i will vote for w in nov if...

[jefhatfield]

he fires rumsfeld

w has not been the best prez, but not the worst either, but to get his administation on my side, he needs to dump rummy

[Frohickey]

he fires rumsfeld

w has not been the best prez, but not the worst either, but to get his administation on my side, he needs to dump rummy

I think Rumsfeld is just fine.

The one that GWBush has to fire is Mineta. He's the one that has been stonewalling the arming of pilots, and the one that turned airports into Gestapo checkpoints. :mad:

[IJ Reilly]

he fires rumsfeld

w has not been the best prez, but not the worst either, but to get his administation on my side, he needs to dump rummy

Now that's a pretty low threshold of satisfaction.

[mactastic]

I'll vote for Dubya in November if he's a Buddihst by then.

[Krizoitz]

he fires rumsfeld

w has not been the best prez, but not the worst either, but to get his administation on my side, he needs to dump rummy

How is he not the worst?

[zimv20]

How is he not the worst?
harding was pretty corrupt, too

[blackfox]

While I agree that Rumsfeld should be held responsible, so should GW...if he was not directly involved, he was at least complicit. As Truman said: "The buck stops here." If you are going to take credit for the good...you must for the bad.

[diamond geezer]

I'd vote for W if God tells me to.

[zimv20]

i'll vote for him if i get another $300.

not really.

[jefhatfield]

me- moderate middle of the road

w has been good in rallying usa after 9-11, getting saddam, finally bringing back economy

but bad at bringing back economy...hey, 3+ years? til growth, wasting money on iraq by invading??, catering too much to religious right

all w mistakes in his admin isn't all him...he has staff that makes desicsions, too and while there are some bloopers, rummy is his achille's heel ...one poster doesn't like mineta and some may not like norm

but yes, i have low expectations for w ;) but i am forgiving, but that is most likely due to me not being far right or far left in my viewpoints

[zimv20]

finally bringing back economy
oh, it's back? DOW closed below 10,000 for the first time since december amid inflation fears and rumor of rising interest rates. and it's been creeping downward for a couple months now. i'm not so sure we're out of this.

[jefhatfield]

oh, it's back? DOW closed below 10,000 for the first time since december amid inflation fears and rumor of rising interest rates. and it's been creeping downward for a couple months now. i'm not so sure we're out of this.

it's not the great economy of reagan or clinton, but not a total disaster

some of the good things/growth may, ironically, happen after january 2005 and kerry may be in office then ;)

and for the record, gore would have done better simply by not attacking iraq with 100+ billion in a lost adventure in iraq, vietnam style

for god's sake, we should have just killed the bastard (saddam)...is it worth it that us troops get killed nearly every day in iraq during the so called occupation? many gop members also don't agree with the expensive quagmire that has become iraq

w's numbers will go back up again when we turn iraq over to the iraqis, and the us economy goes up...but maybe not enough to save his presidency

some key conservative fugures, like two star head of 82nd airborne, sen mccain, and former speaker gingrich, have not been 100 percent supportive of all of the president's actions...this dissent cannot be good for w

[Frohickey]

me- moderate middle of the road

w has been good in rallying usa after 9-11, getting saddam, finally bringing back economy

but bad at bringing back economy...hey, 3+ years? til growth, wasting money on iraq by invading??, catering too much to religious right

all w mistakes in his admin isn't all him...he has staff that makes desicsions, too and while there are some bloopers, rummy is his achille's heel ...one poster doesn't like mineta and some may not like norm

but yes, i have low expectations for w ;) but i am forgiving, but that is most likely due to me not being far right or far left in my viewpoints

I've been watching various documentaries recently, and what was enlightening was that Reagan's tax cuts didn't give instant results. It took close to 3 years before it started taking effect.

[Frohickey]

oh, it's back? DOW closed below 10,000 for the first time since december amid inflation fears and rumor of rising interest rates. and it's been creeping downward for a couple months now. i'm not so sure we're out of this.

Inflation fears and rising interest rates always depresses the stock market. That, and a MacWorld Expo or WWDC is always sure to drive the price of AAPL downward. :eek:

[wwworry]

me- moderate middle of the road

w has been good in rallying usa after 9-11, getting saddam, finally bringing back economy

but bad at bringing back economy...hey, 3+ years? til growth, wasting money on iraq by invading??, catering too much to religious right

all w mistakes in his admin isn't all him...he has staff that makes desicsions, too and while there are some bloopers, rummy is his achille's heel ...one poster doesn't like mineta and some may not like norm

but yes, i have low expectations for w ;) bu i am forgiving

why forgive him? Why not get someone better?

What were his qualifications coming into office?
Not many.

And it's a lot easier to bring back the economy running a $450 billion deficit and the lowest interest rates in 40 years. Let's see how he gets rid of that deficit. As I recall, the last administration had lots of job creation and a budget surplus! I don't see what GWBush has done for the economy being very much to talk about.

Not to mention a lousey environmental record.
Not to mention all the lies, no WMDs, no link to Al Qeada, a third of Afghanistan in the hands of outlaws and the Taliban, remember that guy Ossama Bin Laden?, the rest of the world hates us, he is not at all a moderate, the jokers he tries to appoint as federal judges, the biggest jump in Federal spending since LBJ, the list goes on and on.

The the last thing - he is one of those guys who never really takes responsibility for the things he does. All those Bush supporters will tell you "It's not Bush's fault because he got bad advice." That sounds like the typical corrupt CEO defence. Bush is indeed responsible for the crap that comes out of his administration and, like school children, must be held accountable.

[jefhatfield]

I've been watching various documentaries recently, and what was enlightening was that Reagan's tax cuts didn't give instant results. It took close to 3 years before it started taking effect.

carter messed up the economy and reagan brought it back within a year...but reagan's overspending on the military is what upped our defecit and poor bush sr was in office when the results of that took full negative effect...reagan escaped being tarred and feathered for this and the basic reagan recovery from carter overshadowed anything bad reagan did by overspending later

i think the 3+ years of bad economy was due to a sluggish bush jr on the economy but in his last months, at least something good is starting to happen now and i wouldn't go so far as to call it a full recovery and bull market, but i do give w some credit

bush did apologize fo prisoners, but to take full responsibility, he should fire the hapless rumsfeld...someimes leadership takes firing bad employees/staff

[wwworry]

What's going to happen to the housing market when interest rates skyrocket because of his irresponsible spending habits?

And Iraq - he, perhaps, illegally diverted funds earmarked for Afghanistan to fight this war in Iraq. His war planners threw out a year of postwar planning because of inter-agency squabbling. We saw huge amounts of looting and loss of security because of ideological dogmatism. We are now paying for that with our tax dollars. This was a $25 billion dollar boo boo.

Question:

Why would you give a guy who just wasted a least $25 billion dollars of your money another chance?

Why did he fire the general who dared to give accurate numbers about the cost of the war and the number of troops that would be needed to fight it?

Why was the person who had accurate numbers about the cost of the medicare bill threatened will dismissal?

Why was the wife of the person who told the truth about the bogus Niger Uranium claim in the state of the union speech illegally revealed as a CIA operative?

Why does Dick Cheney insist on keeping secret who was at the energy policy meetings?

[jefhatfield]

why forgive him? Why not get someone better?

What were his qualifications coming into office?
Not many.

And it's a lot easier to bring back the economy running a $450 billion deficit and the lowest interest rates in 40 years. Let's see how he gets rid of that deficit. As I recall, the last administration had lots of job creation and a budget surplus! I don't see what GWBush has done for the economy being very much to talk about.

Not to mention a lousey environmental record.
Not to mention all the lies, no WMDs, no link to Al Qeada, a third of Afghanistan in the hands of outlaws and the Taliban, remember that guy Ossama Bin Laden?, the rest of the world hates us, he is not at all a moderate, the jokers he tries to appoint as federal judges, the biggest jump in Federal spending since LBJ, the list goes on and on.

The the last thing - he is one of those guys who never really takes responsibility for the things he does. All those Bush supporters will tell you "It's not Bush's fault because he got bad advice." That sounds like the typical corrupt CEO defence. Bush is indeed responsible for the crap that comes out of his administration and, like school children, must be held accountable.

sure w has messed some things up but he picks staff to "staff his weaknesses" and rummy should run dod with resposibility which he hasn't

against army-cos shinsheki's wishes, rummy had 1/3 the army strength (to save money) go into iraq causing unnecessary us casualties, rummy also did not address air force acad. rapes, and rummy regularized special forces into a conventional fighting force which is the opposite of what should be done to fight terrorism

if rummy should have taken a conservative's dod approach, he should have followed weinberger's tactics/powell doctrine (overwhelming force)

[wwworry]

Why deos Carter get the balme for messing up the economy but not Bush?

Didn't Carter have to contend with the price controls initiated with Nixon that turned out to be unworkable? When price controls were removed inflation shot up and interest rates rose to quell inflation. The OPEC price hikes did not help either. Didn't Carter also have to contend with the OPEC squeeze? What about the fact that the Japaneese came into their own as a manufacturing economy while the Americans were turning out junk?

Under Reagan we saw huge debt unrivaled by any since GWB. We also saw that middle and lower class incomes were stagnent thoughout his so called "recovery". Yes, a few people got rich but what about the rest of us?

The last time we saw all income groups rise was under Clinton. It is not truely a recovery unless everyone benefits.

[jefhatfield]

Why deos Carter get the balme for messing up the economy but not Bush?

Didn't Carter have to contend with the price controls initiated with Nixon that turned out to be unworkable? When price controls were removed inflation shot up and interest rates rose to quell inflation. The OPEC price hikes did not help either. Didn't Carter also have to contend with the OPEC squeeze? What about the fact that the Japaneese came into their own as a manufacturing economy while the Americans were turning out junk?

Under Reagan we saw huge debt unrivaled by any since GWB. We also saw that middle and lower class incomes were stagnent thoughout his so called "recovery". Yes, a few people got rich but what about the rest of us?

The last time we saw all income groups rise was under Clinton. It is not truely a recovery unless everyone benefits.

i wouldn't put w in the same category of the poor performance carter, but also not in the same category of a successful clinton, either

bush runs near a 50 percent approval rating overall so he has a fighting chance at re-election..if kerry came across stronger, i would dump bush no matter what...let's see who kerry picks as partner and i think much of usa is thinking same thing, too

[Neserk]

oh, it's back? DOW closed below 10,000 for the first time since december amid inflation fears and rumor of rising interest rates. and it's been creeping downward for a couple months now. i'm not so sure we're out of this.

And we are still down 1.6 MILLION jobs... that is *not* back!

[wwworry]

sure w has messed some things up but he picks staff to "staff his weaknesses" and rummy should run dod with resposibility which he hasn't

against army-cos shinsheki's wishes, rummy had 1/3 the army strength (to save money) go into iraq causing unnecessary us casualties, rummy also did not address air force acad. rapes, and rummy regularized special forces into a conventional fighting force which is the opposite of what should be done to fight terrorism

if rummy should have taken a conservative's dod approach, he should have followed weinberger's tactics/powell doctrine (overwhelming force)

There were a lot of people who were predicting the kinds of things we are seeing now. I was one of them but not so eloquently or as knowledgably as some. A lot of people doubted the WMD story. A lot of people knew our troops would not be greeted with flowers (remember that one by Cheney?). A lot of people knew Iraqi oil money would not be able to pay for this war (remember that by Wolfowitz?). A lot of people doubted the Al Qeada connection.

Bush choose to listen to and to appoint the wrong people. Bush needs to be held accountable. Saying he is sorry is just about worthless. WE NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. WE THE VOTERS NEED TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LIES THAT GOT US INTO THIS WAR AND THE HUGE DEFICITS BEING FOISTED ONTO OUR CHILDREN. Let us not drift along giving encouragement to an administration that consistently says whatever kind of falsehood they want, telling untruths to US, to achieve their ends. It is just not right.

[Neserk]

bush runs near a 50 percent approval rating overall so he has a fighting chance at re-election..if kerry came across stronger, i would dump bush no matter what...let's see who kerry picks as partner and i think much of usa is thinking same thing, too

I think you are crazy :D Bush doesn't have a snowball's chance for getting elected (it isn't "re" if it doesn't happen the first time) because he is a dictator and American's are *finally* coming to their senses after a year of brainwashing.

[Krizoitz]

I voted for McCain in the primaries, then I voted for Gore. I'm pretty much a moderate myself. I had some serious doubts about GW, but he won, so what can you do. Well he has had four years to impress me and has done nothing but dissapoint me.

Despite the fact I didn't like him I actually supported the Iraq war initially because I thought "Gee if the President says we have evidence of WMD he probably has evidence, I mean he wouldn't lie about something so serious and send us to war without a good reason".

WRONG

On top of that his economic policy has been a joke, his "compassionate" conservativism" was all a lie. The energy crisis is a huge deal. Corruption run amok (Haliburton anyone).

What has he done RIGHT?

[wwworry]

jefhatfield, you need to take some responsibility for what's going on.

[Frohickey]

Some contend that the boom and surpluses during the Clinton era was paid for by the gutting of the military. And, you have to admit that the boom did not last, the dot-com bubble.

Under Clinton, you had all income groups rise, but that was during the boom, and after a boom, you have a bust, and during a bust, all income groups drop.

What you want is sustained growth, steady and like clockwork. Growth to add to the tax revenue collected, and number of people employed, but not too much growth that you end up with a boom and then a bust.

I don't now what is going to happen when interest rates start to rise and homeowners start having to pay more in their adjustable mortgages. The smart ones would probably refinance to a fixed rate, the others would probably end up selling.

[jefhatfield]

And we are still down 1.6 MILLION jobs... that is *not* back!

jobs will come back next year...maybe...it's the last effect to take place in a recovery

w needs to pull out of iraq soon and change his tax policy to help middle class, not mostly ultra rich

but many may still see economic growth but 3+ years of shi*** economy overall and this can sink bush come november

he should have had this recovery a year, or two, earlier

[Neserk]

jobs will come back next year...maybe...

Don't count on it... more than likely if Bush sticks around they won't come back until all the Baby Boomers retire...

[zimv20]

I don't now what is going to happen when interest rates start to rise and homeowners start having to pay more in their adjustable mortgages. The smart ones would probably refinance to a fixed rate, the others would probably end up selling.
imo, the only reason to take on an adjustable mortgage is if you know you'll be selling w/in that time period. in this era of historically low mortgage rates, i don't think it makes *any* sense to go adjustable if one plans on staying beyond that short time period.

i'm happy w/ my sub-6% 30 yr. fixed.

[zimv20]

What has he done RIGHT?
i'm enjoying the National Do Not Call Registry

[wwworry]

Yet this was essentially the same military that took Afghanistan and Iraq with almost no casualties. Some gutting that was!

So eight years of economic growth and rising incomes in all economic groups was bad?

I, personnally know a lot about the dot-com bubble. I started working in that field back in the netscape 2/mosaic days. I was always amazed at the money people were pouring into dubious projects and never could really believe in it enough to invest in it.

However, not all of the boom was just that bubble. THere were a lot of productivity gains that had to do with greater computer usage and interconnectivity, online banking (who stands in lines anymore), shipping, just-in-time inventory, etc. etc.

Sure CLinton benefited from it but he also had responsible budgets so that capital was freed up to invest in the kind of equipement needed for those productivity gains instead of funding government debt.

Bush freed up capital by huge tax cuts. However, it will not last. Interest rates will rise and we will have to start paying interest on the debt. Look for a lot of slowdowns next year.

Actually if Bush wins it might finally discredit all the stupid trickle down economics. But I can't wish for bad things to happen to all of us just to make a point.

Some contend that the boom and surpluses during the Clinton era was paid for by the gutting of the military. And, you have to admit that the boom did not last, the dot-com bubble.

Under Clinton, you had all income groups rise, but that was during the boom, and after a boom, you have a bust, and during a bust, all income groups drop.

What you want is sustained growth, steady and like clockwork. Growth to add to the tax revenue collected, and number of people employed, but not too much growth that you end up with a boom and then a bust.

I don't now what is going to happen when interest rates start to rise and homeowners start having to pay more in their adjustable mortgages. The smart ones would probably refinance to a fixed rate, the others would probably end up selling.

[miloblithe]

Gutting of the military? Frohickey, what percentage of world military spending does the U.S. account for? How many other countries would you have to add together to equal U.S. spending? What percentage of world military spending did the U.S. account for in 1993 when Clinton took office?

Alternately, how much did U.S. military spending decline under Clinton? How much did it decline from 1985-1992, before Clinton took office?

Lastly, what important geostrategic events took place in 1989 and 1991?

[Neserk]

Gutting of the military? Frohickey, what percentage of world military spending does the U.S. account for? How many other countries would you have to add together to equal U.S. spending? What percentage of world military spending did the U.S. account for in 1993 when Clinton took office?

Alternately, how much did U.S. military spending decline under Clinton? How much did it decline from 1985-1992, before Clinton took office?

Lastly, what important geostrategic events took place in 1989 and 1991?


I"m too lazy, tired, and busy to do the research. Do tell. I'm waiting :D

[zimv20]

How many other countries would you have to add together to equal U.S. spending?
the US spends more on its military than the rest of the world spends on its military combined

[Krizoitz]

the US spends more on its military than the rest of the world spends on its military combined

I doubt that, I'm fairly certain China spends alot.

[Krizoitz]

i'm enjoying the National Do Not Call Registry

So Bushes greatest accomplishment is signing the Don Not Call bill?
Woo hoo, break out the champagne.

[zimv20]

I doubt that, I'm fairly certain China spends alot.
info pulled from this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=760142#post760142)

i'm attaching a graphic numediaman put up. you'll see that the US spends more $$ on defense than the next 12 nations combined: $399 billion vs. $282 billion.

if we figure that the next 117 nations spend as much as $1 billion each (it can't be more, see the graph), then the US would still be spending more than the next 129 nations. i'm going to hazard a guess that such levels are not maintained for the next 117 nations, and in fact the amounts become so low that it is true the US spends more than the rest of the world combined.

[sethypoo]

If President Bush wants to make sure he gets re-elected, I have a suggestion. He ought to make a major announcement and say something like this:

"Americans, I'm proud to be your president. I want to be your president for four more years, but I've made my last campaign speech. We've got one great big mess in Iraq that I may have gotten us into. Too many of our soldiers are dying. I thought I was doing the right thing but I was wrong.

"There's too much for me to do as president to be traveling all over the country, making canned campaign speeches, trying to talk people who were already going to vote for me into voting for me. From this day forward, I'm going to devote full time to being your president, not your candidate.

"I won’t be raising any more money, because I'm not going to spend anymore. I'm not going to do anything but try to fix what's broken.

"If you elect Kerry, that's your problem. I'm not going to do anything, but my job, to try and stop him."

End of speech. How tough would that be for John Kerry to deal with? The president could give what's left of that $180 million to Ralph Nader and let him argue with Kerry.

by 60 Minutes' correspondent Andy Rooney.

Full article here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/06/60minutes/rooney/main615947.shtml).

[skunk]

you'll see that the US spends more $$ on defense than the next 12 nations combined: $399 billion vs. $282 billion.
Remember, it's not your money, either. You only pay the interest. It's money the rest of the world is lending you to oppress them with...

[miloblithe]

If President Bush wants to make sure he gets re-elected, I have a suggestion. He ought to make a major announcement and say something like this:

"Americans, I'm proud to be your president. I want to be your president for four more years, but I've made my last campaign speech. We've got one great big mess in Iraq that I may have gotten us into. Too many of our soldiers are dying. I thought I was doing the right thing but I was wrong.

"There's too much for me to do as president to be traveling all over the country, making canned campaign speeches, trying to talk people who were already going to vote for me into voting for me. From this day forward, I'm going to devote full time to being your president, not your candidate.

"I won’t be raising any more money, because I'm not going to spend anymore. I'm not going to do anything but try to fix what's broken.

"If you elect Kerry, that's your problem. I'm not going to do anything, but my job, to try and stop him."

End of speech. How tough would that be for John Kerry to deal with? The president could give what's left of that $180 million to Ralph Nader and let him argue with Kerry.

by 60 Minutes' correspondent Andy Rooney.

Full article here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/06/60minutes/rooney/main615947.shtml).

Yes, that is step one in trying to be like Russian President Vladimir Putin. Step two is making sure all media outlets are brought under state control and always show you in a positive light and certainly show nothing of your disasterous war in Iraq/Chechnya. Step three is a campaign against the richest people in the country to get them to pay their taxes.

Actually, step three doesn't sound so bad. :)

[miloblithe]

info pulled from this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=760142#post760142)

i'm attaching a graphic numediaman put up. you'll see that the US spends more $$ on defense than the next 12 nations combined: $399 billion vs. $282 billion.

if we figure that the next 117 nations spend as much as $1 billion each (it can't be more, see the graph), then the US would still be spending more than the next 129 nations. i'm going to hazard a guess that such levels are not maintained for the next 117 nations, and in fact the amounts become so low that it is true the US spends more than the rest of the world combined.

That list can't be accurate. Where are Taiwan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Italy, and Brazil, for example? They certainly are above 1 billion each, or at least well above North Korea.

Still, the fact remains that the U.S. far outspends everyone else, and that of the top countries most are our staunch allies or in NATO.

[Lyle]

Bush doesn't have a snowball's chance for getting elected (it isn't "re" if it doesn't happen the first time) because he is a dictator and American's are *finally* coming to their senses after a year of brainwashing.Tim Russert referred to this recent WSJ/NBC poll (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4907503) on "Meet the Press" Sunday morning. To quote the lead paragraph of the story:"Only a third of American voters believe the nation is in sound shape, but they are largely not blaming President Bush, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released Wednesday, which showed Bush running slightly ahead of his Democratic opponent for president, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts."A more recent poll by CNN/USA Today/Gallup (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/10/war.bush.kerry/index.html) finds the race a little closer, but with Bush still slightly ahead. So if you give any credence at all to such polls (and I'm not saying one should), Bush has a lot better than a "snowball's chance" of being re-elected.

[davecuse]

Re-Elect Gore in '04!

[skunk]

Smoke Bush! :D

[Krizoitz]

info pulled from this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=760142#post760142)

i'm attaching a graphic numediaman put up. you'll see that the US spends more $$ on defense than the next 12 nations combined: $399 billion vs. $282 billion.

if we figure that the next 117 nations spend as much as $1 billion each (it can't be more, see the graph), then the US would still be spending more than the next 129 nations. i'm going to hazard a guess that such levels are not maintained for the next 117 nations, and in fact the amounts become so low that it is true the US spends more than the rest of the world combined.

As intersting as that graph is, and it may be accurate, i'm always skeptical of data without knowing the source. Can you provide me some hard numbers from somewhere?

[zimv20]

As intersting as that graph is, and it may be accurate, i'm always skeptical of data without knowing the source. Can you provide me some hard numbers from somewhere?
none handy, and i don't know from where numediaman got the graph. so consider the graph, "fwiw"

[toontra]

none handy, and i don't know from where numediaman got the graph. so consider the graph, "fwiw"

We may never know. numediaman got so ****ed off with SlyHunter he quit this forum.

[jefhatfield]

jefhatfield, you need to take some responsibility for what's going on.

i have always taken resposibility, in this case voting, for our country...i voted in 84, 88, 92, 96, and 00 as well as all the in-between elections including the recall here in california which i voted against

the last time i voted for a republican president was in 84 and this would be the first time i would if the economy does get better, and we pull out of iraq, and if rumsfeld gets the boot

i originally didn't like ashcroft but he has proved to be moderate at the end of the day...otherwise roe v wade would be history

rice and powell are good strong moderates and are hated mostly by the far left

w may not be smart, and we all know this, but his staff is not that bad...yes, clinton as president and his staff were way better but unfortunately he is not in the white house

gore would have been better than bush but bush won fair and sqaure since contested elections ultimately falls into the decision of the 9 member supreme court and gore recognized that, so w slid into office, barely but legally

personally, they should change the law and leave the supreme court out of the election and just vote again but since the court had the power, and still does, in selecting a president, that's the way it is...bitter people called w the selected president and not the elected president but it's still just as legal

but now that he has been in 3+ years, there have been good and bad things...i personally thought he would have done much, much worse and a pullout out of iraq and canning rumsfeld would give me "just enough" confidence to cast my vote his way

...that is assuming kerry stays stagnant and also assumes he picks a bad running mate

kerry may have good ideals but he comes across as a professional politician to me and i don't like that, but i will still take that over an administration with the highly incompetent rumsfeld

in my book, rumsfeld is more of a danger to american lives than saddam and bin laden combined and a perfect portal into a vietnam quagmire type of warfare

[Ugg]

Link (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm)

World
$850 billion
2003 est. [see Note 5]

Rest-of-World [all but USA]
$500 billion
2003 est. [see Note 5]

The source for most of these figures is the CIA World Factbook 2002. If you go to the site, it lists in descending order the amount that various governments spend on their military. China comes second at $65 billion a year with Russia at $50 billion. France, Japan and Germany follow. Even if we take into account the disparity in wages there is a huge gap between the US and the rest of the world.

[skunk]

China comes second at $65 billion a year with Russia at $50 billion. France, Japan and Germany follow.
Hello? Aren't we forgetting someone? :rolleyes:
Actually, having read the link, you are apparently correct, though I can't see it myself. I mean, Germany doesn't pay for a nuclear force and it's navy is considerably smaller. Maybe it's more "dodgy intel" from the CIA? :rolleyes:

[toontra]

Hello? Aren't we forgetting someone? :rolleyes:

I think the UK amount is lumped together with the US ;)

[skunk]

I think the UK amount is lumped together with the US ;)
That WOULD make sense. :D

[Sayhey]

Jeff,

it is all academic because Bush is not going to fire Rumsfeld. I think you have such low expectations of the President that you give him a pass on far too many things. We could go 'round and 'round on Environmental, Civil Rights, Peace, Military Preparedness, and on and on - all on how much Bush is to blame for the huge mistakes of his administration. The bottom line is the only way we can change the policies is by voting for someone other than Bush. Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Norton, Rove, and others are not on the ballot.

By the way, from this lefty, I don't hate Powell. Disappointed he hasn't resigned in protest, yes, but I don't hate him. My disgust with Rice is well deserved and I didn't start that way at the beginning of the administration.

[skunk]

Jeff,
Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Norton, Rove, and others are not on the ballot.
I think this is a fundamental weakness in the US system: in the UK every government minister is personally accountable because he or she must also be an MP.
(That's "Member of Parliament", not "Military Police".... :p)

[Sayhey]

I think this is a fundamental weakness in the US system: in the UK every government minister is personally accountable because he or she must also be an MP.
(That's "Member of Parliament", not "Military Police".... :p)

Both the parliamentary and presidential systems have weaknesses and strengths. I sure have wished at times for the ability to have a vote of no confidence in this administration and force early elections. I wouldn't have liked it during the midst of the Lewinsky scandal. Your systems ties the legislative process directly with the administrative and as such there isn't quite the "balance of powers" that can be invaluable at times. Right now we have broken the balance of powers and given over to and allowed the administration to accumulate powers that they should never have.

[zimv20]

i originally didn't like ashcroft but he has proved to be moderate at the end of the day...otherwise roe v wade would be history
i strongly disagree.

i don't think the non-overturning of Roe v. Wade should be the acid test, 'cuz that's got a lot less to do w/ ashcroft than it does the makeup of the Supreme Court.

a quick examination of ashcroft's justice dept. yields what i think is non-moderate behavior:
- subponea'ing hospitals for records of women who've had abortions
- prosecuting CA doctors who, legally under CA law, prescribed pot
- going after OR doctors for, under OR law, legally helping people w/ euthanasia
- trying to standardize capital punishment by forcing some federal prosecutors (especially in new york) to push for the death penalty against their own recommendations
- certain provisions of the Patriot Act, such as allowing the locking up of people and denying them constitutional rights, plus allowing for secret home break-ins

[mactastic]

By the way, from this lefty, I don't hate Powell. Disappointed he hasn't resigned in protest, yes, but I don't hate him.

My respect for Powell isn't as strong as yours. IMHO, Powell was instrumental in attempting to cover up what happened at My Lai. Powell was involved in the illegal and immoral arming of Saddam during the '80s, as well as the arms-for-hostages scandal involving Iran and the Contras (whom despite their poor record of human rights, Powell professes support for to this day).

And just for SlyHunter/Voltron I have heard rumors to the effect that Powell's purple heart was for a minor scratch he recieved on his foot from a punjii stick. I'd love to see you come out in favor of revoking Powell's purple heart if you are going to excoriate Kerry over his. Personally I don't care, if the rules say you get a purple heart for any wound then fine. But lets be consistent, OK Sly?

[Frohickey]

Gutting of the military? Frohickey, what percentage of world military spending does the U.S. account for? How many other countries would you have to add together to equal U.S. spending? What percentage of world military spending did the U.S. account for in 1993 when Clinton took office?

Alternately, how much did U.S. military spending decline under Clinton? How much did it decline from 1985-1992, before Clinton took office?

Lastly, what important geostrategic events took place in 1989 and 1991?

1985-1999 World Military Spending (http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-US-world.php#table-1)
1940-2003 US military spending as a percentage of GDP (http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php)

In 1999, 33%
In 1999, the top 7. One of which we have a defense treaty with, 4 of which are part of NATO.
In 1993, 37.3%.

Under Clinton, it went from 305.2 prior to his taking office, down to 270.8 and back to 281.2 in 1999, that is a 10% drop, and not adjusting for inflation.

US military spending should be a constant percentage of GDP, tack on space exploration and planetary colonization to that if you wish. We are going to have to come up with a planetary defense system anyway, to shoot down large asteroids and comets. :eek:

[Frohickey]

i strongly disagree.

i don't think the non-overturning of Roe v. Wade should be the acid test, 'cuz that's got a lot less to do w/ ashcroft than it does the makeup of the Supreme Court.

a quick examination of ashcroft's justice dept. yields what i think is non-moderate behavior:
- subponea'ing hospitals for records of women who've had abortions
- prosecuting CA doctors who, legally under CA law, prescribed pot
- going after OR doctors for, under OR law, legally helping people w/ euthanasia
- trying to standardize capital punishment by forcing some federal prosecutors (especially in new york) to push for the death penalty against their own recommendations
- certain provisions of the Patriot Act, such as allowing the locking up of people and denying them constitutional rights, plus allowing for secret home break-ins

is the subpeona-ing of hospitals allowed to under the law?
is the prosecuting of CA doctors prescribing pot allowed to, under the law?
is the going after OR doctors for helping with euthanasia allowed to, under the law?
is the death penalty allowed, UNDER the law?

One the one hand, you exorciate politicians for not enforcing the law, and the other hand, for enforcing the law you do not agree with.

If you don't want the law to be enforced, then the law should never have been written. I, for one, do not like selective enforcement of certain laws. Moreover, I do not like selective enforcement of certain laws for certain people and not for others. Equal protection under the law, and all of that jazz.

[DGFan]

For many, many reasons I am opposed to what the Justice department has done under Ashcroft. And Ashcroft is a bit of a loon himself (prayers, hiding the nude statue, etc...)


- subponea'ing hospitals for records of women who've had abortions


However, this one needs some explanation. A law was passed outlawing a certain medial procedure for performing late-term abortions. In a lawsuit filed to attempt to overturn it the plaintiffs (hospitals) argued that the procedure was medically necessary sometimes. So the defendant (government - the justice department) is attempting to access the records so they can have an informed debate about the subject. The plaintiff's position, as I understand it, is "no, you can't have the records, you just have to trust us that it is medically necessary because we're doctors and we wouldn't lie."

Hopefully that context will help...

[blackfox]

US military spending should be a constant percentage of GDP, tack on space exploration and planetary colonization to that if you wish. We are going to have to come up with a planetary defense system anyway, to shoot down large asteroids and comets. :eek:
While I do agree that the US should maintain a strong military...I think it should be flexible in budgetary terms, as even with the 10% drop you mentioned, military spending was still very high...and there are other things to spend our money on...as far as planetary defense systems, we still have Bruce Willis, so I think we are all set...besides at this point, if the earth was struck by an asteroid, it would almost be poetic/cosmic justice...

[zimv20]

One the one hand, you exorciate politicians for not enforcing the law, and the other hand, for enforcing the law you do not agree with.

interesting take. what i *thought* i was doing was pointing out things that i didn't find moderate. ymmv.

[zimv20]

However, this one needs some explanation.
you seem to already know the story, but in case you don't: link (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0410/lerner.php)

i think privacy rights trumps ashcroft's political motivations and thinly disguised intimidation tactics.

[DGFan]

you seem to already know the story, but in case you don't: link (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0410/lerner.php)

i think privacy rights trumps ashcroft's political motivations and thinly disguised intimidation tactics.

It was not clear in the article but it was my understanding that the only hospitals served were those involved in the suit.

I think Ashcroft is an obnoxious bully. And you're probably correct about part of the reason behind the subpeonas. But I also think it's unreasonable to file suit saying a procedure is "rare" and "necessary" and then not provide the defense with information relating to those claims.

Frankly, I think the appropriate legal thing to do would be:
1) uphold the right to privacy and deny the abortion records
2) throw the lawsuits out because the plaintiff refuses to provide necessary information

[zimv20]

i'd heard that ashcroft had dropped the subpeonas

[wwworry]

However, this one needs some explanation. A law was passed outlawing a certain medial procedure for performing late-term abortions. In a lawsuit filed to attempt to overturn it the plaintiffs (hospitals) argued that the procedure was medically necessary sometimes. So the defendant (government - the justice department) is attempting to access the records so they can have an informed debate about the subject. The plaintiff's position, as I understand it, is "no, you can't have the records, you just have to trust us that it is medically necessary because we're doctors and we wouldn't lie."

Hopefully that context will help...

Just so you know, there is a not uncommon disease of fetal elephantitis that is usually not detected until late in a pregnancy where the fetus's head will become way too large to give birth. Fetus's with this condition die within hours where birth is attempted. If birth is attempted the mother will usually also die. So because of politics you can have a situation where both the mother and the baby die.

Also Ashcroft was not attempting to collect anonymous patient information - number of procedures, reason for procedure, results of procedure. He also wanted the names of the people involved. This is quite unusual if not unheard of when collecting scientific data. You can get the same data and the same results AND have patient confidentiality respected. His insistence on matching patient names with patient data was without merit and an ivasion of privacy. Doctors are trained to respect patient confidentiality.

Do you want the govt. to know your intimate medical history? Don't say "They can find out anyway so who cares". That is a cop out.

ANother question:

Do you think an American citizen can be held in jail indefinitly without trial or access to lawyers solely on the basis of bureaucratic decisions? Do you think is would be OK for John Ashcroft to decide that you are guilty and put you in jail forever NO MATTER WHAT YOU DID?

John Ashcroft wants this power over you. 200+ years of checks and balances thrown out the window.

THat is not a moderate position.

[Neserk]

Wasn't Ashcroft thinking that the war in Iraq was going to bring about the end of the world, Armaggedon, etc.? Isn't he the super fundamentalist? OR is that Rumsfield? Or both? :eek:

[blackfox]

I still can't get over the fact that Ashcroft lost a Senate race to a dead man...think that says it all...

[miloblithe]

Under Clinton, it went from 305.2 prior to his taking office, down to 270.8 and back to 281.2 in 1999, that is a 10% drop, and not adjusting for inflation.

US military spending should be a constant percentage of GDP, tack on space exploration and planetary colonization to that if you wish. We are going to have to come up with a planetary defense system anyway, to shoot down large asteroids and comets. :eek:

Right, but you skipped my other two questions. If you look at your website there, you'll notice military spending, adjusted for inflation (which was higher under Reagan and Bush) declined from 1985 to 1992 a roughly similar amount to the amount under Clinton. Why not blame Reagan and Bush for gutting the military (and Cheaney)?

The idea that military spending should be a constant percentage of GDP is just silly. In WWII it was nearly 40%, apparently, because we were fighting a real war. Are you suggesting that we should get back up to 40%, or that they were really overspending on the military during WWII?

[skunk]

Wasn't Ashcroft thinking that the war in Iraq was going to bring about the end of the world, Armaggedon, etc.? Isn't he the super fundamentalist? OR is that Rumsfield? Or both? :eek:
I think they were right.

[wwworry]

1985-1999 World Military Spending (http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-US-world.php#table-1)
1940-2003 US military spending as a percentage of GDP (http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php)

In 1999, 33%
In 1999, the top 7. One of which we have a defense treaty with, 4 of which are part of NATO.
In 1993, 37.3%.

Under Clinton, it went from 305.2 prior to his taking office, down to 270.8 and back to 281.2 in 1999, that is a 10% drop, and not adjusting for inflation.

US military spending should be a constant percentage of GDP, tack on space exploration and planetary colonization to that if you wish. We are going to have to come up with a planetary defense system anyway, to shoot down large asteroids and comets. :eek:


It is stupid to spend the kind of money we were spending to fight the Soviet Union when there was no more soviet Union. Would you have to military stayed at the same size it was in WWII even after WWII. That would be dumb.

Under Clinton we spent more than the next 90 countires combined. Clinton's army took Afghanistan and Iraq without a problem.

The real problem is the political head that runs the Army. They were told by the General who ran peace keeping operations in Bosnia what it would cost for Iraq and how many troops would be needed. Bush fired that general and look what happened. Now we are spending tons of money trying to make up for that mistake.

Bush's mistake costs us billions.

[IJ Reilly]

The backers of the Bush administration apparently believe in keeping spending in pace with GDP, at least if it's military and deficit spending.

[skunk]

The backers of the Bush administration apparently believe in keeping spending in pace with GDP, at least if it's military and deficit spending.
Good plan. Keeps everybody else from having enough spare cash around to start causing trouble.

[Krizoitz]

- prosecuting CA doctors who, legally under CA law, prescribed pot
- going after OR doctors for, under OR law, legally helping people w/ euthanasia


The rest of the points you had in this list I agree with but these two I have issue with, since federal law trumps state law if these laws go against federal law than it doesn't matter what they say, they can still be prosecuted.

[DGFan]

ANother question:

Do you think an American citizen can be held in jail indefinitly without trial or access to lawyers solely on the basis of bureaucratic decisions? Do you think is would be OK for John Ashcroft to decide that you are guilty and put you in jail forever NO MATTER WHAT YOU DID?

John Ashcroft wants this power over you. 200+ years of checks and balances thrown out the window.

THat is not a moderate position.

Woah there horsey. What does that have to do with the original discussion?

A moderate wouldn't assume that just because I brought up some facts regarding one issue that implied I leaned one way on that issue, that it also means I am 100% die-hard behind the political figure involved.

It really sounds like you have some issues of your own to deal with.....

[Sayhey]

My respect for Powell isn't as strong as yours. IMHO, Powell was instrumental in attempting to cover up what happened at My Lai. Powell was involved in the illegal and immoral arming of Saddam during the '80s, as well as the arms-for-hostages scandal involving Iran and the Contras (whom despite their poor record of human rights, Powell professes support for to this day).

mac, you will have to enlighten me on these facts. I saw a blurb on his supposed connection to an attempted cover up of My Lai, but I don't know any details. As far as I know, and I watch the hearings and followed the story back in the '80s, Powell was never implicated in any illegal dealings during Iran/Contra. He was certainly part of the administration at the time, but it was Poindexter, North, and Abrams who I recall as the foremost in crime. Of course, GHW Bush was out of the room and Reagan knew in "his heart" he did nothing wrong, but Powell's link is something I don't remember.

Don't get me wrong, mac, I not a big fan of Powell. I just was trying to point out that I didn't start out with any particular hatred for him (as Jeff said we "lefties" had.) I do think he has been the voice for moderation inside an administration loaded with ideologues. I guess that is damning with faint praise.

[DGFan]

The rest of the points you had in this list I agree with but these two I have issue with, since federal law trumps state law if these laws go against federal law than it doesn't matter what they say, they can still be prosecuted.

Of course a real die-hard "states rights" Republican like Ashcroft should be totally against the idea that the federal government is even allowed to pass such laws.

lol

[mactastic]

As far as I know, and I watch the hearings and followed the story back in the '80s, Powell was never implicated in any illegal dealings during Iran/Contra.

Of course he was not the central figure, nor was he implicated criminally. If he was he wouldn't be the Sec. State now. He'd be a pariah like Poindexter. ;)

[Sayhey]

Of course he was not the central figure, nor was he implicated criminally. If he was he wouldn't be the Sec. State now. He'd be a pariah like Poindexter. ;)

Point taken. Of course Poindexter came back and Powell's escape from blame doesn't make him blameless. If you have a link to the story I'd like to see it. If not I'll try and look it up myself.

[mactastic]

Point taken. Of course Poindexter came back and Powell's escape from blame doesn't make him blameless. If you have a link to the story I'd like to see it. If not I'll try and look it up myself.

Link (http://www.nowarcollective.com/powellbio.htm)

Here's a tidbit that I'm sure Sly/Vol could spin into an admission of war crimes if it were about a Liberal:
In his memoirs, An American Journey on page 140 Gen. Powell writes, about the Vietnam war:

If a helo [helicopter]spotted a peasant in black pajamas who looked remotely suspicious, a possible MAM [military age male] the pilot would circle and fire in front of him. If he moved, his movement was judged evidence of hostile intent, and the next burst was not in front, but at him. Brutal? Maybe so.

Article Three of the Geneva Convention of 1949 to which the United States is a signatory, states that::

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

But more to my point:
In 1968, he [Powell] was charged with responding to a letter by Tom Glen, a soldier in the Americal division. The letter charged American soldiers with indiscriminately shooting into people’s homes and with severe beatings and torture of civilians. Without interviewing Glen, Powell wrote a response denying the allegations, claiming that "relations between Americal soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." (The New Republic, 4/17/95). Given his involvement in the "strategic hamlet" program and the knowledge expressed in his memoirs of the brutal practices of American soldiers in Vietnam, he had to know his report was false. The report came out shortly after the My Lai massacre, in which hundreds of unarmed men, women and children were murdered and many women raped (Four Hours in My Lai: Penguin, 1993) – an atrocity committed by that same Americal division.

[Sayhey]

Thanks for the link, mac; I'll go over the stuff.

[zimv20]

The rest of the points you had in this list I agree with but these two I have issue with, since federal law trumps state law if these laws go against federal law than it doesn't matter what they say, they can still be prosecuted.
yes, but...

as was pointed out, when this administration seeks to overturn state laws for what are obviously personal beliefs, it's at cross-purposes w/ the supposed "states rights" platform on which bush ran.

more to the point -- i don't find that jailing doctors in such circumstances is moderate.

[Krizoitz]

yes, but...

as was pointed out, when this administration seeks to overturn state laws for what are obviously personal beliefs, it's at cross-purposes w/ the supposed "states rights" platform on which bush ran.

more to the point -- i don't find that jailing doctors in such circumstances is moderate.

But if they are breaking federal law its not on personal belief. Of course when it comes down to it all laws are based on some personal beliefs :-)

[zimv20]

But if they are breaking federal law its not on personal belief.
your point is taken, but i'll suggest that personal beliefs led not only to the decision to put resources towards prosecuting (not all of these shenanigens were pre-9/11), but to the tactics as well.

i'll humbly suggest the justice dept could have taken the matters up with the respective state assemblies, instead of raiding clinics and arresting doctors. it struck me as intimidation tactics.

[wwworry]

Woah there horsey. What does that have to do with the original discussion?

A moderate wouldn't assume that just because I brought up some facts regarding one issue that implied I leaned one way on that issue, that it also means I am 100% die-hard behind the political figure involved.

It really sounds like you have some issues of your own to deal with.....


Sorry, I was replying to two posts in one. jefhatfeild thought Ashcroft seemed moderate.

Originally Posted by wwworry

ANother question:

Do you think an American citizen can be held in jail indefinitly without trial or access to lawyers solely on the basis of bureaucratic decisions? Do you think is would be OK for John Ashcroft to decide that you are guilty and put you in jail forever NO MATTER WHAT YOU DID?

John Ashcroft wants this power over you. 200+ years of checks and balances thrown out the window.

THat is not a moderate position.


and I was pointing out that in terms of the late term abortion thing that sometimes it is medically necessary. You opined that Ashcroft was merely collecting scientific data but I and many others say he is not. He wants names. If he wasn't asking for names then OK. You wanted to put Ashcroft's actions in context. I was merely adding to that context.

Ashcroft is a bum. I don't like him. I don't like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz or Feith. My views are based solely on how they stand on the issues that affect me directly. Nothing personal. ;)

[Neserk]

and I was pointing out that in terms of the late term abortion thing that sometimes it is medically necessary.


Sometimes? It is not legal unless it is medically necessary...