Is George Bush the right leader for America?

[lliam]

George Bush has formally accepted the Republican presidential nomination, telling the American people he will build a safer world if re-elected to the White House.

In his speech he said: "I am running for President with a clear and positive plan to build a safer world and a more hopeful America. "

Mr Bush began his speech, which lasted just over an hour at Madison Square Garden in New York, with his memories of the terror attacks of September 11.

Is George Bush the right leader for America? Will US intervention in international affairs help build a safer world or will it fuel more unrest? Has the threat of terrorism increased since the invasion of Iraq?
I’m afraid every government in the world operates on a deceitful level, it’s a way in keeping the masses in their place. They do a good job when you think about it, while we are out and about with our mobile phones and on trips to Disneyworld or buying a nice new car, they are kidding us all everything is OK when in reality they are juggling time bombs, avoiding conflicts, economic coups, and all the other underhand nasty stuff that we would not be able to deal with (ignorance is bliss, and if it where not for Sky News or CNN sticking their noses into everything (making up what they don’t know) we would all be happy and couldn’t care a less)

Real evil is

Holding 400 Kids Hostage
Flying 3 747`s full of innocent people into 3 buildings full of innocent people
suicide bombers detonating themselves on busses full of commuters in Israel
blowing up trains full of passengers in Madrid
etc etc......
Our so called civilised leaders have less than white issues they would rather keep under wraps but I believe they want the western world kept as peaceful as possible, if they can make a big fat profit out of it they will, so be it.

The terrorists have no place on this planet, anyone who turns their back on getting round a table to discuss problems in favour of butchering totally innocent bystanders need forcefully removing from existence.

The real evil is waiting in the wings to take this world over in the name of religion. If greed, and being lied to is the price I have to pay that ensures my kids can walk down the street free men, without fear of speaking out then long live the USA.

Altogether. .

Dad da dah dahhh dahhh dahhhhh, dad da dah dah dah dahhhhh etc etc.

[shostakovich]

Hi Lliam. Is George Bush the right leader? In looking over your post, I can't tell which side of the answer you're on. After careful and thoughtful reflection, I would answer the question, "NO, NO, NOOOOOOOO!" (Who would have suspected?) In fact, I can't think of anything he'd be the right leader for.

I agree with you that a takeover of the world in the name of religion is a great evil. You may be referring to Islam specifically, but when any group takes its religion too seriously, it's bad for the outsiders. Material goods are the biggest cause for war, I think. Religious bigotry may be second.

How is Tony Blair faring these days?
Shos

[lliam]

Originally posted by shostakovich:
Hi Lliam.
How is Tony Blair faring these days?
Shos

Hi Shos, I really do know how you feel about, Mr Bush.

Blair's popularity plummets
==========================
The rift between Tony Blair and the British public over war against Iraq is today confirmed by an opinion poll which shows for the first time that a clear majority of British voters opposed a military attack.
The poll shows it is the prime minister's personal standing rather than the Labour party which has suffered the wrath of anti-war voters. Labour's standing is down four points from 43% last month to 39% this month but the government still maintains a healthy eight-point lead over the Conservatives.

Opposition to the war has risen five points in the past month to 52%, with support for the war falling to 29%, the lowest level since the Guardian's tracker poll started last August.

Opposition is much stronger among women than men, with 59% of women saying they disapproved of a military attack on Iraq. Half of Conservative voters clearly opposed the war but more Labour voters - 44% - still say they approved of military action than the 38% who are opposed.

But talking to people I know , some said to me that they were opposed to military action in any circumstances, others said they were worried about military action being taken prematurely but accept that military action may be necessary as a last resort - and that is the position of the British government."

[barfle]

Originally posted by lliam:
George Bush has formally accepted the Republican presidential nomination, telling the American people he will build a safer world if re-elected to the White House.

Now that was a surprise, wasn't it?

Originally posted by lliam:
Flying 3 747`s full of innocent people into 3 buildings full of innocent people

If you're referring to 9/11, there were no747s involved. There were two 767s that hit the WTC, one 757 that hit the Pentagon, and one 757 that crashed in Pennsylvania, apparently on its way to Washington, DC.

So now I'm done picking nits, I don't believe that George W. Bush is the leader we need, although John F. Kerry isn't either. Bush's reasons for the invasion of Iraq have been demonstrated to be bogus. Whether or not he had the data fudged remains to be seen, but it's clear from his earlier statements that he wanted Saddam out of power, and was willing to use military force to accomplish that. I'm extremely suspicious of his honesty in that adventure, and wary of what might happen if he is re-elected.

But Kerry seems to have been running for President since he was in his 20s. That's not necessarily bad, but again it raises suspicions. And trying to out-liberal a conservative whose "compassion" means he has yet to veto a spending bill is simply bizarre.

Nader makes Kerry seem like a Goldwater (a politician I came pretty close to admiring), and has no chance beyond that of a spoiler.

Badnarik is still as anonymous as can be. While I lean heavily toward Libertarians, I would be surprised if 1% of the votes go that way, unless the disgust with the major party candidates grows to the level I feel.

[RC]

President Kennedy once said: "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."

Where is the presidential candidate who will speak to that America?
Cynthia Tucker (Universal Press Cundicate)

[Marye]

In reading Lliam's post

The real evil is waiting in the wings to take this world over in the name of religion. If greed, and being lied to is the price I have to pay

Made me think to mention this:

This summer CBC radio produced a daily show, called 50 Tracks.. I quote: "The quest for music that matters. 50 tracks. 100 years. One great list of essential songs of the 20th century." It took the entire summer of discussion, debate and voting among CBC listeners (that would be across Canada) about the greatest songs per decade. Not surprisingly, the 60's was the most difficult era to pinpoint 5 songs that were essential to that decade. It was great radio and there were times among my friends where we debated the choices made by "expert" panelists. BUT on Monday it took five hours to play the 50 essential 20th Century songs that Canadians voted for. The number one song was John Lennon's:

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace

Most essential song of the 20th Century? or do we just long for peace.

[Shapley]

Lliam,

In my opinion, George W. Bush is the right leader for America, chosen from the current list of candidates or candidate couldabins.

President Bush is resolute. He has a definite goal in the war on terror, and he is pursuing it. He did not lie to get us into war, regardless of what many claim (despite mounting evidence that he didn't). The terrorism currently being conducted against such countries as France and Russia clearly shows that appeasment is not the answer. We did not ask for this war, it was brought to us, and we are answering it. Not every decision Mr. Bush makes will be correct, but it will be done with a clear intent to win the war against those who seek to destroy us.

Mr. Kerry is wishy-washy, at best. He claims to stand firm, but you're never clear which side of the fence he's standing firm on. By his own admission, he is a war criminal. He will not come clean on what attrocities, exactly, he committed during his four months in Vietnam. This is an important point, given that he has made his service, during which he committed them, the foundation upon which his fitness to serve is built. Not a good start. Wasn't there an outcry a few years ago because Austria elected a war-criminal? How will this bolster our reputation abroad?

None of the third-party candidates has yet found support sufficient to place themselves on the ballots in all fifty states. They are condemned to also-ran status before the counting has even begun.

I stand by the President, and encourage others to do the same.

V/R
Shapley

[mmichaelson]

Shap,
I stand with you (and with Bush)

[RC]

still???

[mmichaelson]

LOL. Yes, still. I am a Texas girl, after all.

Didn't you know that SE Texas breeds Republicans. . .and look at what university I went to. . .most people think we're a cult (I know my dad did).

[Nicole Marie]

Largest deficit in our nations history.... 'nough said.

[RC]

Nicole Marie: Largest deficit in our nations history.... 'nough said.

not quite enough...

Even if the economy grows more rapidly than projected, significant long-term strains on the budget will start to intensify within the next decade as the baby-boom generation begins to reach retirement age. By CBO's estimates, a growing elderly population and rapidly rising health care costs will cause total federal spending for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to increase from more than 8 percent of GDP in 2004 to between 12 percent and 17 percent in 2030 and to between 13 percent and 28 percent in 2050 (depending on assumptions about federal spending and revenues in the future). Thus, over the long term, growing resource demands for those major entitlement programs will exert pressure on the budget that economic growth alone is unlikely to alleviate.

After 2011--if the tax cuts enacted in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) expired as scheduled, discretionary spending continued to grow no faster than the rate of inflation, and other policies stayed the same--the budget would be relatively close to balance.

The path of federal revenues over the next 10 years is shaped by the scheduled expiration of numerous tax provisions enacted between 2001 and 2003. Revenues are projected to rise sharply as a percentage of GDP over the next two years--from 16.2 percent this year to 17.0 percent in 2005 and 17.7 percent in 2006--largely because several major tax cuts will expire on December 31, 2004.

In CBO's baseline, individual income taxes are responsible for almost all of the rise in revenues as a percentage of GDP over the next 10 years.

In other words, the CBO is predicting that we may approach balance in 2014 if Bush's tax breaks are allowed to expire otherwise, the deficit will continue to grow.

Please keep this in mind when you go to the polls.

***all CBO posts taken from their website at CBO

[Shapley]

From nationalreview.com:

BuzzCharts is probably the only conservative column in America that was happy last week about the media feeding frenzy regarding the President’s State of the Union speech. That’s because the State of the Union/uranium-gate story sucked enough oxygen out of the previous week’s new-largest-deficit-in-history story to drop it from super-frenzy status down to regular-frenzy status.

This is a good thing because almost all the deficit coverage was wrong. The announcement by the Office of Management and Budget that the projected 2003-04 deficit would be $455 billion quickly morphed into the inaccurate assertion that this was the largest deficit in American history. It is not. The largest deficit in history occurred in 1943 under FDR; the second largest deficit in history occurred in 1945 under Harry Truman; the third largest deficit in history occurred in 1944 under FDR. When adjusted for inflation and expressed in 1996 dollars (the base line used by the OMB for their record keeping) those deficits were: $499 billion, $421 billion, and $419 billion, respectively. The current deficit, adjusted into 1996 baseline dollars, is $388 billion, which makes it the fourth-largest deficit in recent history, not the first.

The most reasonable basis of comparison is not only to adjust the numbers for inflation but also to adjust the numbers for variations in the size of the economy. If concern over deficits is based on their impact on the overall economy, then their relative size to the overall economy is the most relevant statistic. By that standard, moving from largest to smallest, here is the ranking of federal deficits as percentages of GDP:


YEAR PRESIDENT % of GPD HOUSE OR REP.
MAJORITY PARTY
1 1943 FDR -30.30% democrat
2 1945 Truman -21.50% democrat
3 1944 FDR -22.80% democrat
4 1942 FDR -14.20% democrat
5 1946 Truman - 7.10% democrat
6 1983 Reagan - 6.00% democrat
7 1985 Reagan - 5.10% democrat
8 1986 Reagan - 5.00% democrat
10 1984 Reagan - 4.80% democrat
11 1992 HW Bush - 4.70% democrat
12 1938 Truman - 4.60% democrat
13 1991 HW Bush - 4.50% democrat
14 1976 Ford - 4.20% democrat
15 2004 GW Bush - 4.10% republican

Deficits can be a cause of concern but the current deficit is ranked as the 15th largest since the beginning of World War II. Given the fact that the current deficit is also occurring during a time of war, it is well within the mainstream of deficits in U.S. history and it is certainly not the end of the world.

Just thought you'd like to know.

Shapley

[RC]

You do know what CBO stands for don't you?

[mmichaelson]

It seems to me (without a fine economics degree and all) that a balanced budget depends on so many things, that surely the tax cuts that President Bush enacted can't have such a large impact on the deficit in the next ten years. But even if they had to go (they're not really helping me out that much, so I won't argue that) I am still concerned with some of Kerry's plans to downsize the military. I am concerned with his record of changing his mind, as Shapley mentioned earlier. I am concerned for the security of our country.

In picking between the two major candidates, I choose Bush. I place a greater trust in him to be able to help protect our country in the next four years, to strengthen our military, etc.

Neither candidate is perfect, by far, but I am more willing to place my trust in someone who has tried to protect our country and served us well in a time of strife and grief than in someone who cannot seem to make up his mind what he thinks about any given subject. Now I understand that Bush has changed his mind a few times, but I feel that Kerry wins this race by far looking at the records. I don't like the fact that Kerry rails at the Bush administration for letting non-partisan groups do the mud-slinging for them, and practically commanding Bush to do something about it, and then slings mud right back at the administration. I realize also that mud-slinging is inevitable, but I'm young, and it really seems hypocritical that Kerry calls for Bush to stop while he goes right on ahead. That irks me almost more than anything else.
I also greatly prefer Laura Bush to Theresa Heinz-Kerry, whose complete lack of control of herself is exhausting. (I realize that First Ladies are not the issue here, but I just had to throw my two cents in about that).

So there are my few cents. . . a view of a young Texan.

<don't shoot the messenger!!>

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by RC:
You do know what CBO stands for don't you?

Sure, it stands for Libertarians Out to Get the Other Guys , in Swahili, right?




JIm "Hey RC, that's a pretty good mockup of the Congressional Budget Office website!" B.

[Nicole Marie]

Saxy- If Bush wanted to strenghten the US militray he would leave our bases in Korea and Germany. We are much more mobile and able to react quicker when we have forces in a larger area.

As for the first ladies... well Laura does not have a back bone to save her life. She is pro-choice but says nothing when asked about it. Wives are allowed to have a different opinions then their husbands, don't be afraid to speak up Laura. Those that are married know husbands and wives do not always agree with eachother. I'd rather have a first lady in office who is a role model and can speak her mind, even if it does not meet her husbands.

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by Nicole Marie:
If Bush wanted to strenghten the US military he would leave our bases in Korea and Germany. We are much more mobile and able to react quicker when we have forces in a larger area.

As for the first ladies... well Laura does not have a back bone to save her life.

On the first point, it's simple: There's no oil in those countries.

On the second, I seem to recall both George and Laura Bush vowing to not get into legislating morality. A vow not worth the paper it was written on, certainly.

[haggis]

"Largest deficit in our nations history.... 'nough said."

Sloppy reporting and completely untrue.

And yes, I knew HRH was going to pick on this so I started my research this morning!


Despite what many newspapers are reporting as "record deficits" the current deficit is not a record breaker.

Wen adjusting all budget surpluses and deficits to 2000 dollars another picture emerges (Note: While the OMB has data back to 1789 I am looking only at data from 1940 onwards).

Highest Budget Deficit: 1943 $486.2 billion.

Second highest Budget Deficit: 1945 $456.8 billion.

Third highest Budget Deficit: 1944 $448.2 billion.

Fourth highest Budget Deficit: 2004 $383.7 billion (Note: adjusted the $422 billion dollars back to 2000 myself using the BLS' inflation calculator)

So...is that big? Sure, but it isn't a record buster. In fact it is short by about $100 billion dollars.

An article in the the "Seattle Post Intelligencer", is particularly misleading. Note this paragraph,

"When adjusted to erase the effects of inflation, the projected $422 billion deficit projected for 2004 would exceed the value of every annual shortfall since World War II."

Gee, why stop at 1945? Could it be that it blows the headline of the story out of the water? I mean we aren't in a war right now are we....oh wait, nevermind.

Also, if we look at deficits as a percentage of GDP this current deficit is even "smaller" in that it comes in as the 17th highest deficit.

The years 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1976, 1982, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1990, 1991, 1992 and 1993 are all higher as a percentage of GDP.

The article from CBS Market Watch is also pretty bad with its headline: "Long-term budget picture worsens: Congressional Budget Office sees record $422 bln deficit"

Well, not really. The budget deficit estimate declined $55 billion! How a $55 billion dollar decline in the deficit is a "worsening of the budget outlook" is beyond me.


This doesn't mean the current deficit isn't large. It doesn't mean that it doesn't signify some economic problems are still looming, or that we should simply ignore the deficit.

What it means is that we have idiots (or worse, partisan media reporters) reporting on economic matters.

It took me maybe 30 to 45 minutes to find all this data and compose this posts and I'm not a journalist. These guys should be fired.

[haggis]

Oh, BTW my original offer still stands.

I will donate:
$50 to a charity if Bush loses, and another
$50 to a charity if Bush doesn't take 55% of the popular vote (actually, I think it will be closer to 60%, but I'm hedging my bet