Again today, we renew our call for a Bush supporter -- any Bush supporter -- to give us a reason to vote for President No-op. The future of mankind might well depend on it, thanks to the mess he's stirred up in his first four years. So c'mon, all you red-blooded, oxygen-deprived conservatives: Tell us why the hapless sap deserves a mulligan.
While we're waiting, let's entertain just a few notions about why America will be better off once John Kerry gets elected.
1. Rollback of tax cuts for the obscenely rich. You may remember the concept from as recently as 2000: It was known then as "Fiscal Responsibility."
2. Establish an energy policy that isn't in thrall to Big Oil. Everyone knows progress against terrorism in the Middle East is, um, hindered by our dependence on oil. As if that weren't motivation enough to take energy policy seriously, there's this little thing called Global Warming.
3. He's not a sleaze who hides behind lying campaign surrogates who'd sell their grandma's soul to win an election.
4. National Security. Ask yourself this question: Do you feel safer now that our military is bogged down in a country that's breeding terrorists like mosquitos in a swamp? Kerry knows we have to make the best of an awful situation, so he's not promising a pull-out. But he does promise to undo as much of the past four years' damage as he can, rebuilding America's lost stature in the court of world opinion. We're going to need that credibility soon, because Iran will probably have nukes within three years, if left unimpeded. Do you really want Bush to be the guy who tackles that one?
That's enough for now.
Posted by Vernam at August 24, 2004 12:51 AM | TrackBackJust to summarize your rebuttal: VC knows more about the US Econumy than Greenspan. How many times did Clinton reappoint Greenie? We report. You decide.
More Swift Boat posts? Negative. Negative. Negative. The voters can decide if there's anything there or not.
Let's stick with substance. Could you start an Energy Policy thread? I'll be out until Friday.
Posted by: Olamdom at August 25, 2004 10:48 AMI was just sitting out the debate between you millionaires. Suddenly, Deano and Olam seemed to get all simpatico, and I didn't want to disturb the momentary calm. ;^)
You know where I stand on Greenspan. Just above the collarbone. The guy should have no credibility left after he took back the "irrational exuberance" comment, where he got it right the first time but gave in to pressure and reversed himself. Just like his flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts, in fact.
This is where you assert I have no right to comment on the Mighty Greenspan because I don't have the economic credentials. But I do know a political animal when I see one.
Posted by: VC at August 25, 2004 10:09 AMVC,
My thought is that we would kick this one around a little before we moved on. If you have no response (I'm anticipating the old class warfare gambit), I'll move on to energy. Please advise.
Posted by: Olamdom at August 25, 2004 09:16 AMTraditional conservatives used to look at both sides of the balance sheet. Unchecked federal spending used to be as important - if not more so - than tax cuts, to the conservative agenda. I trust it’s easy to agree with the statement that Bush is not adhering to 'traditional' conservative economic policy.
Running counter to the prevailing liberal stereotype, I say only the saintly in this country would be against tax cuts. Especially if those cuts are distributed in an equitable fashion. Although it's also not news that Bush's tax cuts disproportionably favor the top 2%, I personally don't begrudge the rich their riches (more on that later). However Bush himself, flippantly, once said "The really rich learned long ago how not to pay any taxes." He’s not doing his tax policy any good making stupid comments like that.
It might surprise some that I am not convinced the trickle down model doesn’t work. What I do believe however, is the economic health of our system is far too complex for any one silver bullet solution to always work. This is isn't rocket science; it's more like economics 101.
For one thing, our economy hasn't been driven exclusively by domestic dynamics for ages. Take oil prices, as a timely example. Even though the Saudi’s announced a significant increase in output early last week, prices are continuing to rise. The insatiable Chinese demand, a significant spike in German home oil purchasing, the Venezuelan situation, the ongoing restocking (topping up, if you will) of the US strategic reserve and who knows what other variables, are all at work here. If oil prices continue to rise – and some market watchers are predicting dramatic and dangerous rises 12 to 18 months from now – the economy could really be hammered.
Will keeping the current tax cuts in place, given the oil market situations, or our bloated federal deficit thanks to a fiasco of their own making in Iraq, improve the economy? It just doesn’t resonate with me. I expect the Administration to think big picture – something that our current one has not demonstrated a capacity for doing.
By the way, has anyone noticed how estate inheritance taxes are currently structured? If that got more exposure in the media, there could be revolution in the streets. Frankly, I am more than slightly conflicted about this. Let’s just say, without trying to brag (or contrarily, to be disingenuously modest), ‘keeping it in the family’ has taken on an entirely new meaning for me.
OK. A little substance to talk about. Let’s take them one at a time from the top: Tax cuts. I’m a fan of Alan Greenspan. I think President Clinton is also a fan.
This is from January 2001 … right after Bush took office:
“Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan gave a major boost Thursday to President Bush's plan for across-the-board cuts in taxes, while at the same time warning of threats posed by the dramatic economic slowdown. He said the U.S. economy's growth rate at present is ‘probably very close to zero.’”
When Bush took office, the growth rate was “probably very close to zero.” That was before 9/11. Hopefully, event the most blind partisan would recognize that 9/11 and the threat of future attacks has impaired economic growth.
Let’s flash forward to last month:
“GREENSPAN PRAISES BUSH TAX CUTS”
”This will no doubt send the bedwetters into an uproar. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said yesterday that the Bush's three rounds of tax cuts helped ensure the 2001 recession was mild and brief and have provided critical stimulus to keep the economy on track. In other words, the Bush tax cuts are the engine that have powered today's recovery.”
I agree with Greenspan on this. I believe tax cuts stimulate the economy in general. It is one of the main reasons I’m a conservative. This is a valid difference between Dems and Reps. From my perspective, it appears that liberals would prefer a flagging economy if it means that the rich don’t get richer. I understand the mindset completely. I just disagree.