how about his extreme cronyism, and the fact that his only aim in life seems to be to make himself and a few of his select rich mates even richer?
"...pledged so many billions for AIDS relief in Africa" last i heard, there is quite a difference between what he's pledged up til now and what he's actually given

jadester,

He didn't "pledge" AIDS relief, he asked for and Congress approved $15 billion in AIDS relief. And this is a national security issue. AIDS is such a huge problem in Africa that it threatens to destabilize the entire continent. This amount by far is the most pledged by any nation ever for the cause of AIDS relief, but it's not going to just get dumped into the continent and forgotten, it's targeted to programs and efforts that will decrease the occurence of AIDS and help save lives.

David

I believe that around $350 million of the $15 billion has been disbursed so far.

I have some difficultly with the patent issues revolving around generic AIDS drugs. The brand name products are too expensive for most of the people in the world that have AIDS, particularly in Africa, so really the only possibility, outside of giving the current brand name manufacturers great tax write-off's for donating huge amounts of drugs, is to let people use the generics.

African companies are already realizing that the economic cost of replacing thousands of workers is greater than supplying workers with AIDS drugs, and I hope that we are not too far behind in recognizing the real cost of AIDS in Africa is greater than what it will cost to slow its propogation.

Hanson's false premise makes for a nice exercise in creative writing, but his claims, speculations and conclusions bear only a passing resemblance to reality.

While some may indeed hate Bush, even those few have the same valid reasons for replacing him as the majority of his opponents do.

Bush and his administration have failed in every area of governance that matters.

His implementation of the war on terror (and this one is his) has increased terrorism world-wide and has done little to improve security within this country. (Plants, ports and infrastructure are only nominally safer than they were before 9/11).

The record budget deficits month after month and year after year are largely caused by the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

His trade policies have resulted in ever-increasing trade deficits (and trillions of dollars owed to foreign nations, a bill that will come due).

On jobs, we went from 4 million unemployed in July 2000 to 8.2 million unemployed in July 2004 (not counting the nearly 5 million the BLS says are looking for work but not counted as unemployed).

Similarly for health care, energy, stuffing industry over-sight agencies with industry lobbyists, misusing the Patriot Act, and just about anything else that counts.

It's mildly interesting, but Hanson's straw man is only that.

Hanson is correct on many accounts, but there is more going here than meets the eye.

Politics aside, Americans also hate Bush because they need a scapegoat for all their fears after 9-11.

Americans resent the loss of their freedom and being held hostage to the wims of homeland security bulletins.

Saddam is out of the picture without the benefit of WMD's to justify his ousting, and we haven't been able to catch Osama.

So Bush has become the default fixation for all our frustrations.

Hal,

Which premise do you find to be false? That people hate Bush?

That's disingenuous, Jeremy.

Sorry, no time for games.

Feh. Another post from Wonderland.

For the record:

I hated Bush when he was my Governor. He's an ignorant frat boy who failed in every endeavor he ever initiated. He's a spoiled, vindictive little brat who had the world handed to him on a silver platter. He's an ignorant turd of a human being who wouldn't know history if it bit him on the ass.

He's President because a cabal of Neo-Cons figured he'd make a good puppet if they fixed him up with some land in Texas, a chain saw, and a bass boat.

Oh, and his eyes are too close together.


Gimmee a sec... I'll think of more reasons...

xxoo
Shark

BB, just a tip: Freud is dead.

carry on.

I don't hate Bush, perhaps this comment would be better under a blog of 'Why I am a Democrat'.

Conservatives rant about Theresa Heinz Kerry being a 'bitch'. They rant about how Kerry panders to voters who vote with their bong pipes or their bungholes. They rant about how Hillary Clinton is a dog. (note: all these comments are from conservatives on this site alone, however, I see this type of talk everytime a conservative speaks). Conservatives are the ones filled with hate.

In the media, they refuse to focus on facts, instead clinging only to false rhetoric and slander, or skew and misrepresent facts and statistics to further their agenda. They believe in the right to discriminate against law-abiding taxpayers. They are intolerant, self-serving and hypocritical.

They assume the world looks through the same ideological lens that they do. Because they are so filled with hate, they assume their opponents are as well, so they create blogs entitled 'why do you HATE Bush', with hate in capital letters to amplify negativity.

They believe in their own pocketbook over the welfare of mankind. They are against medical care for those who cannot afford it, because they don't want to pay for it, yet they don't care if millions of sickly people would then get on the same plane as them, or walk down the same shopping aisle as them, coughing all over the products, etc. Their pocketbook is more important than the teachings of Jesus - the teachings of compassion and helping the poor and downtrodden. They are greedy and compassionateless.

They tout moral character and moral behavior above all else, yet when THEY fail (Rush with his addiction, Jack Ryan with his fetish, etc.) they forgive. They do not forgive their opponents, but rather twist the knife in the back deeper for their human failings.

They resort to unscrupulous tactics and witchhunts, at taxpayer expense (Kenneth Starr), they sabotage elections in this free country, they mislead and deceive. They equate or want to empower corporations with the same rights and privileges of a human being, when that only can happen at the expense of human beings. They cling to moral ideologies when it suits them (abortion, stem cell research, same-sex marriage, etc.), and disregard moral ideologies when it does not suit them (death penalty, greed, envy, divorce, etc.)

They have their interpretation of what is moral and right, and will stop at nothing to make sure that all of the diverse melting pot that is America must live under their ideology. They want children of all faiths to be taught creationism in school. They want their 10 Commandments in federal buildings.

They put ideological blinders on. They believe that if we do not educate youth about sex and condoms, but tell youth to just wait, then youth will do so. They believe a President who has a vision on the war on terror is more important than the vision itself.

Their hypocrisy knows no bounds:

1) The U.S. should get out of the United Nations, BUT our highest priority was enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

2) A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all humankind with little regulation.

3) A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, but then demand their cooperation and money.

4) HMOs and insurance companies make profits and have the interest of the public at heart.

5) Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

6) Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him and Rumsfeld reassured him he was our buddy, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, but then a bad guy again when Bush junior needed a prop for his reelection campaign as the "war president".

7) The public has a right to know about Hilary Clinton's cattle trades, but George Bush's Harken Oil stock trade should be sealed in his Daddy's library, and is none of our business.

8) What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s was of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

9) Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a "spirit of international harmony".

10) Toot the 'small government' horn to death but then spend like there is no tomorrow and run up deficits that your grandchildren will have to pay, while at the same time returning as much tax money as possible to rich people who do not need it.

They are against Affirmative Action because they believe it gives preferential treatment based on race, but they refuse to acknowledge that to get to the point where Affirmative Action comes into play (employment, college admissions), the playing field is unequal to begin with.

I could fill a book with all the hypocrisies and all that is wrong with conservative ideology. I am opposed to George Bush because he is a representative of the conservative platform. I believe his administration to be corrupt (Halliburton/energy). I believe his ideological blinders when it comes to terrorism is causing America more harm than help. But I do not HATE anybody, because I am a true, proud liberal.

I need to update number 8 to say:

8) What Bill Clinton AND John Kerry did in the 1960s was of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

Write the book, BCB.

Hal,

I didn't intend to be disingenuous, I apologize if I came off that way. I'm a bit busy myself today and I suppose it was intellectual laziness that prevented me from responding to your post in a more thorough manner. Unless something bizarre happens, that won't likely happen today, although I'm sure we can work through it later.

Boomcrashbaby, thanks for taking the time to respond. I agree that many conservatives are loud at the mouth and I am frustrated anytime I hear anyone on any side of the political spectrum resort to insulting their political opponents. It makes no sense and it polarizes, leaving little room for open, honest discourse.

Regarding my capitilization of HATE in the title of the post, I suppose that I was emphasizing the negativity, and for that I am culpable. For the record, I do not hate John Kerry. I think he's a charming individual who seems to be pretty intelligent. His general equivocality gives me pause, however.

I have heard some negativity from the right directed at THK and H. Clinton, among others, but I don't think it's anywhere near the level of vitriol I've heard directed towards Bush.

Irrespective of the source or the target, it seems to me that the reckless anger towards ones political opposites results in a lack of action.

I could go on and on about this and I believe that I could explain my personal beliefs (in the context of my own life's actions) to you in a way that would cause you, if not to like me, then at least to understand where I am coming from and perhaps even respect me.

Shark: A Freudian tip.

Bitterness is a symptom of penis envy.

But you're still cool in my books. ;-)

xxoo

Hal- There is way more to the deficits than the tax cuts. The cuts contributed, but only in a very modest way.

The deficits were caused by a flat economy which featured reduced incomes across the board, to individuals and corporations of all sizes and statures. While revenues tanked, old spending commitments remained while new commitments were added.

The relative earning power of each player in the economy is far more crucial than any single tax break. The tax rates can be halved if revenues triple, and you'll end up with more net renevue.

You're wrong on this one, Mike.

The tax cut is about $270 billion of the approximately $450 billion deficit.

Corporate sales, profits and margins are way, way, way up - details in last week's Business Week. I don't have a copy handy but do remember that in the Big Pharma and Merged Big Oil segments were extra hot.

Boomcrashbaby, thanks for taking the time to respond. I agree that many conservatives are loud at the mouth and I am frustrated anytime I hear anyone on any side of the political spectrum resort to insulting their political opponents

One other thing I should point out is that the most vitrolic venom from the left that you hear, are from individuals on the net, or those on the extreme left who do not represent the majority of liberals. This does not apply conversely.

i.e. We often hear of the 'liberal' media, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc. yet while Aaron Brown, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, etc. might present a news story with a liberal bias, they are not comparable to O'Reilly, Coulter, Novak, Rush, etc.

The left presents it's case with a bias, perhaps. The right presents it's case with bias and wit venom, and it is done via the media and the media correspondents, which can only indicate that it is representative of the true feelings of conservatives. I've never heard Tom Brokaw or Aaron Brown rant with the venom that Rush or Scarborough or Hannity does. And conservatives give these venomous pundits legitimacy. Bias might extend across both parties, but hatred belongs to one.

I could go on and on about this and I believe that I could explain my personal beliefs (in the context of my own life's actions) to you in a way that would cause you, if not to like me, then at least to understand where I am coming from and perhaps even respect me

It is hard for me to like or dislike anybody who is no more than words on a screen. Although I do admit there are people who I look forward to reading, and people who I don't. So I might not like you, per se, I'm probably incapable of understanding where you are coming from, but one thing is for sure, I won't HATE you. :-)

Why do I hate Bush, because they were nothing more than a pretty-boy watered down video rip-off of Soundgarden-Pearl Jam grunge whatever, and the fact they have faded into obscurity is only justification for opposing them in the first place.

Hal- I'd love to see sources on the numbers. Forgive me if you have posted them previously and I have simply not seen them.

If we use the numbers you supplied, I'm still looking for gaps to fill. $270B of $450B is explained by tax cuts. However, more than the remaining $180B of deficit can be explained by spending increases. Why isn't the deficit larger, then?

When conservatives first started whimpering and wringing their hands about "Bush hatred," I admit I felt a certain degree of schadenfreude. The Clinton hatred I suffered through for eight years was far more heated, concentrated and poisonous -- flagged for years by most of talk radio America, Richard Mellon Scaife and finally reaching its pustulent zenith with Kenneth Starr. Even Jesse Helms said at one point that Clinton shouldn't visit North Carolina because he'd be assassinated -- which I think he said with some degree of approval. Has anyone yet said anything like that to Bush? No. I say to conservatives everywhere: dry up and take heart, our hatred will never reach the level of yours and for that you can be grateful. You guys are the gun nuts, remember, not us.

The reasons for general Bush contempt are not to be found in Hansen's clueless piece; the most searchingly honest Bush-hater in the world likely will not find himself reflected in Hansen's comments, which mostly amounts to grasping at straws. What Hansen reveals isn't why people hate Bush, but why Hansen loves him. What he misses about Bush -- or what, I guess, he finds approving -- is what really sticks in the craw of people who dislike Bush: the president's obnoxious fuck-you swagger. He's not some man of the people who fled the comforts of privilege; he's a bully with a superiority complex who is in the business of protecting privilege. I look at him -- and a lot of Americans look at him -- and see the summation of every schoolyard thug, every roofie-dropping frat boy, every miserable rich kid who made the lives of others miserable knowing perfectly well that he could get away with it. He's always gotten away with it. He was a dumbass who got into Yale on daddy's ticket, a National Guardsman who conveniently absented himkself on weekends, a wretched businessman, a lousy governor, and -- thanks to the Supreme Court -- one of the very worst presidents this country has ever had, and he rides through it all with a smile and bearing that says: "Motherfucker I'm just getting warmed up. I'll rape your whole fucking family, set your house on fire and roast marshmallows on your charred remains and no one will ever touch me." It's no real wonder why people would despise a president whose motto ought to be -- indeed, whose message to the world at large has been -- "I'm George W. Bush. Kiss my ass."

Jonathan Chait -- who has a far more penetrating view of Bush hatred than Hansen, and which is all the more compelling because he speaks as a bona fide Bush-hater -- put it this way in The New Republic: "He reminds me of a certain type I knew in high school--the kid who was given a fancy sports car for his sixteenth birthday and believed that he had somehow earned it. I hate the way he walks--shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo. I hate the way he talks--blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang. I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him. I hate his lame nickname-bestowing-- a way to establish one's social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?). And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more."

Boomcrash, excellent summary!


BB, re: yer Freudian analysis:
1) penis envy doesn't effect the flaccid (me)
2) Psychology is not a Science.
xxoo,
S


re: Jonathon Chait - YOU MEAN I'M NOT ALONE?!!

IE. compare his statements to mine in Comment #8

I rest my case.

Mike, the data was probably in Business Week or the Wall Street Journal (NOT the neocon OpEd pages or OpinionJournal).

I'm probably going to blog something on taxes in a while and will try to get a definitive cite.

Shark:

"penis envy doesn't effect the flaccid (me)"

Hmmm. Low blow brother. That hit a soft spot.

Boomcrash, excellent summary!

Thanks, Shark. It's truly how I feel about the conservative ideology. You know what's sad is that there is an assumption that one wants Bush out of office because of hate, when the reality for many is that one wants Kerry in because of love, compassion and concern (for fellow man).

(And I already know which right-wingers are going to tear that statement apart, with comments such as 'sensitive', 'wimpy', and of course...gay.)

And they would not be wrong to do so, would they?

The only reason Bush hatred is an issue for conservatives is that the left spent years pointing out exactly what Rodney pointed out- that the right was laying the hatred on Clinton. So, if hatred for the Pres was wrong-headed and fit for criticism during that admin, isn't it still fit for criticism now?

Methinks yes, so I am not impressed with the left that correctly identified 'angry white men' as an unfortunate characteristic of the right, only to serve up its own angry white men- Michael Moore, Howard Dean, the new Al Gore, etc. I am pleased that John Kerry isn't displaying hatred for Bush. I do wish that he'd circulate the memo to the rest of the team to elevate the discourse and run on ideas.

Never would have had you pegged for a right-winger, Rodney. If concern for the welfare of others is wimpy, then wimpy I am.

I'm not a right-winger, but yes, your statement did sound wimpy, as you yourself seemed to suspect. I'm not voting for Kerry because I want a Maharishi-in-Chief.

I don't suspect it, Rodney. As I stated, I knew right wingers would attack it though. As I pointed out earlier, they preach the word of Jesus, but often attack those who follow it.

As I said, if following the teachings of Jesus and looking on the sickly and the poor with compassion is wimpy, then wimpy I am.

And perhaps you are a closeted right-winger and will just discover your true ideology later in life than most people.

And perhaps you are a devout Republican mole trying to weaken the Democratic Party from within.

Hey, let's just end this problem and have BOTH sides drop any expressions of compassion.

Yeah, it's a better world already.

brrr.

I don't want to go this route with you Rodney. Think of me as a wimp if you want, for being concerned for the welfare of others.

aside:

(Frankly, I'd vote for Buddha before I'd vote for Yaweh.)

What does that 'make' me?

It means you work at the Kwik-E-Mart in Springfield?

Rodney, yer link don't worky, and anyway:

That would probably be "Ganesh."

yer welcome,
Shark (aka "Mr. Compassionate")

hey shark, can you fix me up with a chutney slurpee??

;-)

Sorry, Shark -- the Goddess of Hyperlink just wasn't on my side. I think she and boomcrash -- the reported top pick to be the Kerry Administration's Secretary of Cuddling -- are handling soup kitchen duties with Brother Love's Traveling Salvation Show.

I should add to my comment 10 and 17, that while I believe the conservative platform is one of intolerance and their ideology is one of spite, those two values are not exclusive to individuals on the right.

Mike, apparently the real number is $276 billion, based on Joint Committee on Taxation estimates.

There's a detailed discussion here, but I haven't found the original source yet.

"more than the remaining $180B of deficit can be explained by spending increases. Why isn't the deficit larger, then?"

Because, as always happens, tax cuts stimulate the economy, an expanded economy increases tax revenue. Eventually, the tax collected outgains the increased deficit (the part that is caused by tax cuts anyway) when the deficit is measured as a percentage of revenue receipts. Usually Congress see's the improved economic condition and advocates yet more spending.

Unfortunately, explaining to a Bush hating liberal how the deficit is only meaningful as a percentage of GDP is like teaching Bart Simpsons dog to catch a Frisbee.

Also, I prefer to think that when recieving a tax cut, the amount is most meaningful as a percentage of your total tax bill. In that catagory, a family of four earning low to mid 40k benefited the most from the Bush tax cuts.

It's good that the family in the example has 2 kids, since the tax cuts were given during a time of war and military spending is at it's peak in our history, those kids will need to invest their 200 dollar max. savings from the tax cut now to salvage their bankrupt nation when they are older.

Yeah, sure, Dan, it worked when Reagan did it.

Ahaha

"military spending is at it's peak in our history,"

not as a percentage of overall spending, again, more distortion from liberals. You could say that in 2004, spending on almost everything is "at it's peak in our history". Not so considering inflation and ever-expanding budgets.

"Yeah, sure, Dan, it worked when Reagan did it."

Like nobody's business. (expression meaning: "boy howdy did it ever!")

Another "hate Bush" entry. Would someone please prove that people who disagree with Shrub's policies' hate him? I'm tired of reading the accusation without evidence it is true. Has there been an assassination attempt I'm not aware of or something? Or do the accused just plan not to vote for him?

Diva,

Google search for the exact phrase "hate George Bush" yields 6420 results, while the same phrase for Bill Clinton yields 931 results.

Is this a "proof"? Of course not. Especially since the internet has grown significantly since Clinton left office. Still, I sense significant malice directed towards the President, particularly in the public space.

I have known many people to be more candid, if less lucid, about their political views in the comfort of their own homes, where they express more vehemently their likes and dislikes. Private opinion is one thing, and I will grant you that many conservatives I know expressed a certain lack of fondness for former President Bill Clinton.

The public expression of fashionable dissent in the form of obscene humor (Whoopi Goldberg), bad grammar or misuse of words (Fred Durst and Ben Affleck(who gave $2000 to Dennis Kucinich but now appears to live in John Kerry's tourbus)), double-bird flip, f-bomb and contribution to the delinquency of a minor (Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston), or a veiled death threat on t-shirt (Erikah Badou(sp)) is an entirely new phenomenon.

I don't begrudge celebrities and citizens their right to free speech. God bless them for caring enough to say or do something, it just seems to be more fashionable to loathe the president in an incoherent way than ever before.

As I have suggested to you in the past, Diva, I think there are plenty of criticisms one could level at GWB, but the fact of the matter is that most people I talk to are content to rely on ad hominem attacks like 'Bush is a Nazi' or 'I just want that idiot out of the white house'. That's fine, they'll probably get what they wish for. I'm just not sure they're going to like what's behind door number 2.

forget the internet.

for "hate bill clinton", check the archives of talk radio.

it is a deep and nasty well.

I do not support Shrub's policies. However, to rise (or perhaps drop) to the level of hate, he would have to do some awful evil I could blame on him without complicity by the populace or other politicians. Many other people likely feel the same way I do. I believe the word 'hate' is being misused.

searching for the exact phrase 'hate George Bush' would return results from people who hate Bush, as well as people who are just talking about how those in the middle east hate Bush, right? If I said the sentence, 'Islamic fundamentalists hate George Bush and his cowboy attitude', wouldn't that be included in your results, yet it doesn't mean what you imply it means. Is that how you arrive at your numbers? Doesn't sound very effective to me, if so. Although I will concede that a lot of people hate him, but also a lot of people use the word hate friviously (i.e. I hate lima beans, but it doesn't mean I really have a burning desire to vote them off the plate.)

I will grant you that many conservatives I know expressed a certain lack of fondness for former President Bill Clinton.

That's funny. So in your mind, the left HATES Bush, but the right has a 'lack of fondness'. So it's a lack of fondness that cost us millions in taxpayer dollars for a partisan witchhunt. It's a lack of fondness that causes right wing bloggersto slam him with such language that would make dear Jim Carruthers blush. Heehee. Lack of fondness, that's a good one.

...excuse me...

May I interrupt this hair-splitting to declare that I fucking HATE George Bush and I'm proud of it?

(Someday, you people will look back at this moment and say, "By gawd, Shark was right by hating Bush. That evil fuck pushed us to the brink of bankruptcy and Armageddon and I believe that for the good of Humankind, Barbara should have aborted him with a barbeque spatula and a douche of hydrochloric acid.")

Yes you will.


"Hate for Peace!" -- Shark

Oh, and another Sign of The End Times:

When Googling a phrase becomes a legitimate form of argument, epirical data gathering, or an appeal to lucidity.

Oy.

Using Google was never meant to prove anything. How could I prove this? Hate is first of all a subjective word that means different things to different people.

Boomcrash,

When I used the phrase 'lack of fondness' I wasn't attempting to soften the feelings of conservatives. It was, I suppose, a failed use of irony in the form of understatement. I certainly heard 'Clinton is an idiot' many times. I don't recall a time when I heard someone say 'i hate bill clinton,' but I suppose I probably did.

Let's say John Kerry were President right now...how do you feel things would be different with respect to the deficit and the war in Iraq? I think our deficit issues would be similar. Granted, the tax cuts are one part of our increased deficit, but a general downturn in the economy is a big part of that. The place we find ourselves in this economic cycle has little to do with Bush's policies, and little, for that matter to do with his predecessors. Yes, the deficit was non-existent during the Clinton administration, but at least some part of that was due to decreased military and intel spending. Would we have caught 9/11 before it happened had some of that intel spending not been reduced? I think it's foolish to make that argument, because it's not provable and it comes off looking like the partisan blame game. 9/11 also had an effect on the economy. First of all, it was and is expensive to New York. Secondly, we lost a good 2 weeks worth of productivity because no one I knew was operating at full capacity for some time afterwards.

John Kerry's social programs stand to cost Americans money and increase the deficit significantly over time, particularly if he does as he as promised, to make permanent the tax cuts to those making less than 200k per year. The Alternative Minimum Tax is also an issue that someone's going to have to deal with as it creeps closer and closer to the middle class, and that, if fixed, will only make tax revenues larger.

I think i've gathered significant data to answer my former question, but now I ask another: will John Kerry make it better? Perhaps I'll blog on this today.

Rhetorical Question of the Day:

"Will John Kerry make it better?"

SHARK'S ANSWER: No. We're in too deep. It's like taking the wheel of a car with no brakes, no steering -- that's headed for a concrete pillar at 100mph.

I'm voting for Bush just so he can inherit his own Bed of Shit.

Let's say John Kerry were President right now...how do you feel things would be different with respect to the deficit and the war in Iraq?

I think that's impossible to determine. I can't base my opinion or my vote or that, so that question is irrelevant.

Would we have caught 9/11 before it happened

Who can say? I do believe in the phrase 'the buck stops here'. When A company goes bankrupt, it's usually blamed on the failed management of those at the top, whether or not they are directly involved (of course, not being directly involved makes all the difference, doesn't it?) If 9/11's occurrance is because the correct information did not make it to the top, it does not excuse the top, it means the top is at fault for not insuring the correct information flows properly. The right is so forgiving for this President. Everything that goes right, he gets credit for, everything that goes wrong is not his fault.

John Kerry's social programs stand to cost Americans money and increase the deficit significantly over time, particularly if he does as he as promised, to make permanent the tax cuts to those making less than 200k per year.

First, let me say what is wrong with this statement (in my opinion), then let me state why I vote the way I do.

First, all this statement does, is look at the immediate cost to our pocketbook. It looks no further. To me that is greedy and short sighted, and about as deep as conservatives will look at the situation. (No offense). Let's take for example a social program designed to get people off crack and a social program designed to teach the unemployable a skill so they can enter the workforce. If I pay a bit more now in both those cases, yes, it might cost me a few more dollars, but because of the first program, the number of people entering prisons goes down, therefore we save money in the long term by not having to pay for their incarceration. Also, those people as well as the people in the second program can get jobs, support themselves, decreasing the cost of welfare, and they put money back into the system via their consumerism, which helps America grow and thrive. So I see it as beneficial to pay a bit more now, and reap the greater rewards later on. Republicans are against social programs because of the cost of helping others, but they do not acknowledge the benefits of those social programs, and the fact that you get your money back via the benefits. i.e. helping others helps yourself.

Now in terms of why I vote the way I do: People can come up with all the numbers and data that they want, that show if a President is doing good or not economically, or on security issues, or whatever, but I don't give those numbers near the weight of what I see in the real world around me. We are middle class. Since I moved out on my own (during the Reagan years) and became aware that my situation is influenced by things other than my paycheck, I have seen my situation grow and thrive under Democratic presidents and their policies and get significantly worse under Republican presidents. If people want to tell me the economy is booming now, that's all fine and good, but since Bush took office the company I work for has gone from 35 employees to 10 and my job is scheduled to be phased out in November. The company my spouse works for, while not quite as dismal, is certainly suffering from similiar effects under a Republican adminstration. These types of situations affect my vote far more than numbers on a statistics report.

boom, how dare you let multi-leveled facts and nuance into this dicussion?!!!

Boom it does not go un noticed that you decree us "greedy" conservatives as being unable to think deeper than our pockets, all the while making your own financial reasons for voting against Bush the main thrust of your argument.

Personally I have never cast my vote one way or the other for financial reasons. I don't disagree that a healthy economy is a good thing, but it is not the most important thing facing us today.

I did not vote for Bush first time around but I will this time as I believe he is the only candidate that believes in "actually getting off your ass and doing something" to make this world a safer place.
You may not like the reality of the world we live in today and neither do I but pretending it doesn't exist and voting Bush out will not make the reality change.

You also may not like Bush's "kiss my ass pretty boy smirk," but there is no doubt that neither does, Al Sadr, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, Kim Jong, Khamenei and countless other thugs that wish to do us harm.

I respect your outlook on social programs but lets not pretend that these programs are not greatly abused in this Country and until someone is willing to make the hard choices to restructure them, dumping more and more money into the situation is not going to do anything but bleed the tax payers dry.

The latest polls put support for Shrub's Silly War at half of the population. Despite all the efforts to convince us that Lindie Englands 'spreading democracy' is a good thing. Contrary to what the author of this entry believes, there are people who change their minds. If the trend of erosion continues until Election Day, we will not need to have this discussion anymore. Shrub will not be hated, he will be irrelevant.

and therein lies the difference between someone like you and someone like me - you can not see the bigger picture of what is at stake here beyond your fixation on the actions of a small number of US soldiers and your refusal to acknowledge the good that the countless others have done.
I have yet to see any conservatives defending the prison abuse despite your attempt to make it sound as though we do.

I'm not certain what you are basing your assumption of me not believing people change their minds on. I have no doubt that it can be done considering I did state in my post that I changed my mind about Bush and that is why I choose to vote for him.

I have yet to see any conservatives defending the prison abuse despite your attempt to make it sound as though we do.

you're kidding, right?

rush limbaugh did this on the radio...beamed right out over armed forces radio.

lovely.

Boom it does not go un noticed that you decree us "greedy" conservatives as being unable to think deeper than our pockets, all the while making your own financial reasons for voting against Bush the main thrust of your argument

I was aware of that as I was typing it. To me, the difference is that one is greedy at the expense of others, the other situation (mine) betters us all, myself included. I will concede the fact that I will not vote for somebody who puts me in the poor house.

I focused on the economic also, because it was the gist of the question posed to me. Other factors of equal relevance that I vote on, are homeland security, civil rights, separation of church and state, to name a few, but those weren't relevant to the discussion.

I wasn't kidding, I really had not heard it. But then again I don't listen to Limbaugh. Despite my right wing outlook I find his sarcasm a little much to digest

Regarding Lyndie England and the rest of the torturers, I have no tolerance whatsoever for their actions. They should have known better and in their cruelty, they fed terrorist hate and put literally millions of lives at stake, not to mention hurting and belittling individuals who couldn't help themselves. There is no excuse for their behavior and quite frankly, there are few punishments that they could receive that would be equal to my estimation of their crimes.

I hadn't heard Rush defend the abuses or the reaction to the abuses, but evidently, he's not the only conservative who has done so. James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, said the following:

"You know they're not there for traffic violations," he told a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "If they're in cellblock 1-A or 1-B, these prisoners, they're murderers, they're terrorists, they're insurgents. Many of them probably have American blood on their hands, and here we're so concerned about the treatment of those individuals."

Rush did not defend what happened at Abu Ghraib. Nor did James Inhofe. What they said was "let's put this in perspective." Nothing wrong there. The same people who are oh-so-outraged by the prison abuses don't seem to get that excited about the mass graves.

As for polls, thank heavens we have a president who does what he thinks is right regardless of the "poll of the day". It's called leaddership. If FDR had listened to the polls in 1940 he would have never fought to get Lend-Lease through congress. Up to 80% of Americans didn't want to even aid Great Britain.

Also, please stop the name calling; "shrub." Grow up.

Hey Boomcrashbaby

1) Not all conservatives want out of the UN. And those who do did not care about the resolutions.
2) There are two bodies involved. The woman and her baby.
3) We didn't belittle anybody. We asked them to enforce their own (UN) resolutions and they said no. We asked them to help us and they said no. That's not belittling.
4) And you have a problem with profits why? The profit motive has lead to the most benefits for the most people of any economic system.
5) Both are socialism. The difference is that the Iraqis want universal health care (or at least we'll let them vote on it) and I don't. Democracy.
6) Stop the "daddy" line and grow up. We were allied with the Soviet Union in WWII. Did that make FDR evil? Or even wrong?
7) Don't know enough to comment.
8) I'm not quite sure what you mean here.
9) "spirit of international harmony"? No, it's more a case of economic necessity with regard to the PRC. With regard to Cuba, they deserved the embargo early on because of their destabilizing expansionist policies. But I'd agree that we ought to lift it now.
10) I agree that GWB has been too big of a spender
11) "affirmative action" - Uh, the playing field is now largely level. You're living in the '50s.

We are all entitled to our own opinions/perspective. Is this not correct? Perhaps I can explain it better this way:

Let's say there is a conservative who agrees with same-sex marriage (SSM). And we all know Bush opposes it. This same conservative, for reasons other than SSM, wants to vote for Bush. At this point, the conservative's view on SSM is irrelevant because the conservative is empowering (with his/her vote) Bush's ideology about the issue.

This is why I have said repeatedly that at the end of the day, it doesn't matter, all the shades of grey, of one's political ideology, because when it comes time to vote, there is only the black and the white.

I get labeled all the time as a vegetarian tree-hugger, despite the fact that I've never advocated saving a tree and I love cheeseburgers, pizza and steak. Because I vote liberally, I empower all the liberal ideology that gets put into place, whether or not I agree with it.

It's the same principle as someone saying 'I don't agree with the bully who wants to hit you with a baseball bat, but for other reasons, I need to tell the bully that you're hiding in the basement.' At that point, what does it matter whether or not he agrees with the bully?

Again, it is my perspective that conservative ideology (that all conservatives may not agree with 100%) is greedy, hypocritical, intolerant, judgemental, racist, bigoted, and just all around harmful towards the greater good of the collective.

Whether or not a conservative feels all those things, is less relevant to me than if that conservative goes ahead and empowers that ideology.

I have no problem with profits. I favor capitalism. I do acknowledge that if left unchecked, it comes at the expense of the populace, rather than to it's benefit. I'd comment on the rest, but I already have, repeatedly, elsewhere throughout this site, I'd recommend clicking on my name to see all my comments and tracking down the answers that way so I don't have to keep repeating the obvious.

I have always been fascinated by the way 'greed' is explained. In the modern parlance, 'A' is greedy if 'A' wishes to keep what 'A' earns; while 'B' is somehow not greedy if 'B' wishes to take from 'A' to fulfill B's moral-political agenda. Hypocrisy is to be found in trying to explain this reality away.

LOL! at Steve (Boom)! Great analogy with the bully and the baseball bat. I think part of being in an outgroup is that you're constantly told, 'yes, I am going to stand by while your head is bashed, or I am going to help bash your head,' but I don't mean anything unpleasant by doing so.' The analogy captures that.

Red, are you or have ever been a member of the John Birch Society? The things you are saying make me wonder. No, let me guess, you are a Libertarian.

Rodney:

What he misses about Bush -- or what, I guess, he finds approving -- is what really sticks in the craw of people who dislike Bush: the president's obnoxious fuck-you swagger. He's not some man of the people who fled the comforts of privilege; he's a bully with a superiority complex who is in the business of protecting privilege. I look at him -- and a lot of Americans look at him -- and see the summation of every schoolyard thug, every roofie-dropping frat boy, every miserable rich kid who made the lives of others miserable knowing perfectly well that he could get away with it. He's always gotten away with it.

So you are now in tune with, and able to read the minds of all Bush haters and expound for them. How nice.

And how do you respond? With your perceptions, and zero facts.
Nice, real nice, the title of this post fits you to a tee.

Mike Kole - if comment #67 is in reference to me, I'd like to refer you back to comments #55/56, where it is clear that conservatives (of either Republican or Liberterian ideology) cannot see the multi-faceted bigger picture.

I work, I earn a paycheck. I'd like to keep my paycheck. Does that make me greedy? No. Let's look beyond the simplistic.

By greedy, I am talking about shipping jobs overseas, the pilfering of employee pensions, paying below minimum wage to hard working Americans, blah, blah, etc.

Of course, I do not expect a conservative to read my comments about their ideology and agree with me. But that is my perspective as well as the perspective of a lot of liberals that I know of.

Thanks, MD. (comment 68).

I know that my perception of things cannot be seen by at least half, so it's always encouraging to get words of affirmation.

boomcrashbaby, that was a thoughtful post; # 66 and 70. Though I disagree with you you have refrained from the ad hominem.

Heavens no I'm not a John Bircher. Don't take the handle too literally.

Actually I'm about half libertarian half neoconservative.

Thanks Red. No problem. One day when you're hiding in the basement, you'll see what I mean.

OK, Boom. I looked back and found that a fascinating exercise. I'm glad that it was pointed out to me that I am a conservative. I'm not. I'll accept being called a fiscal conservative, but that gets to less than half of what I'm about. If you can't see the difference between a libertarian and a political conservative, then it would be you who can't find nuance.

I could- and used to- accept that social problems would have the effect you described in comment #55, that the programs would help bring people into the fold by giving them a hand up. Problem is that pesky evidence. The Great Society and the War on Poverty were launched more than 30 years ago. Why hasn't poverty gone away? Am I being too simplistic, not nuanced enough when I say that the premise is incorrect? The evidence is, the programs fail to solve the root problems.

Look at any of the Wars on fill-in-the-blank. Reagan looked at the War on Poverty and concluded, "Poverty won". I agree, but I'll also look at the War on Drugs and conclude, "Drugs won". The only social program I know of that can make a difference is education, and most social programs are not education, but handouts. Alas, even education is useless on an unwilling or uninterested recipient.

It is the futility of the handout program that leads me to condemn it, not any uncaring or greed as misperceived by others. It strikes me as a terrible injustice to take from people for the purpose of fueling futile programs.

Look at any of the Wars on fill-in-the-blank

I took a look at the "War on Terror" as it has been implemented so far, and can't argue with you, Mike.

If you can't see the difference between a libertarian and a political conservative, then it would be you who can't find nuance.

I will concede that my knowledge of Libertarians are limited to what I have read of Al Barger. There are differences, but the similarities outweight them. Both believe in small government (although conservatives no longer practice that theory). While Al believes that corporations should have the same rights as individuals, conservatives believe that corporations should have the same freedoms as individuals. (And for conservatives out there who do not subscribe to this ideology, all I can say is that is what your platform is doing anyway). I see more similarities than differences, Mike.

I could- and used to- accept that social problems would have the effect you described in comment #55, that the programs would help bring people into the fold by giving them a hand up. Problem is that pesky evidence. The Great Society and the War on Poverty were launched more than 30 years ago. Why hasn't poverty gone away? Am I being too simplistic, not nuanced enough when I say that the premise is incorrect? The evidence is, the programs fail to solve the root problems.

Jesus said there will always be poverty. That shouldn't mean we throw our hands up in the air and just accept it. We still need to fight it.

I agree that there are ineffective programs out there. I had to use welfare one time in my life when I was very young. I used it legitimately, in good faith, and only for a few weeks until I could get back on my feet. My mother, before she passed away, worked in the unemployment office trying to get people jobs. There were a great many people who seriously needed the help and did not try to abuse the situation. I guess I have more faith in humanity than you do? This perception of dumping a program that doesn't work is not only your libertarian view, but is also shared by conservatives. Yet another similiarity.

My take on ineffective programs, is: if the air conditioner is broken, I'm not going to be one to just give up and sit in the heat, but work to get the air conditioner fixed.

Even the United Conference on Welfare Fraud, does not advocate shutting the system down but states that "The primary purpose of our organization has always been the promotion of effective and efficient administration of public welfare."

The State of Welfare in the U.S. - 2003 states: "In the late 1970s, the United States spent about 14 percent of the total federal budget on welfare, compared to 24 percent for comparable nations in the West. By 1995, U.S. public social expenditures represented about 17.1 percent of the gross national product, the lowest of ten comparable nations and a little more than half the other nations' average level."

We spend far less than any other industrialized country, proportionate to the population, on welfare. And many conservatives/libertarians want to cut back on that. There are many homeless, mentally ill people who need our help. Yes, there are abusers, and in some areas, some programs, the abuse could be rampant. I won't deny that. But to think that millions and millions of people across the U.S. and the world who rely on welfare are dishonest lazy scammers is to have a cynical view of humanity. I do not have that view.

Boom- Al Barger's notable stand on defense is an exception to the usual libertarian position. And I tend to talk about economic policy. Given that limited exposure, you could conclude that libertarians and conservatives are the same.

However, most libertarians believe in all 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights (conservatives are most fond of the 2nd, but will ditch the 1st & 4th), are generally pro-choice, anti-War on Drugs, and pro-gay rights to name a few. Sound conservative?

Clinton vs Bush 931 vs 6420

It's not fair, Bush has most of the world rooting for him, where Clinton had only America. Whaddayou expect?

Boom: "My take on ineffective programs, is: if the air conditioner is broken, I'm not going to be one to just give up and sit in the heat, but work to get the air conditioner fixed."

The nice thing about an analogy or a piece of machinery is that the solutions are clean. If the air conditioner is broken, you diagnose the problem, replace the broken part, and voila! The air conditioner is fixed.

People aren't like machines, but social programs tend to treat people as they were. Sure, you could argue that the problem is that the person is poor, give him some money, and voila! The problem is fixed. But that is a surface diagnosis, and does not fix the root problem.

This is what perplexes me about your responses, Boom. You accuse fiscal conservatives of being shallow in their thinking. Well, the social program that gives money to fix the problem of poverty is as shallow as it gets. What about addressing the deeper issues? The root causes?

Just to take one, what about an inadequate education? I am sure that you and I can agree that there a great many people who are inadequately educated. There is no quick fix to that problem. Unlike fixing the air conditioner by identifying the faulty part and replacing it, education takes time and a lot more. An individual willing to learn might not be able. An able individual might not be willing. A willing, able individual might not have the support system. &c.

To correctly diagnose the person with an inadequate education, we must be wholly willing to face the realities in the diagnosis. While an A/C technician would never flinch from saying that a hose or wire is broken, most people aren't comfortable being honest enough to identify that the person could be unintelligent or unmotivated, or inadequately supported by parents.

A libertarian, and likely the fiscal conservative, recognizes that these myriad factors and infinitely more are present. The real difference is that we see the development of the individual as the responsibility of the individual and the parents. The fiscal liberal sees the same development as the responsibility of the entire society.

The reality is that the entire society cannot and will not take each individual who has educational deficiencies, to use just this one example, and address all of the root causes of the deficiency. The fiscal conservative accepts this reality. The fiscal liberal attempts to solve the myriad issues via programs.

As I said before, it doesn't work.

As a Libertarian, what I want is a paradigm shift. I want for people to realize that if they bring a child into this world, the responsibility belongs to them, and is not to be defaulted to the greater society. This does not happen if there are social programs in place that fail to address or mask the root problems. There is little motivation for an inadequately educated person to become better motivated to become educated if life is comfortable.

Do not take these comments and suggest that I am in favor of suffering. I am not. I think it is an absolutely wonderful world where inadequately educated people can live comfortable lives, and the United States is a place where this can happen. But not allowing an individual to feel the effects of bad choices is to ensure that they never get rectified.

The social programs we have now are rather like buying an additional air conditioner to be installed into the window next to the broken air conditioner.

I've never advocated just throwing money at something to fix it. I believe in educating the unemployable, not supporting them without stipulations.

Sure, you could argue that the problem is that the person is poor, give him some money, and voila! The problem is fixed. But that is a surface diagnosis, and does not fix the root problem.

It costs money to educate. That is probably where you get the idea that I want to throw money at people to make them feel better. I wasn't referring to pelting the poor with nickels and dimes, I was referring to putting the money into the social program, rather than the individual. A person might not be as easy to fix as an air conditioner, but a social program is. The only hamper is that it is not necessarily in the elected officials best interest to fix a social program.

Since you think all I want to do is put money in the hands of poor people, it kind of makes the rest of your post irrelevant to me, since it is misguided and not countering what my ideology is.

As Jesus once said "Give a man a match and he'll be warm for a moment, but set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life". (or something like that).

Set unemployment benefits at 24 months (or less) for a lifetime. Maybe that could even be lower. Offer training for those who choose it.

We can look at the enrollment of people on welfare and correlate it to the state of the nations economy and see that it flucuates accordingly. This would indicate to me that people with jobs do NOT go 'aha!' and quit their jobs just to collect unemployment, but NEED assistance when they lose their jobs whenever a Republican is in office and Republican corporations ship their jobs overseas.

Boom- I agree with your Jesus 'quote', actually. It represents the paradigm shift I am interested in helping to create.

Gosh, I could have thrown in the towel two days ago if I had acted on my analysis of your posts as irrelevant, misguided, and not countering my ideology. Bummer. That's time I'll never get back again. We could have made such beautiful music together...

What do you expect, Mike?

Another similiarity: EVERY conservative or EVERY libertarian (all two of you), I've ever discussed welfare reform with, goes on the premise that I or some liberal platform is advocating the printing of money and just handing it out willy-nilly.

Even the truest form of communism/socialism, which I do NOT want myself, does not subscribe to that ideology. There certainly is not a Democratic or ANY liberal platform that advocates such. EVERYBODY acknowledges that the system needs an overhaul.

That is one of the roadblocks to welfare reform. Some ideologies subscribe to the theory that liberals want to enable laziness. But we don't. We want to help those that need it, and we want to keep finding the way to do so, while keeping abuse and fraud to an absolute minimum.

If you go into the conversation with the wrong perception of what I or any liberal is about, it stands to reason the conversation will stumble off the path.

If you spend the money now to fix your air conditioner, then your energy bill goes down substantially. Just so everybody knows, every time someone uses the phrase 'throw money at a problem to fix it', it doesn't mean put money in the pockets of people with no stipulations. It takes money though, to come up with feasible criteria for welfare, it takes money for fraud investigators, etc. THAT is where the money needs to go. Spend that money wisely and America will benefit in the long term. Withhold that money and the rampant abuse that exists now can only continue, at our EXPENSE. How can anybody not see otherwise?

"Let's take for example a social program designed to get people off crack and a social program designed to teach the unemployable a skill so they can enter the workforce. If I pay a bit more now in both those cases, yes, it might cost me a few more dollars, but because of the first program, the number of people entering prisons goes down, therefore we save money in the long term by not having to pay for their incarceration. Also, those people as well as the people in the second program can get jobs, support themselves, decreasing the cost of welfare, and they put money back into the system via their consumerism, which helps America grow and thrive. So I see it as beneficial to pay a bit more now, and reap the greater rewards later on. Republicans are against social programs because of the cost of helping others, but they do not acknowledge the benefits of those social programs, and the fact that you get your money back via the benefits. i.e. helping others helps yourself."

So...you support the GOP's position on Welfare Reform? :)

"The company my spouse works for, while not quite as dismal, is certainly suffering from similiar effects under a Republican adminstration."

Spouse = Married, right?

Did you go to Boston recently, BCB?

"boom, how dare you let multi-leveled facts and nuance into this dicussion?!!!"

There weren't any "facts." Just a lot of anecdotes...

"To me, the difference is that one is greedy at the expense of others, the other situation (mine) betters us all, myself included."

How does raising taxes on high-income earners "benefit us all"? It sure as hell doesn't benefit high-income earners! (Which includes millions of small business owners...)

"Rush did not defend what happened at Abu Ghraib. Nor did James Inhofe. What they said was "let's put this in perspective." Nothing wrong there. The same people who are oh-so-outraged by the prison abuses don't seem to get that excited about the mass graves."

Bingo!

The liberal media barely mentions the hundreds of thousands slaughtered by Saddam Hussein (who is now in a prison cell, thanks to Bush), but they seemingly endlessly played-up a few idiots taking "funny" pictures of terrorists.

No bias there!

"Jesus said there will always be poverty. That shouldn't mean we throw our hands up in the air and just accept it. We still need to fight it."

Then thank God that Americans are the people most likely to donate to private charities on Earth!

"But to think that millions and millions of people across the U.S. and the world who rely on welfare are dishonest lazy scammers is to have a cynical view of humanity. I do not have that view."

Yeah, you only hold a cynical view re: conservatives and libertarians...

"We can look at the enrollment of people on welfare and correlate it to the state of the nations economy and see that it flucuates accordingly. This would indicate to me that people with jobs do NOT go 'aha!' and quit their jobs just to collect unemployment, but NEED assistance when they lose their jobs whenever a Republican is in office and Republican corporations ship their jobs overseas."

People who quit their jobs are ineligible for unemployment benefits. They have to be fired/laid-off/downsized/whatever.

Not that I should know, since I've never accepted unemployment benefits...

Yeah, you only hold a cynical view re: conservatives and libertarians..

Well, yeah, conceded. I've gained that view from a lifetime of experience.

People who quit their jobs are ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Yes, I know. I was typing fast. Assuming people would know the obvious. I was trying to state that I don't believe everybody is a scammer or has malicious intent. When the economy is bad, unemployment goes up as well as those seeking welfare. To me, this means that there is legitimacy there, since it's not 'up' all the time. If it were all fraud and all bad, it would be high all the time and wouldn't fluctuate in times of recession. Makes sense to me.

RJ: "Yeah, you only hold a cynical view re: conservatives and libertarians.."

Boom: "Well, yeah, conceded. I've gained that view from a lifetime of experience."

Come on, Boom. You've already conceded that your only experience with libertarians is with me and Al Barger.

It is not correct that I believe that everyone on a social program is a scammer or of ill intent. There is a distinction that you've chosen to miss in my stating that I do not believe that it is the responsibility of one group of people to provide sustenance for even well-meaning people (I really don't care to get the government involved in that sort of thought policing anyhow), if the intended providers do not choose to provide it.

Boom: "When the economy is bad, unemployment goes up as well as those seeking welfare. To me, this means that there is legitimacy there, since it's not 'up' all the time. If it were all fraud and all bad, it would be high all the time and wouldn't fluctuate in times of recession. Makes sense to me."

That fails to take into account a growing population. The number on the rolls can remain perfectly stagnant, but the percentage will drop if the population rises. In the US, the population rises. Europe is instructive, because the population is stagnant or even falling, and there, the unemployment rates are rarely below 10%. My recent trip to Spain (Andalucia) revealed reported unemployment around 37%! It did not take long to observe rather a different work ethic there than the average American has.

I am no advocate of immediate termination of programs. I acknowledge the chaos that would cause, because- not despite- the dependence so many have on the programs. I do like the kind of recommendations you have offered, such as 24-month lifetime maximums. A change in thinking is what's necessary, and that takes time and buying into the paradigm shift. When books come out with titles and premises like 'It takes a Village' the paradigm shift is significantly hampered.

The economic danger of social program funding is that as actual unemployment rises in time of recession, the need for assistance rises, but the society's ability to fund it decreases as fewer and fewer can spare the margin lost to cost (taxation). At the very time that taxes most need to be reduced, they are most depended on and least likely to decrease. That is a recipe for turning recession into depression.

Boom: "I was trying to state that I don't believe everybody is a scammer or has malicious intent. When the economy is bad, unemployment goes up as well as those seeking welfare. To me, this means that there is legitimacy there, since it's not 'up' all the time. If it were all fraud and all bad, it would be high all the time and wouldn't fluctuate in times of recession. Makes sense to me."

I really agree with you to a point. I know that the average person who seeks assistance does it as a last resort. The average person does not look at welfare or social assistance and say, "there's my ticket"! It takes a certain personality to accept that way of life. There are, unfortunately, plenty of people who do accept a minimum assistance kind of life. I would like to reach these people, and it is clear to me that the current system does not reach them any further than bringing them that minimal assistance.

I'd really like to know: How are social programs going to bring about the sort of paradigm shift I have spoken of? What is it that I am missing?

Just an FYI:

"paradigm shift" was declared obsolete, passe, and "an illegal use of a pretentious cliche" in the late 1980s -- along with "touch base with..." and "absolutely!" as a form of "yes."

Carry on.

boomcrashbaby re #73 LOL - I like people with a sense of humor even when we disagree

RJ #89 - thank you.

Here's a question for the liberals: IF you believe that John Kerry's military and combat experience make him uniquely qualified to be president, who did you vote for in 1988, '92, and '96?

It just seems to me that a lot of people on the left have suddenly found military/combat experience to be qualifiers who were strangely silent on these issues in the past fifteen years.

Or do you not believe that his military experience is all that important as to why you're going to vote for him?

I'd be interested in your thoughts.

It just seems to me that a lot of people on the left have suddenly found military/combat experience to be qualifiers who were strangely silent on these issues in the past fifteen years.

given the nature of current world events, the republicans would (rightly so, i think) be attacking any candidate who looked as though he wouldn't be able to deal with national security issues.

this is just a response to that, to take away that issue.

i don't really think it's a trick or anything.

"...Here's a question for the liberals: IF you believe that John Kerry's military and combat experience make him uniquely qualified to be president, who did you vote for in 1988, '92, and '96?"

I'd vote for the first guy who admitted he smoked pot, inhaled, and tried like hell to dodge the draft during vietnam.

Seriously.

Those are acts and traits I deem to be signs of high intelligence.


BTW: I love the fact that Kerry's Nam service is just about to give the Nasty Right a fucking collective aneurism.

~ahahahah!

It shows how vulnerable they truly feel relative to Bush's AWOL, draft-dodgin', daddys-helpin' non-days in the Texas National Guard.

Ahahaha. Rave on, boyz!

Shark, your response is not serious so I'll ignore you.

Mark Saleski; vulnerable? I don't understand your point. Also I don't get how you think you've "taken the issue away."

Yes, you're right, we do attack anyone who looks like they can't handle national security issues. And military experience has nothing to do with fitness to be president. History shows this conclusively. Need I point out that neither Lincoln nor FDR spent a day in the military but are widely regarded as our best wartime presidents.

We're not voting for platoon leader, but for president.

- Neither of you directly answered my question.

RedHunter: "Shark, your response is not serious so I'll ignore you. ...Neither of you directly answered my question"

That's 'cause I usually ignore irrelevant rhetorical questions, but to be 'serious', your question was:

"IF you believe that John Kerry's military and combat experience make him uniquely qualified to be president, who did you vote for in 1988, '92, and '96?"

--Which I don't believe I've heard one pro-Kerry voter say.

BTW: I believe John Kerry is uniquely qualified to be President because *he's not Bush. I'd vote for a potted plant if it would send frat-boy crawling back to his chain-saw in Crawford.

(*I aim to satisfy -- and I give 'em what they want!)

As for not being serious, I'm the only poster on BC who openly admits I'm full of shit, irrational, and don't plan on changing anyone's mind. Some of yall should wake up or fess up; a touch of honesty and self-examination will make you feel better, I promise.

Here's a question for the liberals: IF you believe that John Kerry's military and combat experience make him uniquely qualified to be president, who did you vote for in 1988, '92, and '96?

What is the connection? Sept. 11th, happened after 96. Military and combat experience did not matter to me before. I voted for economic, social, and civil rights issues, these factors are equally important to me now.

And in spite of all the people trying to keep throwing Kerry's records at me, it still matters less than what one plans to do to combat terrorism. 30 years ago, Kerry was on a boat being shot at. 30 years ago, Bush was a smackhead putting coke up his nose.

Bush has a flawed, failed plan. Kerry seeks international support. This matters to me more than what happened 30 years ago, and more than who got to be in a boat or not.

Thank you, Shark. You say you'refor Kerry for reasons other than his war record and that'll do. I'm also kind of liking your sense of humor.

My question is more directed at those who use Kerry's war record as a reason for voting for him.

Boom, if you're supporting Kerry for reasons other than his war record that's good enough for me now. My question is directed at all those who seem to be voting for Kerry due to that record.

And the question is, does military experience make one a better wartime president? History shows it not to be a factor. Again, I refer to Lincoln and FDR as prime examples.

As for now, one reason why we're in this mess is that we ignored security issues in the '90s.

one reason why we're in this mess is that we ignored security issues in the '90s.

Yes, when a bully shoves the little guy down, it's not smart for the bully to then turn around and leave his back unprotected. We ignored the security issues that WE created and we have only ourselves to blame all around.

Of all of the people I know personally who support Kerry (myself included), not one of us is voting for him because of his service record.

Of all of the people I know personally who who are veterans (myself included), not one of us is voting for him because of his service record, either.

(insert smiley face here)

There ya go. Problem solved.

Military records don't matter.

So we'll drop Bush's kinda AWOL days if yall drop Kerry's kinda "unfit for command" bullshit.

Next!

All I know is I'm glad somebody invented the [Page Down] key and gave it an ASCII code.

Y'know what, you should all vote for the guy who invented ASCII (oh, he's dead, bummer).

Well how about somebody who actually knows something about running a country, and stuff, instead of a CEO who is focussed on looting the pension fund, and relocating to the Cayman Islands? Just an idea.

RJ writes: "People who quit their jobs are ineligible for unemployment benefits. They have to be fired/laid-off/downsized/whatever."

Not true. People up and quit their jobs all the time and receive unemployment benefits; it depends on whether the adjudicator or appeals officer at the unemployment insurance office rules the employee was justified in quitting. There ARE unfair employers, and people DO quit jobs for good reasons. A lot of times what will happen is that the claimant -- whether he's fired or quits -- will receive benefits but be penalized a number of weeks, depending on the facts of his or her case.

It's interesting to me that no one has responded with any thought to what I think was the most insightful post in this thread. I'll quote BB:

Politics aside, Americans also hate Bush because they need a scapegoat for all their fears after 9-11.

Americans resent the loss of their freedom and being held hostage to the wims of homeland security bulletins.

Saddam is out of the picture without the benefit of WMD's to justify his ousting, and we haven't been able to catch Osama.

So Bush has become the default fixation for all our frustrations.

If anyone DID respond to BB seriously, I didn't see the post. I admit, though, my eyes started to cross and glaze over long before I finished reading comments.

I agree with BB, and I'll offer the following as well...

Liberals hate Bush because he's unashamedly patriotic. He loves America for what it is. This is in contrast to Clinton, who seemed only to love America for it's potential; for what it could be. His rhetoric was revealing, with talk about building bridges to the future and believing in a place called hope. He never came out and said "I see America as a greedy corporate-driven bully who is responsible for most of the evil in the world," but those who feel that way found it easy to perceive that he shared their hatred. Bush, on the other hand, isn't ashamed of his love for Country. That's unforgivable to the Al Gore/Michael Moore types who see their own country as nothing more than a polluter, impoverisher, and racist murder of brown-skinned people the world over.

Beyond that, hating Bush is trendy. I'm not saying this applies to anyone in this forum, for all I know it might apply to no one here... nonetheless, following trends is easier for some people than thinking and coming to their own conclusions. Hating Bush is just one more trend adopted from our celebrity idols, just like Kabala (sp?) and the South Beach Diet. I can't think of a single celebrity who openly hated Clinton. I can think of very few who DON'T openly hate Bush.

This is, of course, all based on my perceptions. I don't offer any of it as solid fact, just opinion and observation. I'll respond to serious counter-arguments, but I'll ignore flamers.

It's not accurate to paint Kerry as liberal any more than Bush as conservative. Nor is it accurate to align all left with liberals or all right with conservatives. Not only are both candidates centrist, there are millions of voters who are left-conservative or liberal-right. However, most of us are, in reality, centrist except on the few issues we take to heart.
As for Bush:
-He stands for the richest 5% getting
richer which is not representative of
myself
-We WILL have to pay for a long time over the deficit created by the Bush legacy. Let's not forget that we swung from the largest surplus EVER to the largest deficit ever in just a few years. It can be shown this would not have happened if Gore had taken his elected place just as easily as it can be traced directly to policy
-The election was stolen; suspected as such at the time and now known
-War was inevitable given the seating of George W. This was known during the previous election. A mature country finds more reasons against war and uses this model in a leadership position. It's a very ugly precedent to step outside of the UN. War is always a long mess: we knew it was a lie when we were told it would be 'quick and clean'. It has still never been justified to public satisfaction any more than Vietnam though it took many minds of the questions remaining from Desert Storm. Hmmmm...
-We were told by Bush himself that the sole reason for aggression against IRAQ was to rout the WMDs. When the UN said they were doubting their existence but would know soon, Bush moved in quickly as if to say 'that's not the real reason anyway but the public doesn't need to know that'. This killed any remaining support. We're still waiting. Oddly we're worse off because: a) it's the citizens who now get stuck with the $100 billions price tag
b) Going in to the middle east to tidy up Saddam stirs up the Taliban and Al Qaeda who are individuals, not countries, and therefore not culpable, sanctionable, controllable, or predictable.
-Bad environmental record
-Bad record for internal economy
-Unprogressive in curtailing the extreme healthcare crisis
-He's a fundamentalist. That's just alienating for someone in his position
-The cronyism is of a type beyond most politicians
-The manufactured threat of terrorism. We have the same amount of threat that we had ten years ago and twenty years ago. If you followed current events over the last few decades you've been very familiar with these threats as well as the long history (pre-2001) of Osama. So, what's with the constant polticizing of the issue and the marketing of fear? How about a figurehead that does the opposite while taking care of business? I can't buy the philosophy that our level of threat would have been the same with Gore or that IRAQ helped the threat of terrorism. Our level of safety remains unchanged since 9/11 (which was merely a flashpoint not an indicator of a future increase - the threat was well documented before the event)
- The Patriot Act. Why not call it the Anti-Patriot Act? County by County, City by City and State by State it is being banned. Meanwhile, the Bush white house has dismantled the Patriot Act 2 into smaller sections to quiet the masses. Isn't a president supposed to listen to the masses?
-Americans need a scapegoat for 9/11 so they hate Bush? We didn't like him when we didn't vote for him in 2000. Plus, we HAVE a scapegoat - a whole deck.
- The evnts of 9/11 do NOT make the president look good or better. Any sitting president would have been required to do exactly the same as per policy. Though Bush did nothing in this regard for me to hate him (in fact I don't hate him at all - just don't want him leading) he did nothing that didn't equal a call to the superbowl.
FOR THE RECORD, I am a left-conservative-centrist (who sees no artistic value in the work of Michael Moore).

(I don't mean to pick on you, BB):

"Americans also hate Bush because they need a scapegoat for all their fears after 9-11."

My fears are no more nor more less than they were 10 years ago when it was widely publicized that homeland terrorism on a large scale was a matter of time. We don't blame its occurence on Bush at all. We blame it on the suicide-terrorists (now dead) and their nationless but Saudi-rooted organization. When Osama's gone, the threat will remain the same.

"Americans resent the loss of their freedom ".

Our freedom is not AT a loss nor has it recently been from outside forces. Freedom is lost if you do not actively watch and study the government and stand up for freedom when it is threatened. The Patriot Act and other Bush corporate objectives due more to threaten our freedom and health than Saddam, Al Qaida, the Taliban and North Korea together particularly as it will look 100 years from now. If you truly love this country, be a watchdog and speak up about policy.

"Saddam is out of the picture without the benefit of WMD's to justify his ousting, and we haven't been able to catch Osama...So Bush has become the default fixation for all our frustrations"

But Saddam is NOT out of the picture. The war lingers on, the draft is being considered, the price tag looms. Catching Osama is iconic at best anyway. Why did Bush not delineate by saying 'People, forget 9/11 for a minute, forget Osama, forget all else, we gotta go after Saddam and here's why'? Was it because we'd say no? Was it because the administration actually saw a benefit that much of the populace didn't even know the difference between all these issues?

W treats this nation like she belongs to him by divine right or by birth, and he can do whatever he likes to her. Wouldn't you hate the man raped your mother in front of you and then spat in her face and laughed? You want a reason for hatred of W, look no further.

Hilarious

I think Bush actually reminds a lot of people of 9/11 and they just don't want to deal with it anymore

Bush doesn't seem to want to really deal with 9/11 himself, he just wants to remind people of it.

The "Why Do You Hate Bush" essay is simply another attempt by the Right to frame the debate and lure Democrats into a senseless argument that obfuscates the issues. For me, rather or not I hate Bush is hardly worth dignifying with an answer. I oppose his policies and the platform on which his party runs. That's it and that's all. The only things that should matter are the issues and Bush's job performance, which so far has been abysmal. Unfortunately, the Republicans have proven so successful at their smoke and mirrors routine that Bush is running neck and neck with Kerry! Take that Swift Boat nonsense. If Kerry had of got pissed at the outset said these people were liars and reminded the American people about what was truly important (not to mention that he, unlike Bush, was actually in Vietnam) then perhaps Kerry wouldn't be running neck and neck with Bush now. Bush is such a lousy president who has made such terrible mistakes that any campaign team worth its salt would have buried his ass by now.

Sept.11 was awful & it never should have happened, but it did. It single handedly changed a lot about the way we live & the time in which we live our lives. But I hope that all voters will keep it "simple"... and try to separate the "candidate" from his deeds in this election. Clinton started his first 4 years after running against Bush senior & the majority of voters chose him because they were tired of the failed deeds of Bush sr. & they liked what Clinton was saying & promising.
Then Clinton won 4 more years because of his PROVEN good deeds & people were happy with what his administration did! The next election was ("unfairly") given to Bush & he has had 4 years to do what he wanted & we are where we are today. Most people will admit that they & this country are not the same & that things are not what they hoped for! Now we are again voting & we must choose between a candidate who has already shown to us what he was capable of doing, and another who is saying & promising something "new"?! So do we chose the "failed" candidate? Or should we give the "new" one a chance? It would be the same chance that we had given Bush sr. along with all of our other previous presidents? If you believe that we & this country are better off today than we were 4 years ago, when Clinton was president, then some will vote to keep the status quo. But if you don't believe that, then many will vote for a change! I hope that all americans will make the better choice! After all, ... how could anyone want more of what we have now? What makes any one think things will change with the same administration? Just attempt to imagine what the national debt will be? ... what our situation will be with the UN & our old allies? Our economy, etc.? What drastic new changes will this administration accomplish in these next 4 years & why weren't made during the previous years? I hope that people remember that they already had their chance???!!! I don't think that I'm the only one who wonders if the last election had gone the other way, would we have went to war with Iraq?

This is a stupid topic, so I didn't read any of your comments.

Look, I don't hate Bush. His policies are poor ideas, his administration's transparency and accountability to the public and Congress is the worst in modern Presidential history, and it disappoints me that our President thinks so little of the American public in his communications and choices.

I don't hate him as a person or think he's evil. I find him very personable and I'm sure I'd get along with him great.

I think there's way too much hate in today's political climate and what worries me more than the over-enthusiastic anti-Bush crowd (which has become an industry of books and media) who tend to reduce political discussion to caricatures is the hate associated with those who hate those against the war in turn and call them "traitors" and question their patriotism. I worry about people's hate for other parts of the world and hatred toward people who have nothing to d