neven: DEMOCRATS!!! And Other Anti-Bush Pundits

Neven Eight (

neven) wrote,
@ 2004-01-21 18:08:00

Current mood:	tired
Current music:	"Killing Mission" - Amduscia

DEMOCRATS!!! And Other Anti-Bush Pundits!

Now's your chance to convince me.

BACKGROUND: After a long period of political agnosticism i've decided it's time to review and revise everything i once assumed i knew, including my opposition to George W. Bush's policies and admiration for some of his PR. I've been paying attention to some of the Republican versus Democrat banter and found that i tend to lean conservative but so far haven't done any considerable or diligent research into the matter. So i'm going to start with this big topic and work my way around. Before anyone harasses me about being a Canadian looking so closely at American politics, my reasoning is that, whether i like it or not, American policies influence Canadian policies and if i want a better understanding of how they work i need to pay attention to both. Besides, i do intend to live there.

PROJECT and REQUEST: I intend to research some of the main criticisms and complaints about George W. Bush and his policies for myself to see where i stand on the matter. But given that there are so many little jabs against the man here and there, and there appears to be no central theme or argument, i really don't know where to begin. My request is that every person reading this who opposes G.W. Bush and his policies please clearly and concisely state twenty (20) of their best arguments or biggest complaints, citing resources and other materials wherever necessary. Please don't give me stupid crap like "Brother of Jeb", or "He looks like a monkey", and don't just say "He's a liar"—i want proof, or at least some good evidence and a little good logic. If you've already written something like this out somewhere, please give me a link so i can go read it. You really don't have to do all twenty if you don't want. If all you have is one good, well thought out complaint, i want to read it. If you can take the time out to do this, i really appreciate it. Thanks.

(Post a new comment)

twitch211
2004-01-22 02:04 am UTC (link)

One good reason.

Despite the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" this country is supposed to guarantee everyone, Bush, "if neccessary," would pass a law banning 10% of the population from marrying the person they wish to marry. That's right. Bush said "if neccessary," he would sign the law banning same sex marriages.

What is his reason? Some loaded crap about trying to preserve the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman. Come on. First off, those individuals who are in or are planning to be in a heterosexual marriage are not suddenly going to say, "Oh, homos can marry, so I'm gonna be one now." Second, there's a 40% divorce rate in this country. Third, have you seen all of the ridiculous Bachelor and Bachelorette shows in the US, making a mockery of marriage and relationships? The sanctity of heterosexual marriage A) will not be destroyed by gay marriage or B) has already been destroyed through other means.

There is no reason why same sex marriages should not be legal, sans the religious one "because of the Bible." So wipe out the part in the Constitution about separation of Church and state, and it would be all good. But, this hasn't been wiped out, not yet anyway, and so Bush's "ban" would be going against some very fundamental freedoms that this country was founded on.

And he looks like a monkey :P*

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	apeiron_gaia 2004-01-22 05:07 pm UTC (link)
	Actually, the divorce rate is 51% (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	twitch211 2004-01-22 05:24 pm UTC (link)
	Thanks. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	xiphias 2004-01-23 09:06 pm UTC (link)
	Where do you get that from? Baptists have the highest divorce rate in the United States of any religious or ethnic group, at 34%. One important question: when you say, "divorce rate", what do you mean? I'm saying, "percentage of adults who have had at least one divorce." (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	apeiron_gaia 2004-01-23 11:44 pm UTC (link)
	According to this site, this year it is at 49%. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0200806.html Perhaps it has gone down three percent. I heard that statistic a few years ago. Sorry, I can't state my sources (though I heard it from several I remember). (Reply to this)(Parent)

	neven 2004-01-23 07:40 am UTC (link)
	Hehe. Punk. Thanks for the input. (Reply to this)(Parent)

xiphias
2004-01-22 03:46 am UTC (link)

It's basically who he works for, and what he stands for. His policies appear to be, "What's good for big corporations is good for me." There's a little Christian fundamentalism thrown in for flavor, but it's basically, "corporations good."

As such, his policies tend to be ones which allow greater freedom for corporations, and less regulation for them.

Corporations are regulated because they have "distributed costs." Regulation of corporations is largely there to make them pay for the costs that would otherwise be borne by the society as a whole. As an example, large manufacturing plants and energy producing plants tend to produce polution. This polution is a cost which the entire society bears. Regulation is a way to require the corporations to pay for this cost themselves, or, at least, to reduce the amount cost they place on the entire society.

Bush has consistently pursued policies which are "business-friendly", which means policies that allow corporations to create those sorts of costs in an unlimited manner, and pass them directly on to all of us, without penalty. Polution control is one area I can point to, but worker rights are another: he's consistently attempted to allow corporations to make whatever sorts of arrangements with their employees that they wish.

In general, this is bad for employees.

In my mind, one of the primary functions of government is to act as a conscience for entities which don't have consciences. Corporations don't have consciences, and will take whatever actions are most profitable to them, no matter what the cost to the society as a whole is.

To a certain extent, having profitable corporations IS a benefit to the society. And over-regulation can stop having positive effects, and only act to make corporations less profitable, and therefore, over-regulation can be harmful to the society as a whole. But UNDER-regulation has even more direct and dire consequences, and that's what Bush wants.

Bush does not see government as having the responsiblity to prevent corporations from acting harmfully.

That's my primary complaint with him.

My secondary complaint would be that he promotes policies which increase the power of law enforcement against ordinary citizens.

He supports policies which allow greater surveilance of citizens and residents of the United States, and which could, in some cases, erode the protections of law. He tends to prefer policies that are aimed more at "security" than "freedom," which is not a tradeoff that I, in general, am willing to make. He appears to want a stronger, more "paternalistic", if you will, government and security structure than I am comfortable with.

My tertiary problem with Bush is that his domestic policies are strongly influenced by Baptist fundamentalism, which is something that I deeply fear.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	neven 2004-01-23 07:42 am UTC (link)
	Thank you for your input. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Part One: Economic.

sophiaserpentia
2004-01-22 01:49 pm UTC (link)

1. Irresponsible fiscal policy. President Bush pushed through a massive tax cut thinking that this would force Congress to spend less. The problem is, whenever the conservatives have been challenged to find ways to cut governmental costs without cutting services, they have been unable to offer feasible alternatives. Privatizing these services or pushing them off on the states have both led to a series of debacles and embarrassments, *and* costs have gone up, too. (For an example, see what has become of Edison Schools, a company that was formed to prove that private enterprise could run education better than the public sphere.)

So, the net result has been an unprecedented spiral of borrow-and-spend policy. This is worse, IMO, than tax-and-spend, because at least when you tax and spend, you already have on hand the money you are spending. Current administration policy is like charging $1 trillion in government expenses on a big credit card that our children are going to have to pay off.

The strain is already starting to show. Earlier this week the government risked its AAA credit rating to call over $4B worth of bonds five years early.

Now, bear in mind that treasury bonds are what make deficit spending possible. If the government starts defaulting on its bonds like this, who is going to want to buy bonds?

Also, consider that some future administration will be tempted (or find it necessary) to pay off the deficit by printing more money, reducing the "absolute value" of the balance owed. You don't have to be an economic genius to know what this will cause -- inflation and higher interest rates.

2. Horrendous Labor Policy. The promised benefits of this fiscal irresponsibility have not come for the average American. There is still a net loss of 3 million jobs over the past three years. These jobs are gone and are never coming back; they have been outsourced overseas. Even white collar jobs like programming and engineering are going overseas to China and India.

One way to stem this tide is to push for international labor standards in trade agreements with other countries. But the administration is loathe to improve labor conditions *here*, much less overseas. What has resulted is a bonanza for multinational corporations -- the only people doing very well right now are CEOs and top corporate executives.

Bush's big idea for improving things for people who do have jobs: CUT the overtime pay received by 8 million workers.

(Reply to this)

Part Two: Civil Rights

sophiaserpentia
2004-01-22 02:36 pm UTC (link)

3. The USA PATRIOT Act and PATRIOT II. I know you've seen liberals demonize this, but maybe you're not sure why.

Do you recall reading about the Alien and Sedition acts in US History class? USA PATRIOT revived them, and more. It allows the FBI, and the CIA, to spy on any American without court supervision. The FBI can now enter your home without your knowing and take your stuff. They can monitor your phone and computer without a court order. It's definition of "suspected terrorist" is vague enough to include feasibly anyone. It turns librarians and booksellers into unwilling spies.

PATRIOT II authorizes the establishment of a massive DNA database. It frees law enforcement from legal liability if they damage your property. It weakens the Freedom of Information Act, which allows us to ensure that the government is working in the best interests of its people. It allows the government to treat American citizens suspected of terorrism (which is defined so loosely it could include reckless driving) to be treated as non-citizens.

4. The prosecution of Jose Padilla. Jose Padilla is an American citizen who is being denied his right to due process, plain and simple. He is not an "enemy combatant," yet he is being held by the military and has been denied his rights of habeas corpus, lawyer visitation, family visitation, has never been officially charged with a crime, and has no way of reviewing or challenging the evidence against him. The Justice Department has considered spiriting him away to Guantanamo Bay so that he will be out of the reach of US courts.

If this can happen to one US citizen, it could happen to any US citizen.

5. Treatment of Prisoners by Coalition Partners. The US has deliberately turned a blind eye to the use of torture by Coalition partners such as Uzbekistan, which has one of the worst civil rights records in the world. The world's remaining superpower should be leading the world in the improvement of civil rights worldwide, not looking away with a knowing wink when civil rights erode around the world. Dozens of countries have used the "war on terror" as an excuse to crack down on political dissidents in the harshest way, with the Bush Administration's blessing.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: Part Two: Civil Rights sophiaserpentia 2004-01-22 03:48 pm UTC (link)
	Sorry, neven, I wasn't aware you were Canadian. In case you don't know, the Alien and Sedition Acts are considered a blot on US civil rights history. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Part Two: Civil Rights neven 2004-01-24 07:38 am UTC (link)
	Thank you very much for taking the time to write all this out. I do appreciate it. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Part Three: Foreign and Military Policy.

sophiaserpentia
2004-01-22 03:31 pm UTC (link)

6. An Illegal War. So, the Iraqis are probably better off without Saddam Hussein. I won't argue that. It is unclear whether or not he will be replaced with someone better; Iraqis are not convinced that the Coalition Provisional Authority has granted them a better life than they had before.

But the public reasoning given for the war was a sham from the very start, and the Bush Administration is not even pretending any more that they were telling the truth. Teams searching for the much-vaunted "weapons of mass destruction" are being withdrawn from Iraq empty-handed. This after Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld told the world before the attack that we knew where these WMD were.

Evidence has come forward showing that Saddam Hussein puffed up his claims about WMD as a show of force against Israel or Iran. Iraqi scientists have confirmed that Saddam was bluffing, and it appears more likely that Saddam actually complied with the agreement made in 1991 to destroy these WMD.

7. Empire-Builders in the Pentagon. The Bush war policy is driven by a group of people who have been planning the invasion of Iraq since 1991. Their manifesto, "Rebuilding America's Defenses", published in 2000, listed three target nations: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. This is the "Axis of Evil" mentioned by Bush after Sept. 11 in 2002. The group was waiting for some "catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" (p. 51) and new reports show that on Sept. 11, 2001, they swooped on President Bush to ensure that the decision to invade Iraq had been made within hours of the terrorist attacks (as reported by CBS Evening News corresponded David Martin on Sept. 4, 2002).

8. Blatant War Profiteering. Why would anyone want to build an empire? Sheer profit. Bush Administration allies like Halliburton, Kostmeyer Brown and Root, and MCI WorldCom have profitted BIG on the war in Iraq. The Coalition Provisional Authority has restricted reconstruction to American companies, and many big contracts were given without bids. Bids on certain areas of reconstruction were solicited even before the war started.

As it turns out, many of the neoconservative hawks in PNAC such as Dick Cheney and Douglas Feith were financially connected to companies that have done well off the war. Bush Administration friend Joe Allbaugh founded a "consulting firm" called New Bridge Strategies to give would-be war profiteers a way to essentially bribe their way into reconstruction contracts.

(Reply to this)

Part Four: Social Policy.

sophiaserpentia
2004-01-22 03:40 pm UTC (link)

I really have to commend President Bush for one thing: his *domestic* handling of relations with Muslims. He is the first president to host a feast for 'Id al-Fitr, the feast that marks the end of Ramadan. One year after Sept. 11, 2001, most Americans had a *better* opinion of Islam than they did before the attack.

However:

9. The Faith-Based Initiative. In principle this is not necessarily a bad idea. However, in practice it has left many people disenfranchised. For example, faith-based organizations are often exempt from hiring discrimination policy -- which makes the government a supporter of discriminatory hiring policy. Faith-based organizations are often selective about who will receive their services as well -- which could leave many needy non-Christians literally out in the cold. (This is theoretically illegal, but I know of know provision for enforcing this.)

Another issue which came up when this idea was promoted in Texas is the fact that faith-based groups are often exempt from certification requirements that ensure the effectiveness of their programs. For example, some faith-based drug addiction programs are far less effective than some of their secular counterparts.

Jim Towey, the Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, has made it clear that he is strongly biased in favor of distributing money and assistance to Christian groups.

It amounts to government endorsement of the Christian religion and its biases, which is arguably against the spirit of the Constitution's First Amendment.

10. A Constitutional amendment to define marriage as "one man and one woman." Even if you agree that this is what marriage means, amending the constitution would be an extremely heavy-handed way of discriminating against a group of people whom even the Supreme Court (bastion of liberalism that it is, heh) agrees has the right to equal pursuit of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

The only rationale for this is religious -- so again this amounts to an endorsement of religious belief under the auspices of government.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

Re: Part Four: Social Policy.

yahvah
2004-01-22 08:56 pm UTC (link)

If this group of people succeed in making America the leader of the One World government many Christians say is prophecied by Revelation, that would be rather amusing if Christianity turned out to be the mystery religion of Babylon. It would sort of go in line with what I've been saying. That would be pretty messed up, I think.

I mean, come on, that site says, "that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."

And you've just showed that Christianity seems to be the dominant religion of this nation. Something I would not deny.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Part Four: Social Policy. sophiaserpentia 2004-01-25 04:08 pm UTC (link)
	Interesting thought. The global hegemony of PNAC is not aimed so much at direct imperial rule of the world, but of demonstrating to the world that the US is capable of attacking anyone, anywhere, and is willing to do so to protect the interests of those who want to exploit the third world ruthlessly. (Reply to this)(Parent)

apeiron_gaia
2004-01-22 05:27 pm UTC (link)

With the patriot act and anti-gay marriage law promises, he is legalizing descrimination, hate, prejudicism, racism, homophobia, etc. He is TAKING AWAY OUR RIGHTS.

And many people, with all the fuss over Iraq, have forgotten that 9-11 was not caused by Saddam, but by the Taliban. The Taliban are still out there and Bin Laden, while seemingly rendeered impotent, is still not found.

Bush made up a story about Saddam funding and helping the Taliban, but the fact is that they were enemies and had very different agendas. Us ignorant folk didn't know this. We simply believed him. But a letter recently found written by Saddam warning his colleagues and allies to not trust the Taliban.

So, yeah, he lies for money. He wears the face of a banevolent christian who loves all, but the fact is, he is power hungry to the point that people are expendable.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	neven 2004-01-24 07:59 am UTC (link)
	Bush made up a story about Saddam funding and helping the Taliban, I don't remember this and i did pay attention for the year preceeding the invasion. Could you give me a link? So, yeah, he lies for money. Other than the suggestion that he lied about Hussein funding and helping the Taliban, could you give me some more examples? Thank you for your input. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	apeiron_gaia 2004-01-24 04:21 pm UTC (link)
	http://www.click10.com/news/2059675/detail.html http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1205-07.htm Money kickbacks from huge industries. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

neven
2004-01-24 10:55 pm UTC (link)

Thanks for these. My comments on the first link:

It must be remembered that the 9/11 attacks were not the only terrorist attacks directed against the US, nor were they the only ones masterminded by bin Laden and carried out by al-Qaeda operatives.

Why? Isn't that a given? The article doesn't explain the relevance of this point.

Pres. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was also aiding and abetting terrorists, and therefore the US was justified in extending the war on terror into a war in Iraq.

I don't recall him ever making this claim. I recall a suggestion that there may be a connection, but not an actual positive claim. That some people believed it does not necessarily mean he said it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

apeiron_gaia
2004-01-25 04:30 pm UTC (link)

I believe , while it doesn't outright state it, references it later in the article

I recall a suggestion that there may be a connection, but not an actual positive claim.

He made an almost adamant claim, a very persuasive, knowingly misleading claim. Just because he didn't say, we know for sure, just as he had said about weapons of mass destruction (he even went so far as say they knew where the wmd are), that doesn't mean he wasn't making an argument using obviously false information. He knew they weren't in link. He simply had an agenda.

My apologies for not finding a link to one referencing the information that was found about hussein. I couldn't find one with a superficial search, and I dont really feel like spending any more time doing it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	neven 2004-01-25 08:22 pm UTC (link)
	He made an almost adamant claim, a very persuasive, knowingly misleading claim. I will have to look for that. I couldn't find one with a superficial search, and I dont really feel like spending any more time doing it. shrug A superficial search is good. Thanks. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

xiphias
2004-01-27 12:59 am UTC (link)

It was a really impressive rhetorical trick. He NEVER claimed that Iraq was behind 9-11 -- but he made it SOUND like he was claiming that.

He'd, often, do things like talk about the WTC attack, and then go right into talking about Iraq in ways that made it sound like he was just continuing the same train of thought -- but when you actually looked at EXACTLY what he said, he never quite made an explicit connection.

As an example, and this ISN'T a quote; it's my reconstruction of the SORT of thing I remember him doing: "We will bring the terrorists behind the 9-11 attacks to justice. We are prepared to invade Iraq." You know, stuff like that. Those two sentences are actually unrelated, but, well. . . .

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

cheshyre
2004-01-27 08:24 pm UTC (link)

As an example of this, two comments made by Bush today:

given the events of September the 11th, we know we could not trust the good intentions of Saddam Hussein

Iraq was a dangerous place. And given the circumstances of September the 11th, given the fact that we're vulnerable to attack, this nation had to act for our security.

[Note: I'm still thinking about how to phrase my own response to the original question on this post and what to include; sorry for taking so long to get back to you.]

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	neven 2004-01-29 01:40 am UTC (link)
	Thanks. sorry for taking so long to get back to you. Not at all. Frankly, i'm surprised at the quick and detailed response i received. So take your time. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)

elusis
2004-01-28 08:33 am UTC (link)

Heartily seconding all of the problems listed above with his policies.

Also:

He postures. The debacle in which he wore a flight suit and appeared on the deck of a ship was straight out of a bad Banana Republic dictatorship. No American President has ever appeared in uniform, even those who had actively served in wars. There is ample evidence to support the assertion that Bush angled for a National Guard posting to avoid Vietnam, and then went AWOL from his last year of service, for which he was never prosecuted.

He pretends to be something he's not, and not to be something he is. This whole "good ol' Texas boy" is an act, given that he's from a very old Northeastern upper-middle-class family, attended prep school, and went to Andover (where he was a cheerleader), Yale, and Harvard. So he plays this anti-intellectual card, bragging about how he doesn't read newspapers and grinning and shucking when questions get too pointed, because it fits with his down-home image, but really he's a son of privilege and snobbery.

He can apparently be very mean. There is a widely-circulated, and as far as I know documented story about him mocking Karla Faye Tucker right before she was put to death in Texas, rolling his eyes and squeaking "oh, please don't kill me!"

He engenders ill will toward the US with his grandiose behaviors. Bill Clinton, love him or hate him, was received well whenever he traveled overseas and appeared to be genuinely interested in talking with everyday people as well as world leaders. Bush not only hides from dissenters in his own constituency, relegating them to free speech zones; he also demanded the virtual shutdown of all of central London when he went there on his state visit recently. He also evidently wanted the right for Secret Service members to shoot protestors if they deemed them a threat (and diplomatic immunity if they did so), and tried to insist on modifications to his room at Buckingham palace that would have destroyed historic architecture. He managed to interrupt the Queen's satellite TV for his entire stay and his entourage caused irreversible damage to the palace gardens. He is apparently unwelcome in a variety of countries because of his immense security demands as well as his foreign policies.

(More on free-speech zoneshere - this appears to be an editorial that was originally published in the Casper, Wyoming paper and reprinted in the Salt Lake City paper, neither city being known for its liberal slant.)

That's enough for the moment, I think.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	neven 2004-01-29 01:42 am UTC (link)
	Thanks for speaking up. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Re:

cheshyre
2004-01-29 04:27 pm UTC (link)

Bush not only hides from dissenters in his own constituency, relegating them to free speech zones; he also demanded the virtual shutdown of all of central London when he went there on his state visit recently. He also evidently wanted the right for Secret Service members to shoot protestors if they deemed them a threat (and diplomatic immunity if they did so), and tried to insist on modifications to his room at Buckingham palace that would have destroyed historic architecture. He managed to interrupt the Queen's satellite TV for his entire stay and his entourage caused irreversible damage to the palace gardens.

Ooh, I had almost blocked that embarrassing incident from my memory.

You forgot to mention bringing his own cooks to a meal hosted by the Queen of England and covering up the famous artwork with his own PR-logo-backdrops for his speech.

Just made me cringe. I would give anything for an opportunity to dine in the palace, and he's probably ruined it for all future American presidents who wish to visit in state.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Portion of my response

cheshyre
2004-01-29 03:22 pm UTC (link)

As I just blogged, economist Brad DeLong words one of my reasons much better than I:

Why do so many of us who worked so hard on economic policy for the Clinton administration, and who think of ourselves as mostly part of a sane and bipartisan center, find the Bush administration and its Republican congressional lapdogs so... disgusting, loathsome, contemptible? Why are we so bitter?

After introspection, the answer for me at least as clear. We worked very hard for years to repair the damage that Ronald Reagan and company had done to America's [fiscal policy]. We strained every nerve and muscle to find politically-possible and popularly-palatable ways to close the deficit, and put us in a position in which we can at least begin to think about the generational long-run problems of financing the retirement of the baby-boom generation and dealing with the rapidly-rising capabilities and costs of medicine. We saw a potential fiscal train wreck far off in the future, and didn't ignore it, didn't shrug our shoulders, didn't assume that it would be someone else's problem, but rolled up our sleeves and set to work.

Then the Bush people come in. And in two and a half years they trash the place. They trash the place deliberately. They trash the place casually. They trash the place gleefully. They undo our work for no reason at all--just for the hell of it.

Be sure to read the rest of his post. [Credit where it's due, I first saw it on Scott Rosenberg's blog.] I wish The Left Coaster was up right now; they recently posted a magnificent graph on how massively the federal deficit has exploded in the last three years.

For the last ten years or so, I've been worried for about what the retirement of the Baby Boomers will do to our economy. This is something we've known about for decades -- that a huge portion of the population will cease being wage earners paying taxes into the system, and retire, drawing income (Social Security and Medicare) from the system. These last several decades should've been spent building up our government savings for these expenses we all know we will incur. Instead, this administration has just broken the bank when we can least afford it. [What are we going to do? Break the promises people planned their lives around? Pull up the safety net?]

I'm not alone in these considerations. Look at this interview with Nobel Prize winning economist George Akerlof I linked to back in August:

In the long term, a deficit of this magnitude is not manageable. We are moving into the period when, beginning around 2010, baby boomers are going to be retiring. That is going to put a severe strain on services like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This is the time when we should be saving.
<snip>
I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign and economic but also in social and environmental policy.

(cont'd because it was too long)

(Reply to this)

Portion of my response

cheshyre
2004-01-29 03:22 pm UTC (link)

(cont'd from previous)

And there's strong evidence that this impending budgetary crisis was intentional. Ideologically, many in the administration want to roll back the social programs instituted by FDR and Lyndon Johnson, and if they can't convince people on the merits of the programs, they're going to just bankrupt the structure so we can no longer afford them. From my blog last June:

Meanwhile, now that they control all branches of the federal government, the Republicans are shedding their 'compassionate conservative' sheepskin and revealing themselves to be truly predatory. Influencial GOP bigwig Grover "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape" Norquist wrote a Washington Post op-ed a couple weeks back about their planned tax policy.

Another Post columnist, David Broder wrote a followup piece, summarizing Norquist's policy as "In short, the goal is a system of government wiped clean, on both the revenue and spending side, of almost a century's accumulation of social programs designed to provide a safety net beneath the private economy."

You grok that?? If not, Lambert on Atrios explains it more simply:
Student loans? "Wiped clean." Unemployment insurance? "Wiped clean"? School lunch for your kids? "Wiped clean." National parks? "Wiped clean." Your Mom's Medicare? "Wiped clean." Your Dad's Medicaid? "Wiped clean." And so on. Well, it is certainly "bold" and "audacious."

Forget the Prescription Drug farce now underway. (And why are we not talking about universal health insurance?) Since the tax cuts have gutted the ability to pay for the program long term, it's just a cynical ploy for 2004. It too will be "wiped clean" when the time comes

Skeptical Notion followed up:

This better be a rallying cry. They just flat out admitted that their goal is to rid the US of Social Security, of Medicare, of Medicaid, of unemployment insurance, of school lunches, of federal education money, of college loans....of everything that isn't the military or subsidies for businesses.

Going back to the Post article, when Broder asked if such candor was prudent, Norquist replied,

he saw it as an opportunity to show his fellow conservatives that "we don't have to try to operate under the radar screen. We can be very open about our agenda."

and
"I think the smart guys on the left have known for a long time they are in trouble -- and that we are going to dig out their whole structure of programs and power."

And that's just one of the reasons why I so vehemently oppose Bush and his administration. But, since the quote just showed up in my web wanderings, I figured I should share it now, while it's fresh.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: Portion of my response neven 2004-01-30 07:20 am UTC (link)
	Thank you very much. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Are you still looking for reasons?

cheshyre
2004-02-10 09:28 pm UTC (link)

because I still haven't posted my lengthy litanies (partly because evidence-gathering is long, and new information keeps coming up, making it difficult to keep my arguments narrow and focused)

At any rate, the fact that the DoJ is subpoenaing medical records of women who had abortions (article and ruling is surely another reason to wish this administration out of office ASAP.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	Re: Are you still looking for reasons? neven 2004-02-11 08:09 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, that's just absurd. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs