Politics: A new beginning

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Perhaps one of you can explain what you're talking about. Clinton left us with the military that performed in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq.

by your rationale it would be George Washington's military Ty.

And on intelligence factors, conservatives really ought to keep quiet. It's been widely reported that the incoming Bushies were had little time for the briefings on terrorism, and did nothing for the months leading up to 9/11. After that, they reacted, and who wouldn't? Since then, however, the Administration has trashed the intelligence community. Nothing Clinton did remotely compares.

Are you F. Supplstein?
Oh, Ty's going for 2 concessions in a single day!

Bush did quite a bit for a new President. A detailed plan to oust the Taliban hit Rice's in box 9/10. Remember Bush wasn't President that long before 9/11. What should he have done differently that shouldn't have been done in the 8 prior years? Should he have gathered up all illegals from Mid-East countries. You guys have a problem with that AFTER 9/11, so don't try that.

The only defensible thing you can say re. Clinton and terrorism is that until 9/11 he couldn't have garnered public support for any action. It's bullshit, but at least a defesible argument.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
My answer is to hope that this "embarrassment" of which you speak will somehow come to the fore before next year's tax cut debate, just like it should have somehow manifested itself before last year's tax cut debate, or the one from the year before, or the year before that. Otherwise "embarassed" is just an empty word to protect the image of the party in power, like the words that try to paint the GOP as the guardian of fiscal sanity.

While the timing would be appropriate, it should be noted that its not the "tax cuts" for individuals that embarass me, nor the existence of a deficit (though I will admit to increasing ambivalence about the "death tax" pandering by my party). Its the spending.

Not that I'm an isolationist, but this country is subsidizing the rest of the world with our deficits. Not to mention the disaster that is the carcass of our domestic spending agendas. All the while sending jobs overseas to the same countries we subsidize.

Our government is just involved in too much. Its sad when even the european socialists are saying our government needs to do less. The deficit is, to me, itself worrying for different and lesser reasons.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski


The only defensible thing you can say re. Clinton and terrorism is that until 9/11 he couldn't have garnered public support for any action. It's bullshit, but at least a defesible argument.

Right. he could if he had the stomach for it. For Christ's sakes, they bombed the fricken WTC in 94! Plus the embassies and the Cole - Clinton had many strenghts, but foreign policy and taking political risks (otherwise known as leadership) weren't among them.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Perhaps one of you can explain what you're talking about. Clinton left us with the military that performed in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. The accusation that he wanted to cut forces more -- which is what I think bilmore is saying -- is a little odd, . . .

Clinton cut military expenditures from the mid$350's to the mid-$250's, and that's in unadjusted dollars, meaning the impact was far greater. He stopped a lot of R&D completely. He cut manpower down to less than half of what we had in GWI, which took us way down past the multi-front capacity that we arguably should always maintain. Pay was slashed, careers were ended, and a lot of capable people were gone. He also cut way back on spending for the various intelligence agencies. With his various policies, he scrambled the humint sections. In short, he was hell on our military capabilities. Yeah, we went into Afghanistan and Iraq, but we had to pull up very old reserves to do it.

So, no, I'm not talking about further cuts that he wanted - what he actually did was bad enough.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hello
While the timing would be appropriate, it should be noted that its not the "tax cuts" for individuals that embarass me, nor the existence of a deficit (though I will admit to increasing ambivalence about the "death tax" pandering by my party). Its the spending.

Well, I understand your preference to focusing on the spending side of the dial. It just seems kind of self-serving, especially when your party is no better than the party of me (and my Daddy) when it comes to curbing federal spending.

Call me old-fashioned, but to me if you're spending money you don't have it seems a little more significant than if you're spending money you do have. Especially when the Baby Boom generation is nearing the time when they cash in their Social Security chips. While deficits of this size may or may not have the negative macro effects that opponents charge, one thing is sure: we have to pay that money back out of taxes someday. I guess the saving grace to those intrepid warriors on Capitol Hill is that when that happens they'll be part of the masses cashing the SS checks, not paying them.

The tax cuts aren't class warfare, they're generational warfare.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
The tax cuts aren't class warfare, they're generational warfare.

Without going into the "deficits aren't that bad" argument - there are plenty of Googleable web sites that can do that better than I - I would argue that the tax cuts may be a short term generational passing-on of pain, but they are also a long-term generational gift to our descendents.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Bilmore
It was only after the GOP had been putting increasingly effective pressure on BC to balance - think what you will of Newt's character, he made a big difference in fiscal policy - and took over Congress that BC finally saw the light (i.e. read some polls) and put in a balanced budget proposal.

Clinton cut military expenditures from the mid$350's to the mid-$250's, and that's in unadjusted dollars, meaning the impact was far greater.

Having it both ways, excellent work. Newt's "effective pressure" balanced the budget, but it was Clinton's slashing that took away our military's capability to fight more than just Afghanistan and Iraq in the span of 2 1/2 years.

For another view, let's try this one I found from around that time (1998, to be exact):

The federal budget has not been balanced by any Republican spending reductions. Uncle Sam now spends $150 billion more than in 1995. Over the past 10 years, the defense budget, adjusted for inflation, has been cut $100 billion, but domestic spending has risen by $300 billion.

We have a balanced budget today that is mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Social spending is still soaring and now costs more than $1 trillion. Is this the kind of balanced budget that fiscal conservatives want? A budget with no deficit, but that funds the biggest government ever?

http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-08-98.html

If you give Newt credit for balancing the budget, it would seem fair to point out that it was balanced on the back of these very military cuts that you decry.

But perhaps you can parse this one further as well.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Well, I understand your preference to focusing on the spending side of the dial. It just seems kind of self-serving, especially when your party is no better than the party of me (and my Daddy) when it comes to curbing federal spending.

Check.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience

Call me old-fashioned, but to me if you're spending money you don't have it seems a little more significant than if you're spending money you do have. Especially when the Baby Boom generation is nearing the time when they cash in their Social Security chips. While deficits of this size may or may not have the negative macro effects that opponents charge, one thing is sure: we have to pay that money back out of taxes someday. I guess the saving grace to those intrepid warriors on Capitol Hill is that when that happens they'll be part of the masses cashing the SS checks, not paying them.

Old fashioned like how? When did we not do this? 1910?

Actually, I'd agree that its "a little more significant". Even "fairly significant in comparison". Check. But deficits aren't disasters in and of themselves.

Now for the hard part. Did you just say Baby Boom? You want to know what is really scary? I'll tell ya. This whole conversation is a mootity. We are getting to the point where these old buggers will live til 100. And retire at 65. And get out of government-subsidized education at 30. I.e., working barely 1/3 of their lives. We have anti-cancer drugs, anti-arterial plaque drugs, anti-diabetes drugs. Do you ever worry that maybe people won't die? Well I do. I'm worried that people won't die and, in fact, they'll be living on a beach in florida til 100, while I'm slaving my life away for the Man. Oh, does that sound like I'm taking your concerns and extending them? Sorry, I don't mean to hijack you like that. But social security is a joke as far as I can see. And the way medicine is going, I don't see how it still works the same way by the time we get there.

As to the "paying back", that is my point about inflation etc.... Sometimes its just easier to hear this from our parents (I am being serious here). You buy a home for 28K in 1968 and take on a 22K mortgate. When you finish paying it off in 1998, the proportionate share of the debt is an almost insignicant hit on the income.

Now, insteady of 22K in 1968, I'm just thinking 5.5B in 2003. Simple enough.

Hello

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Having it both ways, excellent work.

Uh, no, that's a great example of why the Repubs didn't like HOW BC accomplished his balance, which said displeasuer they expressed in the 50-50 tie vote in - what? - 94? What they wanted to do with tax cuts and entitlement cuts, he accomplished through the cutting of stuff we needed.

Newt's effective pressure was for a shrinking of government, a reduction in the amount that we owed after all the bills were paid each year, and a general movement away from the idea that government could provide everything to all forever. The public seemed to like this overall theme, but BC managed to sell (at least) the Dems on a bastardized version of this, one that adopted the balance part (for a very short time) while cutting important needs (i.e., the military) and depending on a one-time cig settlement for a huge chunk of cash. Had we had the Repub versions from 94 onward, I think we'd be in much better shape.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That's not how the Times is reporting either issue.

Dude, think for a minute. The Senate votes 33-0. What's the most plausible explanation? That AS promised them something better on the issue, or that they all experienced a universal change of heart on the matter? You couldn't get 33 state senators to agree that shit stinks. You definitely can't get 33 state senators to eat crow.

Even the sponsor of the original bill said he supported repeal because he "puts his trust" in AS and takes him at his word that something better will be proposed. There was a back room deal here. NTTAWWT.

Meanwhile, all the same undocumented immigrants are driving around in the exact same cars as before. And none of them can get insurance. Let me put in into language you're likely to sympathize with: Their employers are still letting them drive, but will be stuck with an uninsured claim if they hit someone, and a punitive damages case for negligent entrustment. You tell me if standing on principle ("but driving is a privilege they haven't earned!") is better than pragmatism on this issue.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hello
Oh, does that sound like I'm taking your concerns and extending them? Sorry, I don't mean to hijack you like that. But social security is a joke as far as I can see. And the way medicine is going, I don't see how it still works the same way by the time we get there.

Seems kind of funny to hijack and extend my concerns when I was pointing out that deficits are scary and you said you were not so worried about them. But I hear it's not polite to question a hijacker.

I agree that SS logically should to be remodeled to deal with increased life expectancies, medical technology, etc. But it's a political third rail, kind of like Prop 13 is here in CA. To exacerbate these continued structural deficits by cutting taxes annually is just going to tie the hands further of anyone who will be taking action to fix SS in the future.

After this latest Medicare bill I don't think it's going to be the GOP that restores fiscal sanity to SS. So yeah, I'm bugged that someone else is going to have to clean up the mess.

Deficits might not be bad in and of themselves, but they sure cramp your style if you have to pay SS out of the current budget. See you in 2026...oops, probably sooner than that.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You tell me if standing on principle ("but driving is a privilege they haven't earned!") is better than pragmatism on this issue.

Do you totally discount the national security argument? Seems to me that that's been the main objection all along, not some principled protection of the Sacred Chalice of the Divine Driving Right. The rest of the country is sort of looking at Cal in horror, figuring you've just made yourself the free gateway for the criminally-minded in the name of your own scramble for insurer money and PC self-love.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Do you totally discount the national security argument? Seems to me that that's been the main objection all along, not some principled protection of the Sacred Chalice of the Divine Driving Right. The rest of the country is sort of looking at Cal in horror, figuring you've just made yourself the free gateway for the criminally-minded in the name of your own scramble for insurer money and PC self-love.

There are too many logs in others' eyes. Right now, the Mexican consulates are already issuing consular IDs without a central database to ensure that applicants aren't getting more than one ID apiece. That's happening in New York and elsewhere.

I'm a little unclear on how a person's state driver's license status compromises national security. It's not used as effective proof of citizenship, and to the extent it is used as a form of ID, a terrorist is far more likely to forge an ID than walk into a government agency and present false papers.

Perhaps you can direct me to a cogent statement of the opposition view? As a Californian, I can say it never got beyond the "What have they done to earn a driver's license?" jingoism. You can thank the foreshortened recall campaign for the lack of intelligent debate.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
I'm bugged that someone else is going to have to clean up the mess

The funny thing here being how we would respectively define "the mess". I might say the whole concept of publicly administered social security is a great leap off of our pathway.

Alternatively, we could probably both agree that structural revisions could have been built into SS, as long as people didn't end up higher rates over time. Rather, higher retirement ages and higher life expectancies should have been factored in somehow or another.

But, I'm afraid you might be arguing that the "mess" is the fact that we are hastening the bankrupting of a system that is inherently flawed. Yes, I said inherently flawed. Without at least a sliding scale to accomodate population changes, the whole system is doomed. See European systems and birthrates for a guide to sustainability (or lack thereof).

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
There are too many logs in others' eyes. Right now, the Mexican consulates are already issuing consular IDs without a central database to ensure that applicants aren't getting more than one ID apiece. That's happening in New York and elsewhere.

I agree, but i think this is a good argument for tighter security vis-a-vis approved ID, not for a lessening.

I'm a little unclear on how a person's state driver's license status compromises national security. It's not used as effective proof of citizenship, and to the extent it is used as a form of ID, a terrorist is far more likely to forge an ID than walk into a government agency and present false papers.

I think the DL is the first step in the construction of an identity. Apparently this was the case for several of the 9/11 people, and for quite a few others picked up on suspicion (whatever that means) since. I don't know the details, but it is my impression that those who know about things like sneaking into and staying in this country view the license-for-illegals issue quite seriously.

Perhaps you can direct me to a cogent statement of the opposition view? As a Californian, I can say it never got beyond the "What have they done to earn a driver's license?" jingoism. You can thank the foreshortened recall campaign for the lack of intelligent debate.

Try this: http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry091503.asp

(It's Rich Lowry, editor of NR. While you may decry his leanings, he does tend to get his facts right.)