Looking ahead to Bush's second term...

Sure, just as when an individual (irresponsibly) borrows more than they can pay, they speculate that the money will be there when it is time to repay. And just as those who are doing the borrowing are speculating that the treasury will grow somehow enough to pay our debts, even though those same people are doing what they can to reduce the revenue.

So far over the past 200 years or so, that speculation that enough revenue is generated to pay the interest on the debt, which is all that is really required to be paid unless the purchasers of T securities all demand to sell them.

Then of course, as when the mortgage company calls an individual's loan, we are in a world of hurt.

Over the past 200 years or so administrations have seen the need to raise taxes in order to prevent us from that world of hurt. It's my contention that this administration is setting us up for the same. Only then it will be when my children are entering the workforce, or when it comes time for me to pay for their college. Fiscal sanity is not only for the working folk...

well yes, that would be nice. but then who's going to pay for the war in iraq?? and for the 18billion non-repayable gift to iraq?

how about homeland security? the faith based initiatives.

there's one case in which the world is black and white;

"money doesn't grow on trees". more's the pity :wink:

okay. a few years back, i was the dvp/gm of a multi-million dollar post production company. worked about 75 or so hours a week. and,making a very good living and finally doing things that i wanted to do. we bought a house, went out for a nice meal once in a while. most importantly, finally got to upgrade my recording studio (which also opened another personal revenue stream). had a not huge amount of debt "based on my ability to pay in the forseeable future".

enter the heart attack and the joys of quadruple bypass.

tried going back to my job, but was pretty much told by the doctor that, while yes, i could continue living in a pressure cooker, i wouldn't be doing it for long. so, life changes. and suddenly i'm sitting there with a much smaller income, a fond memory of having had savings and more debt than is good for you in this situation. ain't life a bitch?? yes, it can be. but it sure beats the alternative...

point being, you could think of 9/11 as a heart attack. it messed with us physically, emotionally and monitarily.

now think about what a national 4x bypass would do. you know, multiple attacks that were even greater in scope than 9/11.

nope. to me having the largest deficit in american history and still cutting taxes like there's no responsibility is not a good thing...

BM

a couple of interesting facts although dated back to the 1990's.
Suadi Arabia has investment capital in the US of between 500 and 700 Billion $ (wonder what happens if that was withdrawn.
China now receives more international investment $ than does the US while the China/US trade deficit widens.
Things are not too rosy for the near future on the US economy.

Ya know, I'm just loving the direction this thread is going. Seriously.

Mid-East Conflict:

Some feel that Arafat's demise opens up this snake pit to allow the injection of at least the hope for resolution. We shall see.

I too, was hopeful with the advancement of Bush's "Road Map". Seemed a bold move but movement is only afforded boldness if and when action is attempted. Many have accused the present administration with merely lip service towards such a move but this ignores its brief history.

Hope reigned when Abu Mazen was appointed PM of the Palestinians, he was somebody that it seemed both Bush and Sharon could "do business with". But Arafat's Byzantine intrigues made quick work of him. So those who wanted to negotiate were left, again, with Arafat. But with all due respect, Arafat's main and repetitive answer to the end results of negotiations has always been: "NO!". So Bush's (and Sharon's as well) reaction was to revert to his (Bush's) consistent policy of not even bothering to try to deal with Arafat.

Given the Palestinians will except the existence of the state of Israel, they must first find a legitimate leader that will not only negotiate in good faith but be able to back up their end of the deal. Given the many factions involved, this is no mean feat. (An aside: I always felt that Arafat's tendency to tolerate negotiation and then to back away from hard action to carry out an agreement was his recognition that if he tried to actually honor any treaty agreements he would be assassinated by one Palestinian faction or another). The new Palestinian leadership will also have to execute some sort of factional disarmament clause, which has been Sharon's first priority given the road map.

There will be infighting between not only different factions but also within Fatah, Arafat's group. This will be between the old guard, whose existence is due mostly to Arafat's patronage, and the more progressive new guard. Hamas is the next most powerful faction but its militancy and refusal, still, to denounce its goal of the destruction of the Israeli state coupled with most Palestinians weariness of violence and Israeli targeting of its upper leadership puts this group at a political disadvantage.

Bush would do well to apply pressure to Israel also. This can be both overt and covert but the the balance is important.

Two things are of concern.

Those in power now want the Palestinian Parliament to choose the new leader and eschew popular elections for obvious reasons. This has the obvious disadvantage of producing leaders of questionable legitimacy. The present law calls for elections in 60 days.

The second is just my opinion, but Sec. Powell's resignation signals that, perhaps, he himself feels that in the next 2-3 years little will have changed in this area. Although much beleaguered in this administration, I feel that if the Secretary thought there was a chance, he would stay on to help facilitate peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Gay Marriage

Many people feel that this was a purely Rovian political move to fix the religious right securely in the Republican camp pre-election. With no third term election prospects for Bush, the administration need only pay lip service and need not expend any political capital to further this issue. This could be true. But a couple of weeks ago Karl Rove, when asked, told Mr. Russert (NBC's Meet The Press) that the President was fully committed to the Amending of the U.S. constitution , perhaps the success of this effort will depend upon the degree Bush pushes for it.

Government Spending and Taxation

Many think there is a secret Republican conspiracy to increase the deficit to such a point that the only choice would to be to drastically cut spending on social programs. Oliver Stone over-the-top thinking? Well maybe, but remember Speaker Newt Gingrich and his crusade to lower the Federal Deficit ? Who was the Presidential administration before all this hit the Fan? Right Bunky…Ronald Reagan, who presided over the biggest deficit up until then. Clinton moved to the center got elected and, between the two parties, by the time Bush got elected, there was a surplus. This is now just a "once upon a time" story. George Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" combined with large tax cuts, the "War on Terrorism", and his "Prescription Drug Program" has set the U.S. up for record deficits in the future. Add the Republican doctrine of "small government" and this conspiracy seems somewhat plausible. This then conceivably sets up an administration elected in 2008 who will have to do the dirty work of cutting social programs and the cycle begins anew.

The President is going to try for, more or less, a flat tax for federal income. You get to deduct your mortgage interest and that's it. But can we deduct all our expenses incurred in the accruement of revenue like those in business (Gas, Insurance, electric, depreciate our cars and work tools) do? It should be interesting.

Post 9/11 Government Freedoms

The march towards less personal privacy will continue because of increased technological progress. The government has always had the ability to intrude upon individual liberties. The main concern is the legality of its actions. If the legal system disallows certain investigative procedures their product cannot be used in a court of law. However, this does allow the government the advantage of a heads-up allowing a Big Brother-like "screening process". The problem then seems to be who decides that further investigation is needed and, more importantly, who then is chosen as such an investigative target thru legal measures to gather admissible evidence.

The Patriot Acts now eliminate many legal barriers to selective prosecution. But how are we to fight terrorism? But if we allow certain types to be selected for investigation would not more governmental intrusion into our personal lives be even more effective in this fight against terrorist? Seems slippery.

The rights given up in the pursuit of terrorist will not be given back. They will only be obtained the same original way…we will have to fight to get them. The longer these laws are entrenched the more law enforcement will depend upon them to "put somebody in the chair" and clear the case. An ounce of prevention…and all that.

The plan

Craven's point of the depletion of foreign policy capital allowing "preemptive action" is well taken. Given Iraq as presently constituted, Americans, themselves, will look hard at such action, let alone a coalition of the willing. Even the U.K. participation seems unlikely. But extending out this logic may present an even more sinister reality. Lately we have witnessed three big EU members (France, Germany, and the U.K.) try (twice) to come to an agreement with Iran about limiting their quest for fissile material. The first was a failure the second soon will be. The U.S. might choose to join in but what would be the point? Iran and North Korea know full well the U.S. is highly unlikely to use force. Even the threat of force has been discredited. Had Iraq been deemed a success at this point the U.S. leverage would have been tremendous. A U.S. threat of force, at this point, is invalid for the same reason Iraq is such a mess: not enough troops. This fact will make dealing with Iran, Syria, DPRK, and all the rest even more difficult than the pre-Iraq period. I would like to think an invigorated CIA might be capable of unorthodox persuasive measures but it is presently being defanged because of its open warfare against the Bush administration.

Further, the recent appointment of Condi Rise as Sec. of State would also speak against a more tolerant engagement in foreign relations. Powell seemed to be the only member of the past cabinet that would "push back" against the neo-cons. Her behavior in meetings with Bush and Rumsfeld and others has been characterized as "correct", that is, no disagreement. I don't see much progress on the foreign policy front in the future unless Bush has a situation fall into his lap like Reagan had with the U.S.S.R. implosion.

Domestically, maybe a push for the anti-gay Amendment, perhaps an expansion of the "No Child Left Behind" into high schools (this will be a tough slog against the teacher union). Bush also wants to "reform" Social Security by allowing "personal accounts". But this is a futuristic solution to a problem in the present. Are the youth of tomorrow to pay both social security taxes and contribute to their personal accounts? Is this the bridge to the future?

JM

dyslexia has brought up an excellent point about foreign investment. Also of concern is the financing of both the federal deficit and personal debt in the U.S. Forty percent of that debt is financed by foreign sources.

Can anyone explain how a change in interest rates or the falling dollar would affect this situation? Might be interesting!

JM

The error here is to assume that this particular administration (and the RNC) are functioning on a horizon of only four years. Republican dominance of the presidency and both houses (not to mention at the state and local levels) is utterly dependent upon continued support from the religious voters, and continued dominance is the explicit goal.

It's now a cliche, but true nonetheless, that this is the most ideologically driven White House in most peoples' living memory. Whether we are looking at the social conservatives within it, or the neoconservative group, or the trade and tax elements, all these folks are very serious about maintaining and expanding their influence on the nation.

The push towards (or at the very least, the proclamations of pushing towards) policies on abortion and gay issues will continue, and I think are certain to grow more pronounced along with other socially conservative issues (pornography, independent schools, etc). We'll note that today an announcement was issued regarding a new organization which aims to bring evangelical and catholic together in aid of furthering such goals. This is a perfectly typical example of the long range planning and organization the new right has succeeded at over the last two or three decades.

Blatham, Understandable persective and accurate in many elements. However those in the Bush administration who advocate the various issues you identified are no more "ideoligical" than are those who oppose them, and who have for several decades have successfully chipped away at the former dominant themes of the American Social contract. The objectives are different, but the determination, organization and tactics are all quite similar. Action and reaction. Nothing particularly remarkable here.

I think that what happened was once we got a lot of the social changes like the civil rights movement and other "leftist idealogical" changes; mostly the leftist have grown lax and comfortable and quietly at first the "right idealogcial" started organizing to get their views heard. Now that they have a monopoly on a lot of the media through various ways they have collected quiet a following and they are definitley not quiet anymore. Through just plain running roughshod over any and all objectionist and disenters they have mangaged to get control of all governement positions in Washington.

I am hopeful that someday the worm will turn the other way all on it's own when people get a good look at the results of the right's idealogical views put into practice and rise up in enough numbers to turn things in a more balanced way. That is the good thing about living in a democratic society, the people really do have the control in their hands.

Speaking of ways that the right's underhanded ways:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/18/politics/18house.html?th

November 18, 2004
House G.O.P. Acts to Protect Chief
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 - Spurred by an investigation connected to the majority leader, House Republicans voted Wednesday to abandon an 11-year-old party rule that required a member of their leadership to step aside temporarily if indicted.

Meeting behind closed doors, the lawmakers agreed that a party steering committee would review any indictments handed up against the majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, or any other members of the leadership team or committee chairmen, to determine if giving up a post was warranted. The revision does not change the requirement that leaders step down if convicted.

The new rule was adopted by voice vote. Its chief author, Representative Henry Bonilla of Texas, said later that only a handful of members had opposed it.

The Republicans' old rule was adopted in August 1993 to put a spotlight on the legal troubles of prominent Democrats. Mr. Bonilla said revising it had been necessary to prevent politically inspired criminal investigations by "crackpot" prosecutors from determining the fate of top Republicans.

"Attorneys tell me you can be indicted for just about anything in this country, in any county or community," said Mr. Bonilla, an ally of Mr. DeLay. "Sometimes district attorneys who might have partisan agendas or want to read their name in the paper could make a name for themselves by indicting a member of the leadership, regardless of who it may be, and therefore determine their future. And that's not right."

Mr. DeLay said he had not instigated the change. But he applauded it nevertheless, saying it could deprive "political hacks" of an ability to influence the makeup of the Republican leadership.

Republican lawmakers "fixed the rules so that Democrats cannot use our rules against us," he said.

Mr. DeLay said he did not expect to be indicted, but added, "This has nothing to do with whether I was going to be or not going to be.''

The comments of Mr. DeLay and Mr. Bonilla were clearly directed at Ronnie Earle, the district attorney in Travis County, Tex., including Austin, who won indictments earlier this year against three political associates of the majority leader. The investigation by Mr. Earle, a Democrat, involves charges of illegally using corporate money to help Republicans win state legislative races in 2002. Those Republican victories in turn gave the state party enough legislative muscle to win redistricting changes that helped Congressional Republicans gain five additional seats in Texas on Nov. 2.

Despite the indictments of his associates, Mr. DeLay has not been called to testify, and Mr. Earle has not said whether the congressman is a target.

Not all Republicans agreed with Wednesday's rule change, which was adopted after some two and a half hours of debate.

"This is a mistake," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut.

When the Republicans gained control of the House in the elections of 1994, "we were going to be different,'' Mr. Shays said.

But "every time we start to water down what we did in '94," he said, "we are basically saying the revolution is losing its character."

Democrats and outside watchdogs bitterly criticized the change.

"Today Republicans sold their collective soul to maintain their grip on power," said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip. "They unabashedly abandoned any pretense of holding themselves to a high ethical standard, by deciding to ignore criminal indictments of their leaders as reason for removal from leadership posts in the Republican Party."

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a group that follows campaign finance issues, said: "With this decision, we have gone from DeLay being judged by his peers to DeLay being judged by his buddies. It's an absurd and ludicrous new rule and an affront to the American people."

Republicans said Democrats had no standing to criticize them, since House Democratic rules have no provision to remove indicted party leaders, though they do require indicted committee chairmen to step aside. The minority leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, said Wednesday that her party would quickly expand the provision to cover leadership posts as well.

"Republicans have reached a new low," Ms. Pelosi said. "It is absolutely mind-boggling that as their first order of business following the elections, House Republicans have lowered the ethical standards for their leaders."

The change follows two admonitions that Mr. DeLay received from the bipartisan House ethics committee this fall, one involving a House floor vote, the other a fund-raiser. Mr. DeLay has built strong loyalty in the House over the years by helping raise campaign money and paying close attention to the personal legislative interests of Republican lawmakers, and the ethics committee's action angered some of his supporters in the chamber.

Mr. DeLay and many other House Republicans have criticized Mr. Earle's inquiry as highly partisan. "Ronnie Earle is trying to criminalize politics," Mr. DeLay said. "I think that is wrong."

Mr. Earle, in a statement issued by his office, said the Republican rule change would have no effect on the continuing investigation. But he added, "It should be alarming to the public to see their leaders substitute their judgment for that of the law enforcement process."

House Republicans did not dispute the idea that the change had been brought on by the events in Texas but said most of the majority's lawmakers had also concluded that the rule was simply unfair.

"In my sincere opinion, it only provoked the timing" of the change, Representative Trent Franks of Arizona said of the Texas inquiry. "When you look at the rule, it is an outrageous rule."

The new rule says that upon the return of an indictment against a committee chairman, a subcommittee chairman or a party leader, a steering committee made up of House leaders other than the accused lawmaker will have 30 days to recommend to the full Republican conference "what action, if any, the conference shall take concerning said member."

Though the change had been a subject of discussion for the last week, it was not submitted by Mr. Bonilla until right before a Tuesday deadline that Republicans had set to offer proposals for rules in the new Congress. Mr. Bonilla and others said the Republican conference, including many members elected only two weeks ago, had been insistent on the revision.

"It is the right thing to do," said Representative John Carter of Texas, a former judge.

While House Republicans were acting on the rule, Congress continued its reorganization for 2005. House Democrats and Senate Republicans re-elected their leadership teams for the most part. In the only real race, Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina gained a one-vote victory over Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota to head the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which provides guidance and money for Republican candidates.

Odd that the Democrats appeared to have no trouble with the fact that then President Clinton was under indictment for perjury (or 35 years ago, Teddy Kennedy for negligent homicide).

The political mobilization of the "right" that is here so decried is merely our normal political process. It just seems bad to totalitarian Democrats who apparently believe that no one but themselves has any right of expression and political action.

They are being hypocrites because they were the ones who put the law in congress in the first place and now when it is threatening one of their own they put it out again.

Also the fact that they did right on the eve to the minute of when the house rules thing is done and only with a voice vote is running roughshod over any Potential disenters. They were talking about it for a whole week or more they could have brought it to the floor to have everyone vote but they didn't.

george

This is a formula you have brought to our discussions since they began...

One side always equals the other side, the present is exactly like the past, no policy or statement or political philosophy is worthy of notice as its converse must necessarily exist in balance.

It is a species of relativism, and as in the case of moral relativism, it has the failing of blocking discernment, of making real differences invisible, by axiom.

There are ways to think about this stuff, to get some traction and weigh actual differences. If you consider periods or places where ideological purity is unusually valued or insisted upon, concomitant factors will be in place, predictably, visibly.

Multiplicity of viewpoint will be considered a negative. Dissent will be seen as dangerous or treasonous. Positions of power will be reserved for those of proven loyalty. Institutions designed to disperse, or balance against, the locus of power will fall under attack. Communications will be tightly controlled to maintain a desired narrative. Individuals within the structure of power will be protected and easily forgiven. Laws and codes will be held valid or invalid based upon whether they serve as impediment or facilitor to the wishes of those holding power. And the exclusionary nature of each of these tendencies will function to foment an absolutely predictable 'us' and 'them' frame of reference.

I am depressed. Your nation has arrived at a bad place. And in great part, that is because peoples' commitment to actual self-governance is so shallow. There is far more of the North Korea in you than your dreams and mythologies can allow perception of.

Oh, just wait until they change the fillibuster rules...

Face it George, the message they are sending is that the rules apply to Democrats, but not to Republicans.

Democrats do not have the same rules re: indicted members stepping down from leadership positions that the GOP did.

And the filibustering of judicial nominees submitted to the floor will, justifiably and logically, be stopped. Why not subject the nominee to a vote, up or down?

Larry wrote:

If that is true then whey did the article say that the republicans old rule was designed to put a spot light on democrats legal problems?

from the article in my previous post:



Larry wrote:

I agree with you, I really don't understand why people can't just vote and let the chips fall where they may. However, when democrats were in control of congress, the republicans filibustered just as much as democrats did in last term. So all their protesting seems a little flat to me.

"...when democrats were in control of congress, the republicans filibustered just as much as democrats did in last term>

Not true. The use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees from coming to a vote was unprecedented. There was one instance in the past where the threat of a filibuster caused the President to withdraw the nomination, however.

But, of course, the GOP did keep a number of Clinton's nominations from getting out of committee to the floor to vote.

And I know the GOP adopted the higher ethical ground to highlight the ethically challenged Dems. And so far they still have it. But I heard the Dems are now saying "me too" and will adopt some version of the rule.