Bush is a gifted politician

[WMS]

[snip - it's already too f-in long]

That 10% is very similar to Kerry. Remember he voted FOR the war? Some combination of them being stupid, them believing the right-wing media, and anti-Kerry attacks happened. Bush's negative campaign worked.

If you look at the polls, Kerry actually won both moderates and new voters by good margins.

Hey ferny, you're back! Pity I have to leave soon.

In one of my replies to Lewis, somewhere in this thread, I mentioned that Kerry was a secret FP centrist. But he was forced to adopt a more radical position to win the nomination, and that hurt him. Hell, Stratfor talked a fair amount about this, actually...

Those things showing him the most liberal Senator were based upon flawed methodolgy. When Kerry was running for President, he'd only show up to the really important Senate votes, where his vote might actually count. So, of course every vote he showed up to was a partisan vote, with him voting on the Democratic side. He didn't bother showing up to the dime a dozen 100-0 votes. So with the right crappy methodology, you could decide he was the most liberal.

Well, I never bought 'most liberal'. Definitely a liberal, no doubt about it, but not the most extreme.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In general. It tends to be the more socially liberal Democrats who are less spineless, but that doesn't stop Senators like Feinstein from being spineless.[/quote]

Depends on the issues, hoss.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[snip - it's already too f-in long]

That 10% is very similar to Kerry. Remember he voted FOR the war? Some combination of them being stupid, them believing the right-wing media, and anti-Kerry attacks happened. Bush's negative campaign worked.

If you look at the polls, Kerry actually won both moderates and new voters by good margins.

Hey ferny, you're back! Pity I have to leave soon.

In one of my replies to Lewis, somewhere in this thread, I mentioned that Kerry was a secret FP centrist. But he was forced to adopt a more radical position to win the nomination, and that hurt him. Hell, Stratfor talked a fair amount about this, actually...

Those things showing him the most liberal Senator were based upon flawed methodolgy. When Kerry was running for President, he'd only show up to the really important Senate votes, where his vote might actually count. So, of course every vote he showed up to was a partisan vote, with him voting on the Democratic side. He didn't bother showing up to the dime a dozen 100-0 votes. So with the right crappy methodology, you could decide he was the most liberal.

Well, I never bought 'most liberal'. Definitely a liberal, no doubt about it, but not the most extreme.

Rankings with a better methodology had him around 22nd, and Edwards around 27th, right near the center of Democratic Senators. They both voted for the war, which had 23 no votes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In general. It tends to be the more socially liberal Democrats who are less spineless, but that doesn't stop Senators like Feinstein from being spineless.[/quote]

Depends on the issues, hoss.
[/quote]

Feinstein is really bad at communicating. She's been very bad on the Iraq war issue. And other things she's bad at, she voted for one of the Bush tax cuts, she introduced and voted for Condi Rice (it would have been useful to have both home state Senators opposed).  When there's something lame like a flag burning amendment or the Patriot Act, she's all for it.

[WMS]

[snip - it's already too f-in long]

That 10% is very similar to Kerry. Remember he voted FOR the war? Some combination of them being stupid, them believing the right-wing media, and anti-Kerry attacks happened. Bush's negative campaign worked.

If you look at the polls, Kerry actually won both moderates and new voters by good margins.

Hey ferny, you're back! Pity I have to leave soon.

In one of my replies to Lewis, somewhere in this thread, I mentioned that Kerry was a secret FP centrist. But he was forced to adopt a more radical position to win the nomination, and that hurt him. Hell, Stratfor talked a fair amount about this, actually...

Those things showing him the most liberal Senator were based upon flawed methodolgy. When Kerry was running for President, he'd only show up to the really important Senate votes, where his vote might actually count. So, of course every vote he showed up to was a partisan vote, with him voting on the Democratic side. He didn't bother showing up to the dime a dozen 100-0 votes. So with the right crappy methodology, you could decide he was the most liberal.

Well, I never bought 'most liberal'. Definitely a liberal, no doubt about it, but not the most extreme.

Rankings with a better methodology had him around 22nd, and Edwards around 27th, right near the center of Democratic Senators. They both voted for the war, which had 23 no votes.

Interesting, although I don't know if I'd put someone who voted against the partial-birth abortion ban as 'moderate'. (yes, I've heard the Dem reasoning on that, I just disagree with it) If nothing else, being from the same state as Kennedy makes him look more centrist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In general. It tends to be the more socially liberal Democrats who are less spineless, but that doesn't stop Senators like Feinstein from being spineless.[/quote]

Depends on the issues, hoss.
[/quote]

Feinstein is really bad at communicating. She's been very bad on the Iraq war issue. And other things she's bad at, she voted for one of the Bush tax cuts, she introduced and voted for Condi Rice (it would have been useful to have both home state Senators opposed).  When there's something lame like a flag burning amendment or the Patriot Act, she's all for it.[/quote]

'Bad' is in the eye of the beholder. I would've voted for the Iraq war, for the 2001 (but not 2003 onward) tax cuts, for Condi Rice, and I'm uncertain about the flag burning amendment. The Patriot Act was voted for by almost everyone initially, so you'll have to look at more recent votes about it for a more accurate picture of support and opposition (since I brought it up - Yes to the initial bill, and undecided on later votes about it).

[minionofmidas]

not because they are suicidal, but because they understand that on election day, the Iraq war will be a side issue and the power of the Franco-German bloc will be a central issue.

This misconception has proved suicidal to a number of European governments.
The reason I keep trying to vote off Jan Peter "Harry Potter" Balkenende in World Leaders Survivor is his conduct during the election campaign at the height of the crisis btw. At first he was cautiously in favor of whatever the US might propose - that is the default position for any minor US ally after all, ie the position you take before you stop to think.
Then, the crisis came to a head and Balkenende's election campaign heated up too. The fringey socialists started rising in the polls purely on the strength of their anti-war rhetoric - it was the only issue in their election campaign really. Then the Labour Party (the major left-of-centre party) stole their thunder and the Socialists tumbled back while Labour pulled in neck-and-neck with the Christian Democrats after lagging far behind for years. Balkenende started to talk modest opposition to the war, while his foreign minister, who'd stuck his head much further out of the window before, stuck with the pro-war camp. On election day, the CDA had conserved first place and an overall right-of-centre majority in the Tweede Kamer, and Balkenende was by Bush's side before you could say "war".

Other than Spain (where the whole ETA thing had an impact) what other governments fell because of it? Heck, which ones have even had elections where it was an issue? Information is a tad sparse over here.

And I find the Balkenende story very funny.

Portugal...although of course it wasn't the main issue so that's  unfair... it contributed though... and Finland - where the issue was not support of the US, but insufficiently vocal opposition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely true. It had nothing to do with agreeing with the US on the issue of war in Iraq. It had everything to do with not wanting to antagonize the US, who might be needed as a strategic partner yet. After all, when these guys decided to try and join NATO and the EU, they did count on the US and Europe to be allies. They had no intention of taking sides in any sort of rivalry. Some actually tried their best to heal the rift.
Which probably goes a far way to debunk this next one... no matter who counted (it does look suspicious, not to mention reminds me of Bush's wacky coalition of the willing list)[/quote]

Other than the last sentence - which I get to below anyway - we seem to be in agreement about this part. I'd say that as the Russian bear growls and the Germans go along with that - look at German investment in Russia - this tendency will increase.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, here it is. [/quote]

Yeah, broad but lukewarm was pretty accurate. I'm going off of Stratfor, so let's see...

From the same article BTW...
This coalition [WMS edit: against the U.S.] is led by a major European power, France, working in concert with another major power, Germany. They have been joined by Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden and Greece. Russia, more an outsider to the European dynamic, also is aligned with them.

On the other hand, it is not always clearly understood that a large number of European nations have aligned themselves with the United States. Explicitly committed to the U.S. position are the United Kingdom, Spain, Denmark, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Croatia, Portugal, Bosnia and Montenegro, whose foreign policy is independent of Serbia's. Many of these countries have provided at least token material support or are allowing the United States to use military facilities in their countries. This ranges from training Iraqi exiles in Hungary to the use of airfields in Bulgaria to the deployment of chemical defense units from Poland. They are not major contributions, but certainly not opposition.

A second group of European countries support Washington's position, but are somewhat more assertive about wanting a second U.N. resolution before an attack on Iraq occurs. This group includes The Netherlands, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia -- a bloc of five. But of these, The Netherlands sent Patriot missiles to Turkey before NATO approved the shipment, while the Czechs and Slovaks have sent chemical detection teams to Kuwait.

A third group of countries remains rigorously neutral: Ireland, Austria, Finland, Serbia, Switzerland and Norway. Some, like Finland, tilt against the war, but have not aligned themselves officially against the United States.

France's position has the support of only five countries in Europe -- six, counting Russia -- although where the final count will wind up is unclear.
------------------------------------------
And the next sentence was the one about 16 countries in support. So that's where that came from.[/quote]Norway voted against the US resolution. Counting Montenegro and a NATO colony like Macedonia as countries is a bit misleading. Otherwise, not much to report.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In what sense?

[/quote]

Ask them.

Seriously, the next sentence onward:
When pressed to the wall by the French and Germans, most chose to side with the United States. This was not because they cared about the war resolution, but because they were more concerned about Franco-German power than about the possibility of a U.S. invasion of Iraq.

The reasoning was, of course, diverse, but there was a common, geopolitical theme -- concern about being part of a Europe dominated by France and Germany. The Iraq issue was submerged in a much broader, geopolitical question. For each country, the question was: Is it preferable to have a close, subordinate relationship with a Franco-German bloc or to avoid that by aligning with the United States? Except for Greece, Belgium and Luxembourg -- Russia is playing a much broader and even more complex game -- Europe almost universally sided with the United States. The question posed to them was Iraq; the question that concerned them was the future of Europe and their place in it.

Understanding this, we can begin to understand the following paradox. Public opinion polls in Europe overwhelmingly show broad opposition to Washington's policy in Iraq, yet most European leaders support the United States in spite of the polls. This leads to one of two conclusions: Either European politicians are incompetent and all will fall shortly, or they understand something about their constituents that outsiders might not easily grasp. We think the second is the case.

European leaders understand this: If a European is asked whether he opposes or supports the United States over Iraq, the majority will say they are opposed. But assume that a different question was put to them: Do you prefer to live in an integrated Europe dominated by France and Germany, or would you prefer to maintain a degree of independence by aligning with the United States on security issues? There the answer would, in the majority of cases, be for limiting European integration and relying on the United States for security.[/quote]This might be going too far a bit. It would be quite enough to phrase the question like this: "Would you be more willing to risk a breach with the US or with some of your fellow Europeans over this issue?" For whatever reasons, which might still include those.
But you didn't answer my question, really, or maybe got it wrong. In which way is it justified that France (and not the US, or "the US, the UK, and Spain", or - more farfetched - Germany, or "the US and Germany", or all of the above) "pushed them to the wall". That statement is highly hypocritical.

[MODU]

May I make a simple suggestion?  We are all fairly capable of scrolling up in the forum history to read the prior posts, so can we cut down the amount of quoting to the prior post in which you are responding to and moving the rest of the historical quotes?  Makes it a bit easier to follow along with the conversation (and saves time trying to scroll up and down to find the next response).  Thanks.  

[minionofmidas]

May I make a simple suggestion?

Yes, you may. Permission granted, so to speak.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand your concern, but I just love inserting my commentary right at the most appropriate point so much. I first discovered that when we were discussing the Progressives' draft for an Atlas Fantasy Constitution. Those were the days...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You would be welcome, if your request could be granted.

[WMS]

Motherf'in computer crashed on me...

Ha ha! I'm going to cut down on the quoted material anyway, Lewis!

Portugal...although of course it wasn't the main issue so that's  unfair... it contributed though... and Finland - where the issue was not support of the US, but insufficiently vocal opposition.

Why would it be an issue in Portugal? They didn't send any troops IIRC - maybe Bono knows? Unless this was another outbreak of 'how could you support in any way those warmongering filthy Americans!!!!1!!1!!one!!1!' As for Finland, they already opposed the war. What did the opposition want the government to do, attack U.S. forces? Mind you, I wouldn't put that past the extreme left... Maybe Huck Finn knows this one?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where? The UNSC? In NATO? Or was it a meaningless 'expression of the feeling of the Parliament' or something like that? Norway was never counted as an ally anyway, only as staunchly neutral, so the difference between that and lukewarm opposition to the U.S. isn't very far. Montenegro is de facto independent from Serbia - splitting Serbia and Montenegro has been U.S. policy since the days of Bill Clinton, and has pretty much worked. Macedonia could've gone for neutrality - NATO colony is overstating things - but I will grant that the presence of 'sovereignity-protecting' NATO forces might have influenced their decision.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is Stratfor's stuff, so it's hard for me to argue their case when I don't know all the background behind it. I'll give it a shot anyway.

France gets the credit for pushing the rest of Eurpoe to the wall because France claimed to speak for all of Europe on this issue. This is in accord with longstanding French policy of using the EU to amplify French power, and France has persistently viewed French policies as being the proper policies for all of Europe. And given that French policy was definitely 'oppose the U.S. at all costs over Iraq', their attempt to make Europe follow their lead forced the rest of Europe into choosing some position, whether opposition, support, or neutrality.

Have we forgotten this:
The European Question
March 05, 2003 23 06  GMT
The emblematic moment came recently in NATO, when France, Germany and Belgium stood alone and isolated in opposing planning for Turkey's defense in the event of an Iraq war. In a broader political sense, the Franco-German entente did not reduce nationalist feelings; it exacerbated them. The Spaniards, Italians, Dutch and the rest saw exactly what the French and Germans saw -- which was that Europe could become the expression of this Franco-German understanding. They understood and were repelled because in the broadest sense -- political and military -- they did not trust the French or Germans sufficiently to want to live in a Europe organized by Paris and Berlin.

Or:
Pro-U.S. Candidates Excluded From EU Meeting
February 14, 2003 17 05  GMT
French and German diplomatic efforts have succeeded in excluding 13 EU candidate states from an emergency summit on the Iraq situation, to be held in Brussels on Feb. 17. Belgium, France, Germany and Greece are the only four EU states with staunch anti-war stances, while all 13 of the candidate states have publicly backed U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf.

^^^Referring to this below:
More European Support Will Ease Market Fears Over Iraq
February 06, 2003 16 33  GMT

Foreign ministers from 10 former communist countries issued a joint statement Feb. 5 pledging their support to U.S. initiatives to disarm Iraq. The states -- Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Albania and Macedonia -- are often referred to as the Vilnius-10, due to their combined efforts to join NATO, and in many cases harmonize their stances on security policy.

And speaking of that earlier letter:
Europe: Splintering on Iraq War Shatters Common Policy
January 30, 2003 19 02  GMT
Europe has splintered significantly and publicly over Iraq, with a group of eight nations climbing aboard the U.S. train of military action. In a joint letter published Jan. 30 in the Wall Street Journal, the leaders of eight European states -- Spain, Portugal, Italy, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic -- declared their support for the U.S. position on Iraq and called for global unity on that issue. [lots more o/c]

Later in the same article:
The Jan. 30 letter also has implications far beyond Iraq. As Washington's bellicose rhetoric grows louder, Germany and especially France have seized on an opportunity to forge a common European position and demonstrate, first, that Europe speaks with a common voice on foreign policy, and second, that this voice is not afraid to speak out against the United States -- and in fact can be used to alter U.S. policy.
Iraq has become a litmus test for Europe's ability to challenge U.S. global ambitions. European states already were struggling to come up with a substantive common position in opposition to Washington, however. French and Greek efforts have faltered, and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi on Jan. 27 called Paris' move for a unified statement "perfectly useless." With the joint letter from foreign ministers, Europe has failed the unity test.

So, going back some more:
War in Iraq: What's at Stake for Europe?
December 04, 2002 17 23  GMT
European leaders have ruled out the option of siding completely with Washington on the issue of Iraq; their mission is to prevent a war, but they are not prepared to deploy all means possible to do so. Therefore, any military aid to Iraq is out of the question, but diplomatic weapons will be employed heavily -- including an anti-war PR campaign and government propaganda.
Europe has adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, it seeks to forestall any chance that the United States will obtain international or U.N. backing for military action, thus making the decision to go to war as difficult as possible for Washington. Second, the governments seek to deprive the United States of allies in the region surrounding Iraq, making military operations as painful as possible, and with uncertain consequences.
European powers are working quietly to undermine Iraqi opposition groups that they view as puppets of Washington in order to deprive the United States of auxiliary or replacement ground forces in Iraq.
European states also are working with Russia and China to maintain an anti-war majority within the U.N. Security Council.
At the same time, Europe is assuring Arab states that it will not relent in efforts to seek a political solution for Iraq.
In addition, Europe is coordinating its own opposition efforts with those of the developing world, where most nations oppose a U.S. attack on Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's what I could dig up. I might have missed something. I had more, but I ran into the maximum length restriction.

Enjoy, Lewis!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

[snip - it's already too f-in long]

That 10% is very similar to Kerry. Remember he voted FOR the war? Some combination of them being stupid, them believing the right-wing media, and anti-Kerry attacks happened. Bush's negative campaign worked.

If you look at the polls, Kerry actually won both moderates and new voters by good margins.

Hey ferny, you're back! Pity I have to leave soon.

In one of my replies to Lewis, somewhere in this thread, I mentioned that Kerry was a secret FP centrist. But he was forced to adopt a more radical position to win the nomination, and that hurt him. Hell, Stratfor talked a fair amount about this, actually...

Those things showing him the most liberal Senator were based upon flawed methodolgy. When Kerry was running for President, he'd only show up to the really important Senate votes, where his vote might actually count. So, of course every vote he showed up to was a partisan vote, with him voting on the Democratic side. He didn't bother showing up to the dime a dozen 100-0 votes. So with the right crappy methodology, you could decide he was the most liberal.

Well, I never bought 'most liberal'. Definitely a liberal, no doubt about it, but not the most extreme.

Rankings with a better methodology had him around 22nd, and Edwards around 27th, right near the center of Democratic Senators. They both voted for the war, which had 23 no votes.

Interesting, although I don't know if I'd put someone who voted against the partial-birth abortion ban as 'moderate'. (yes, I've heard the Dem reasoning on that, I just disagree with it) If nothing else, being from the same state as Kennedy makes him look more centrist.

The partial-birth abortion ban made no exceptions for the woman's health, and partial-birth abortion is not a medical term, and it can include some 2nd trimester abortions. Wanting to allow 2nd trimester abortions to save the mother's life is not an extremist position.

Kennedy is obviously far more liberal, but remember he's not the most liberal Senator, either. Boxer for one is more liberal. Durbin and Feingold might also beat Kennedy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In general. It tends to be the more socially liberal Democrats who are less spineless, but that doesn't stop Senators like Feinstein from being spineless.[/quote]

Depends on the issues, hoss.
[/quote]

Feinstein is really bad at communicating. She's been very bad on the Iraq war issue. And other things she's bad at, she voted for one of the Bush tax cuts, she introduced and voted for Condi Rice (it would have been useful to have both home state Senators opposed).  When there's something lame like a flag burning amendment or the Patriot Act, she's all for it.[/quote]

'Bad' is in the eye of the beholder. I would've voted for the Iraq war, for the 2001 (but not 2003 onward) tax cuts, for Condi Rice, and I'm uncertain about the flag burning amendment. The Patriot Act was voted for by almost everyone initially, so you'll have to look at more recent votes about it for a more accurate picture of support and opposition (since I brought it up - Yes to the initial bill, and undecided on later votes about it).
[/quote]

The Iraq war was a giant mistake. Surely you oppose it, at least with hindsight? The tax cuts have added greatly to the debt, and while the 2001 tax cuts, unlike the later ones, did help out the poor some, it was still mainly for the rich. True, everyone but Feingold failed to vote against the Patriot Act.

[WMS]

The partial-birth abortion ban made no exceptions for the woman's health, and partial-birth abortion is not a medical term, and it can include some 2nd trimester abortions. Wanting to allow 2nd trimester abortions to save the mother's life is not an extremist position.

Kennedy is obviously far more liberal, but remember he's not the most liberal Senator, either. Boxer for one is more liberal. Durbin and Feingold might also beat Kennedy.

Except that wasn't really the issue there - blind obesience to NARAL was. You could've improved the bill and I'm certain most of those Senators would've voted against it anyway. And the second the Democrats really back only allowing 2nd trimester abortions to save the mother's life (ya, and the usual rape/incest exception) and not for any reason whatsoever will be when hell freezes over.

I'll just shudder in horror at your invoking of those Senators' names...*does so*

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm still glad we went in - ask a Kurd about that. With hindsight I would've handled the postwar planning a LOT better and things wouldn't be so bad. And I'm determined to see this through, no matter how badly Rumsfeld F'd this up, because retreat and chaos is an even worse option. Also, the better the outcome for us, the worse it is for Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt, since the idea of an Arab democracy frightens the hell out of them. The 2001 Tax cuts aren't the big problem - there really was a surplus then, and I actually benefited a little bit (even at $15,000 a year income). The 2003 cuts, on the other hand... Much of the Patriot Act was needed to deal with hideous inefficiencies in domestic intelligence. Some parts were not so good, but that's why you have bipartisan groups working on that.

I've said all this before somewhere, I'm sure...

[minionofmidas]

This is all perfectly useless, to quote Silvio Berlusconi.
(Oh btw - Finland is counted as neutral though leaning no in that stratfor report. Need I say more?)

All this "this is a joint European position" stuff is largely due to people trying to defend themselves from the accusation of a) anti-americanism b) isolated action.

I can remember pretty well that at the time of the German election campaign a small but pretty vocal (and pretty well printed) minority was going on about "Germany and Syria are the only countries on the Security Council to oppose this war". Frigging ridiculous, but the idea that Europe might be talking with one voice on this was also pretty ridiculous with Blair already deeply involved in this war, not to mention Berlusconi in office, no matter what the Eastern Europeans might have done.
To get to the heart of the matter and understand all the brouhaha we'd probably have to tear through the whole thing chronologically, and frankly I don't really feel like it right now.

[Defarge]

The art of war is more about exploiting your opponent's mistakes, and the Democrats simply aren't doing that.

We need our own Contract with America, right now.  If we do, we could pick up a dozen seats in the House easy.

[A18]

Note to A18, Kerry's approval rating is low only because some people disapprove of him for losing to the worst President ever.

He didn't lose to FDR, and even if he had, that would still be a delusional statement.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The partial-birth abortion ban made no exceptions for the woman's health, and partial-birth abortion is not a medical term, and it can include some 2nd trimester abortions. Wanting to allow 2nd trimester abortions to save the mother's life is not an extremist position.

Kennedy is obviously far more liberal, but remember he's not the most liberal Senator, either. Boxer for one is more liberal. Durbin and Feingold might also beat Kennedy.

Except that wasn't really the issue there - blind obesience to NARAL was. You could've improved the bill and I'm certain most of those Senators would've voted against it anyway. And the second the Democrats really back only allowing 2nd trimester abortions to save the mother's life (ya, and the usual rape/incest exception) and not for any reason whatsoever will be when hell freezes over.

I'll just shudder in horror at your invoking of those Senators' names...*does so*

Sounds like a lot of hypotheticals. Listen, not wanting to sentence a woman in her 2nd trimester who has a problem with her preganancy to death is not an extreme position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm still glad we went in - ask a Kurd about that. With hindsight I would've handled the postwar planning a LOT better and things wouldn't be so bad. And I'm determined to see this through, no matter how badly Rumsfeld F'd this up, because retreat and chaos is an even worse option. Also, the better the outcome for us, the worse it is for Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt, since the idea of an Arab democracy frightens the hell out of them. The 2001 Tax cuts aren't the big problem - there really was a surplus then, and I actually benefited a little bit (even at $15,000 a year income). The 2003 cuts, on the other hand... Much of the Patriot Act was needed to deal with hideous inefficiencies in domestic intelligence. Some parts were not so good, but that's why you have bipartisan groups working on that.

I've said all this before somewhere, I'm sure...
[/quote]

I'm in the 54% that say that the war was a mistake, you are in the 44% that say that it wasn't a mistake, although you might also be in the 61% that disapprove of Bush's handling of the war.

[A18]

The 2001 and 2003 cuts were both great. Of course, the 2003 cuts were much better for the economy.

[WMS]

This is all perfectly useless, to quote Silvio Berlusconi.
(Oh btw - Finland is counted as neutral though leaning no in that stratfor report. Need I say more?)

All this "this is a joint European position" stuff is largely due to people trying to defend themselves from the accusation of a) anti-americanism b) isolated action.

I can remember pretty well that at the time of the German election campaign a small but pretty vocal (and pretty well printed) minority was going on about "Germany and Syria are the only countries on the Security Council to oppose this war". Frigging ridiculous, but the idea that Europe might be talking with one voice on this was also pretty ridiculous with Blair already deeply involved in this war, not to mention Berlusconi in office, no matter what the Eastern Europeans might have done.
To get to the heart of the matter and understand all the brouhaha we'd probably have to tear through the whole thing chronologically, and frankly I don't really feel like it right now.

I didn't mean to ignore this, I just ran out of time...

We can agree that there is not and likely never will be a 'joint European position' on foreign policy, correct?

And chronologically this easily goes back well into 2002...

[WMS]

Except that wasn't really the issue there - blind obesience to NARAL was. You could've improved the bill and I'm certain most of those Senators would've voted against it anyway. And the second the Democrats really back only allowing 2nd trimester abortions to save the mother's life (ya, and the usual rape/incest exception) and not for any reason whatsoever will be when hell freezes over.

I'll just shudder in horror at your invoking of those Senators' names...*does so*

Sounds like a lot of hypotheticals. Listen, not wanting to sentence a woman in her 2nd trimester who has a problem with her preganancy to death is not an extreme position.

If it was really such a moderate position, why did so many moderates vote for the bill? There's something deeper that was going on here...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm in the 54% that say that the war was a mistake, you are in the 44% that say that it wasn't a mistake, although you might also be in the 61% that disapprove of Bush's handling of the war.
[/quote]

You are correct about my positions on both counts, both 44% and 61%.

The 2001 and 2003 cuts were both great. Of course, the 2003 cuts were much better for the economy.

Says the person with an econ score of 9+.

The 2003 cuts blew up a hole in tax revenues at a time when spending also went through the roof. This was not the time for them. Also, they were geared too much to the upper levels - I was under $20,000 both times I was affected by the tax cuts, and while I benefited from the 2001 cuts I got nothing from the 2003 cuts. I'd say my experience matches that of the 'lower middle class'/'working class'. Why didn't the 2003 cuts cut rates at the bottom end of the scale (like, say, that horrific jump from 15% to 25%?) if they were really supposed to help everyone out?

[A18]

The top tax rate is currently 37.9% as opposed to 42.9% under Clinton. Both rates are far too high, and need to come down more.

Whether you benefited from the 2003 cuts is meaningless. Tax reduction does not have to take place only at the lowest income levels.

A one point drop in tax revenues, correctly measured as a share of GDP, does not amount to blowing a hole in tax revenues. These deficits don't even substantially impact the national debt divided by the economy.

They were supposed to encourage economic growth.

[WMS]

The top tax rate is currently 37.9% as opposed to 42.9% under Clinton. Both rates are far too high, and need to come down more.

Whether you benefited from the 2003 cuts is meaningless. Tax reduction does not have to take place only at the lowest income levels.

A one point drop in tax revenues, correctly measured as a share of GDP, does not amount to blowing a hole in tax revenues. These deficits don't even substantially impact the national debt divided by the economy.

They were supposed to encourage economic growth.

First jfern, now Philip. I must be secretly masochistic.

Those rates aren't too bad, although I support lowering everyone's taxes when fiscally possible.

You missed my point - I was using my experience as an example of what the tax cuts looked like from this angle. And my argument wasn't that tax reduction should only take place at the lowest income levels, but that the 2003 tax cuts did nothing for those at the lowest income levels, unlike the far superior 2001 cuts - which also did the highly positive act of redefining the ranges of the tax brackets so that less of your income gets taxed, period - i.e., it 'pushed up' the qualifying levels such as making your first $15,000 exempt from taxation instead of your first $10,000, having the first tax bracket cover incomes up to $30,000 instead of $25,000, etc. - and everybody benefits from such tax reform since everybody's first $15,000 is exempt and everybody's income is taxed at a lower rate until $30,000 and so on and so forth.

And I feel that fiscal sanity is preferable to fiscal lunacy as displayed in the levels of deficit and debt...

[A18]

A 43% rate is not bad? We need to get back to rates of 15% and 28%, and cap the Medicare tax again.

So it's okay to pass one bill that cuts tax rates on both lower income levels and upper income levels, but it's not okay to pass two separate bills, one for the lower and one for the upper, even if the final result is the exact same, and you couldn't have gotten the former passed if it included the upper income cuts. Got it.

The national debt as a share of gross domestic product is lower than that of France and Germany, despite the fact that the latter are less warlike than these United States. The deficit is about 4%.

[WMS]

A 43% rate is not bad? We need to get back to rates of 15% and 28%, and cap the Medicare tax again.

So it's okay to pass one bill that cuts tax rates on both lower income levels and upper income levels, but it's not okay to pass two separate bills, one for the lower and one for the upper, even if the final result is the exact same, and you couldn't have gotten the former passed if it included the upper income cuts. Got it.

The national debt as a share of gross domestic product is lower than that of France and Germany, despite the fact that the latter are less warlike than these United States. The deficit is about 4%.

Well, compared with the 90%+ rates of yore...

And, seriously, why are you economic conservatives so insistent that Social Security taxes remain capped and that Medicare taxes be capped? Those taxes seriously hurt the working poor and working class (once again, I remember how much I swore every time I saw how much money was taken out) - and ALL of their income is taxed by Social Security, unlike the upper classes, who get some of their income exempted from it. If you think Social Security and Medicare taxes are too high and that the rates should be reduced, that's one thing. But if you want to leave the rates unchanged and partially exempt affluent people from it while doing nothing to alleviate the tax burden on those who are struggling to work to survive, well...that's F'd up, dude.

And what point are you making in your third paragraph? 2001 was an example of the first type of bill, correct, with cuts for all? And you are making 2003 an example of the second type of bill, correct? Then where was the 2003 bill that cut tax rates for lower income people? My objection to the 2003 tax cuts (in addition to fiscal concerns) was that they did nothing for lower income people. Or are you claiming that the 2001 tax cuts only effected lower income people and that the 2003 tax cuts only effected upper income people (well, actually I can agree with that part ) and that cumulatively the two sets of tax cuts count as one bill cutting rates for all groups?

I'm one of those who enjoyed watching the national debt go down during the 1990s, so I was not pleased to see that go away. And just because European economies have some serious problems with deficits doesn't mean that our deficits are okay.

[A18]

The poor get back what they pay in no matter what. Without the caps, the rich get screwed by those programs. They're not supposed to be welfare programs; they're supposed to be population-based investment programs.

Low income people complaining about payroll taxes should look up the earned income tax credit, which can not only wipe out their entire tax liability, but also yield a negative effective rate (i.e. welfare disguised as tax relief).

Cuts for all income levels were already prescribed in the 2001 law, but the 2003 act simply sped the changes up.

The national debt is hardly going up as a share of GDP.

[WMS]

The poor get back what they pay in no matter what. Without the caps, the rich get screwed by those programs. They're not supposed to be welfare programs; they're supposed to be population-based investment programs.

Low income people complaining about payroll taxes should look up the earned income tax credit, which can not only wipe out their entire tax liability, but also yield a negative effective rate (i.e. welfare disguised as tax relief).

Cuts for all income levels were already prescribed in the 2001 law, but the 2003 act simply sped the changes up.

The national debt is hardly going up as a share of GDP.

I keep coming back for more punishment, apparently...

I doubt the poor do all that well from them, and I doubt the rich are screwed much by them either. Considering that both Social Security and Medicare taxes are flat taxes, why shouldn't everyone pay the same % of income from them? I thought you econ righties liked flat taxes. Issues of Social Security and Medicare reform are another topic entirely.

Dude, I made $14,000 a few years back and as a single worker I still made too much for the EITC - it's helpful for poor single parent families, mostly. As usual, the working class pays the taxes while the rich and poor get exemptions.

I'll have to check what you're saying about the 2001/2003 connection before I can give you an answer.

And I still would prefer to see the national debt go down (yes, I'm aware totally reducing it causes problems because of Treasury Bonds and so forth, but the debt caused by idiocy I'd like to erase), because per person that's still a lot of money to owe. And IIRC reducing government debt improves the international investment ratings.

[A18]

I already explained why. They give you a positive return with the cap. Without the cap, tons of people get screwed with a negative return. A flat tax for an investment program is like a flat price for a loaf of bread. If you're rich, you pay a certain percentage of your income for that bread, and if you're poor, you pay the same percentage but of your income. That makes no sense at all, and neither did repealing the cap on Medicare.

Wealth creation has outpaced debt. The latter is not really a big deal.

[minionofmidas]

Bump.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Man, I got the idea to bump this only to see it had been done a month ago and everyone ignored it.