Topic awaiting preservation: dubya perspective (Page 1 of 1)

quote:

---

It's not that he's mean. It's just that when it comes to seeing how his policies affect people, George W. Bush doesn't have a clue.

---

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/11/ma_559_01.html

Pretty good read. Gives you a bit of a perspective on where he comes from....bla bla... =)

[This message has been edited by NoJive (edited 12-04-2003).]

The primary slam against Bush in that article is that if he does not increase spending tax payer dollars on every social program the government has and create new programs every year, then he is hurting the "poor". Not because he's a bad guy but because he's living in self-denial. Notice how misleading the article words the cuts in certain programs. What the author doesn't mention is that the Republicans don't actually cut back the spending but they merely cut back on the increases in spending. This administration is a conservative's nightmare when it comes to spending!!!

The author assumes that there is only one effective way of helping the poor of this country. There was a time in my life when I believed this to be true. I believed the only way to help the poor was to have the government give them lots of money.

quote:

---

What is the disconnect? One can see it from the other side -- people's lives are being horribly affected by the Bush administration's policies, but they make no connection between what happens to them and the decisions made in Washington.

---

The author's approach to solving this problem IS the problem. It is that mentality that keeps so many people down and keeps them poor. This is why I changed parties in 1996. I came to realize that all of the well-meaning policies of previous administrations primarily that of LBJ caused generations worth of hurt to the underclasses. How? The article names it:

quote:

---

Okay, we cut taxes for the rich and so we have to cut services for the poor. Presumably there is some right-wing justification along the lines that helping poor people just makes them more dependent or something. If there were a rationale Bush could express, it would be one thing, but to watch him not see, not make the connection, is another thing entirely. Welfare, Medicare, Social Security, food stamps -- horrors, they breed dependency.

---

Left wing leaders in this country not only made many dependent on government services but they have become dependent on the dependents and I shudder to think that some of the leaders actually prefer to keep it that way. I prefer to believe they are genuinely well intentioned and simply don't realize the effect of their policies.

I suppose there are some who fully realize their power comes from the underclasses and they find ways of justifying why the underclasses should remain down. I heard a man who was actively involved in inner city programs call these types of leaders "poverty pimps". Very well put.

Another person I respect highly once said that the Republicans measure their success at fighting poverty by how many people no longer require welfare as opposed to how many people need it. There is a subtle difference in the wording of that but a huge difference in actually helping people.

In short, I am taking much of what the author says and blaming her approach for most of the problems and I think she is probably suffering more from denial than the Dubya.

. . : slicePuzzle

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 12-04-2003).]

Well on the same subject check these searchs out:
http://www.google.com/search?q=miserable+failure
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22miserable+failure%22

Explanation:
http://www.blah3.com/graymatter/archives/00000654.html
http://www.retrogrouch.net/MT/archives/000151.html

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Emps, I'm not as familiar with the specific issues you deal with in the UK but I suspect the economic struggle between left and right is similar. Would it be correct to say that you are a "tax and spend liberal"? Or would that overstate, or understate, the case?

From your explanation link:

quote:

---

The country would be best served by repealing the Bush tax cuts (consumption) and instead putting that money into investment items such as national healthcare or rebuilding crumbling schools. Then we should gradually reduce the deficit over the next decade - like C*****n did after the first Bush.

---

The Bush tax cuts were unbelievably small, they should have been much broader to make a real improvement. Repealing the cuts and pouring that money into a national healthcare system would be one of the worst things we could do for the economy. Our healthcare system needs fixing but not destroying. We need to keep the majority of it that is working for most Americans and address the problem of those few who don't have adequate healthcare. You don't fix it for them by ruining it for the rest. As Lincoln said:

quote:

---

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing what they could and should do for themselves.

---

And please don't get me started on crumbling schools. This is the same worn out argument from the left, "the problem with education is not enough funding". That is not the problem. It's a failed system of education that is the problem because funding is higher than it has ever been and Bush has increased funding for education. It won't help until the real problem is addressed.

C*****n reduced the deficit after the first Bush? Either the person who wrote that is unaware or intentionally trying to mislead the reader. The Republicans won the Congress in 1994 and under the leadership of Newt Gingrich cut spending and pushed and got balanced budgets. People forget that it is not the executive branch that holds the purse strings of the country, it is Congress. C*****n has the tech bubble and Republican controlled Congress of 1994 to thank for the great economy during his later years in office.

. . : slicePuzzle

Bugs: I was just trying to point out an amusing bit of Googlebombing and wasn't really attempting to use it as a platform to launch into a political debate (this thread just seemed appropriate or I'd have started a new thread) but since you asked (although you probbaly already know the answer):

quote:

---

Would it be correct to say that you are a "tax and spend liberal"? Or would that overstate, or understate, the case?

---

Pos. understating it. As well as being a tax and spend liberal I am also in favour of greater state ownership of certain industries and state control over how business is conducted. I'm not saying it will work in other countries due to different histories, etc. (something ideologues tend to overlook) but privatisation here has been an unmitigated disaster and the government are effectively trying to renationalise things like the rail system, however, they also insist on driving through more PFI deals which will prove to be equally (if not more) diasterous in the long term.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

Your point about different histories and realities for different nations is very well taken. I do not want to preach to the UK about how they should run things and I was genuinely curious about the situation there from your perspective. I respect your opinions and have come to trust in the information you provide to us. Your sources are usually sound and while I don't agree with many conclusions that are drawn from them, I at least know there is a mutual appreciation of factual data to work from.

There are those in this country who favor a much more "European" form of government. There are extremely few elected officials who will accept the term "socialist", but many of the "liberals" or "progressives" are not too far from advocating full on socialism. I guess I would consider that a disaster if we ever went too far in that direction over here.

It would be a very interesting thing to see had we both grown up in the same country how are political views would have compared. We'll never really know.

I got the impression that emps was trying to point out how liberal Bush Haters were abusing google and other search engines....?

Can they be sanctioned now under googles new rules? Hahahahahahaha.... That would be funny if their little links hijinks got them delisted. Wont happen but it would be funny to watch a whole new "conspiracy theory" spin off from it.

_____________
Is this thing on?

A Work In Progress

I got the googlebomb point but then got to reading the details of one of the sites listed under "explanation" and was really focusing more on what it was saying. In a lot of threads these days my mind floats back to older discussions and questions and points I wanted to bring up but didn't. I know it can really hijack threads but that is kind of the way we've always done it here. I'm used to it but am sorry for those it may confuse Merry Christmas all

Which reminds me...

The twirling gold bug stencil with the littl blue and red globules orbiting it, is a pretty neat sig. I meant to snag a copy and take a look at the frames, but got sidetracked.
How many frames is that?

How do you guys maintain such tight resolutions on these little pictoriffic animatinged compilationariums?

_____________
Is this thing on?

A Work In Progress

Well how about this for a site offering'commentaries' on Bush (make sure your speakers are on):
www.111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.com

someone has put an awful lot of effort into something which is pretty obscure.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org