern for Kerry. His prevarications and denials are jaw-droppingly stupid.
I’ve known people like John Kerry. They’re the guys in the company who suck up to the brass and step on the people below them. They’re the ones that blame their subordinates for all their screwups. They have no friends that they didn’t buy. They think character can be purchased with a $150 haircut and a $1000 suit.
He would make a horrible president. He isn’t even a good Senator. He’s got a weak voting record, has introduced very few bills, and has spotty attendance.
Sam Stone said, regarding Kerry:
Excellent point, especially when you consider that the current president never takes vacation days.
Oh, wait.
Well, it was only 250. As of August 2003…
Well I for one am thankful that you aren’t an American citizen. One less misinformed vote for Bush to worry about. Please, stay in Canada, don’t move south.
Re: Kerry, you might want to take a look at Arrianna Huffington’s latest:
John Kerry and Bobby Kennedy’s Unfinished Mission
Found this on another web board: 
Wow, a Bush supporter attacking the intellectual capabilities of John Kerry. <whistles> You’d think the force of the irony alone would make one’s head explode.
But seriously, Sam Stone, why is it that you actually list events, concrete goals in your support of Bush (the war on terror, his pro-active stance on the world stage, his overall view of government) but when it comes to explaining why you don’t like Kerry, the best you can come up with is how he strikes you? Bush hasn’t said dumb stuff (repeatedly) written by his speech-writers? Bush isn’t elitist? Bush hasn’t lied?
It would be nice, I think, if there could be at least one post in this whole thread that actually answered the original question, “Why re-elect Bush?” Bush supporters, ostensibly, have the luxury of voting for someone who reflects their values and interests, and coming from the other side of the fence (hmmm…‘throw my vote away’ or vote for someone I don’t really support because they’re not as bad as Bush?) I’d like to know why.
You sure you read the right message? Because in mine I described what I didn’t like about his economics, view of government, and desire to burden everyone with more regulations. Those are issues. I then went on to explain why I didn’t like him personally. Why did you ignore the first part?
You said:
“obnoxious human being, an opportunist, a snotty elitist, and a man who is willing to twist with the prevailing winds if it will get him into power. If he can be said to beleive in anything, it’s that big government is your friend. He wants to ‘re-regulate’ business. He wants government to be your nanny, looking after you when you’re sick, looking after your kids while you work, protecting you from the vagaries of the marketplace, etc. These are all things that are deeply distasteful to me, and which I believe fly in the face of economic good sense.”
I don’t really see any specifics in there. The most specific thing you mentioned was the skiing incident, which has absolutely nothing to do with his policies.
Or was there another “first part” that I missed?
Even the Catholic church is getting into the act of dis’ing Bush, calling him and his administration a “moral failure”.
Under a variety of rosy assumptions including:
(1) that Bush doesn’t get his way and the tax cuts are allowed to sunset.
(2) that there is no reform of the alternate minimum tax (AMT) and so the number of filers impacted will rise from 3 million today to 29 million in 2010.
(3) very optimistic assumptions about spending.
[See also here for another analysis with similar conclusions.]
Furthermore, I don’t think this is the first thread in which I have pointed this out to you and yet you continue to bring it up without any caveats. It seems particularly ludicrous to bring up an assumption about the deficit under Bush that is based on something–allowing the tax cuts to sunset–that Bush has been very clear he does not want to happen, particularly given that this Republican Congress hasn’t shown a lot of balls in terms of standing up to Bush as he drives the fiscal state of this country into the ground.
Surprise! Surprise! You keep bringing this up as if it were not a forgone conclusion.
Replace the name “John Kerry” with George Bush and you have a very accurate description here. George “I can’t think of a mistake I’ve made” Bush. George “I read the report put out by the bureaucracy” Bush. George “The buck doesn’t stop anywhere close to me” Bush.
Weird thing about that is that they’re still allowing Bush supporters to take communion. That hijack probably needs a thread of its own, but as far as I’m concerned, its not worth the ensuing shitfest.
Sam, he was joking. You’re just parroting RNC talking points here; I find it hard to believe that anyone could actually hold an offhand, joking remark like that against someone.
Sam Stone would love John Kerry if he’d only stick a little “(Republican)” tag next to his name on the ballot.
Well, you got that right, anyway.
Sounds good, but you do have to consider if what he’s done promotes or impedes those goals, don’t you? Those of us who do have voting responsibility here have to consider the realities - we can’t afford to limit our consideration to the attractiveness of fantasies. We are also the ones paying for the Iraq war, paying in every way, and, quite bluntly, we don’t have to give credence to the blithe opinions of those who don’t.
(Long string of boilerplate blogger invective follows). Got any specific instances that support any of that, any at all? Oh wait, here’s the best you can do:
Dunno what the ski areas use for safety rules in Alberta, but they’re clear enough down here, and include:
A skier who violates the code and causes a collision can quite reasonably be called a “son of a bitch”, and is at risk of getting his lift pass pulled. But that is the first factual reason you can come up with for why would refuse to vote for Kerry, huh? Tell us, is your “ABK” view your conclusion or your premise?
For a dead-ender Bush supporter to say that is beyond ironic.
Look, this board isn’t entirely, or even mainly, about convincing each other or even ourselves of a position. The real effect is on those who read these threads but don’t post, because there are a lot more of them than us. What do you think the effect is on someone who is genuinely undecided, looking for the best arguments either way, comes across this post of yours, and concludes that that’s the worst anyone can say about Kerry?
As a long time member of this board who does very little posting, I would like to affirm what ElvisL1ves writes about using this board for information as well as entertainment.
A reason I may be compelled to vote for Bush is the effect his policies may have had upon the company I work for. My company produces a product that only the top 1/10th of 1% can afford to buy. If the tax cuts for the very wealthy improve the sales of this product, I have much to gain.
As much as it may benefit me personally in the short term, I feel Bush’s policies are doing long-term damage to our country. If where I live is a battleground state, I will vote for Kerry this year. If the vote looks well assured either way, I will select a third party candidate to show my support.
Here is what CBO itself has to say about its baseline projections:
As is clear from context on that page, the concept of “present laws continue without change” means that the sunsets in the tax cuts are allowed to occur because that is how the laws were written. In fact, you can see that CBO projects that if the expiring provisions of the tax cuts are extended, it will cost an additional $108 billion $17 billion in additional debt service in 2008. By 2012, those numbers balloon to $331 billion plus $57 billion.
Thank you. Unfortunately, I know quite a few Republicans who do not share your integrity. Many, when pressed beyond political/partisan rhetoric, cite this exact reason for voting Bush – a personal, short term gain. “It’s my money, I earned it, I should keep it.” And while it’s nice to hear an honest answer (once in awhile), I do wish more people had your sensibilities.
Btw, from a site linked by Drudge, Bush Asks Worried Republicans to ‘Keep the Faith’:
ElvisL1ves said:
This thread isn’t about Kerry. I added my personal dislike for the man as a partial reason why I would vote for Bush. It is not by any stretch of the imagination the worst I can say about Kerry. But really, that belongss in a thread about Kerry, right?
If you want to start one, I’ll be happy to give you the laundry list of reasons why Kerry would be a bad president. We can start with his recent plan to draw oil from the strategic petroleum reserve to artificially keep oil prices low (then he backpedaled and changed the plan to “stopping the filling of the reserve”, as if that’s substantially different). I mean, if you’re going to have a strategic oil reserve, it’s precisely because a confllict in the middle east might interrupt your supply when your military needs it. Who in their right mind would want to divert a strategic reserve to lower domestic prices at a time when the Middle East is in such disarray?