Maybe I am being naive. I guess I was just hoping the American public would be smarter than that.
Although that's one thing that does get me about Bush....he really does galvanize people. You're either for him or against him, and if you're against him he's against you. And there is really no middle ground -- you can't support SOME of his policies. It's all or nothing. In that you're probably right -- his supporters will back him up no matter what they clearly see as the truth.
Why is that? I don't really understand it. It's almost as though people have made Bush their religion...
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
2) His secret negotiations to establish an energy policy.
3) His cabinet's disregard for basic American freedoms (Patriot Act, Patriot II, etc.) and the Geneva Convention (Gauntanamo)
4) His willingness to support despicable people as a hedge against other despicable people knowing the history on this issue for the US (e.g., our instant love affair with Pakistani coup leaders when we needed a place to launch from).
5) The cynical way he boosted a "prescription drug benefit" for seniors that fails to address the root causes of high costs, and is phased in over such a long period.
6) His devaluation of the American soldier in exchange for boosting contracts to the military suppliers.
7) His disregard for international cooperation and diplomacy.
8) His failure to bring Rumsfeld and Ashcroft up on treason charges.
9) His record on the environment.
10) His lies about Iraq. And his determination to launch a pre-emptive war regardless of what the reliable information was telling him.
11) His outright lies about what he meant by "no child left behind." And consequent failure to deliver on most of his education promises.
12) He's run up the deficit to record numbers after we'd finally got the thing cleared off.
What I disliked about Reagan:
1) As governor of California, he dessimated education.
2) He ran up the US deficit to (then) record numbers.
3) He lied about the Contras.
4) He lacked substance, relying instead on a bunch of advisors who technically ran the country for him because he really didn't know anything except how to look and sound good on TV.
5) His consultations with astrologers (documented fact) making the US a complete laughing stock. Albeit a scarey one to those who might potentially cross us.
6) His "just say no" program, and his stance on birth control.
What I disliked about Clinton:
1) His hubris. Thinking he had answers when he didn't. Especially as it related to health care. The abortive thing with Hillary trying to set up a national system probably set us back 20 years on the road to a workable, affordable system and basically handed an easy victory to the HMOs and lobbyists.
2) His personal morals sucked big time.
3) His failure to understand what it takes to actually conduct military campaigns successfully thus leading us into stupid blunders like the incursions into various countries blowing things up in hopes of "catching" Bin Laden.
Basically, I don't think we've had a "good" president in my lifetime. The ones I admire the most from a moral and ethical standpoint (Ike, Carter) have been completely ineffective as political leaders. The ones who were the strongest in terms of using America's might have, in my opinion, misused it horribly (Reagan and Bush I and Bush II). And I don't think one of them in my lifetime has had ANY sophistication or rational basis for their foreign policy. Not a one! Well, maybe Nixon and he was so flawed in most other ways as to be an overall disaster for us.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:5) The cynical way he boosted a "prescription drug benefit" for seniors that fails to address the root causes of high costs, and is phased in over such a long period.
I personally dislike the new addition to medicare, however the root cause is price fixing in other countries resulting in all R&D cost being paid by the us. It is not completly the "evil drug companies" or the US government at fault for the high prices of perscription drugs.
Carter is a fool, he allows himself to be used as a pawn.
posted
Bush can't take critism well. He needs to learn that. He is too arrogant to assume that he has all the answers. Furthermore, his tax cut really does suck *once again rants and raves about how unfair it is to pay taxes when I get 7 bucks an hour while some rich bozo gets a tax cut, how is that fair? tax them, not me!*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before you start complaining that the US has to foot the bill for all the R&D costs I think you might want to compare the amount of money put into R&D to the amount put into advertising.
You'll forgive me if I don't want to fund their marketing campaigns.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
your argument against his tax cut is that was not for you? Thats pretty pathetic. If you are going argue that the rich don't need the tax cut at least say that the rich already pay far less tax than I do because our tax system leaks like a sieve.
To which I would still respone that it is none of your business how much money anyone else makes, not is it the government's, hence the only fair tax system is a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage of their income, without all the holes that the current one has.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about if I pay no taxes because I'm making no money? That way more of my money goes into my pocket and I can afford to spend it on things like books and CDs which improves the economy?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"To which I would still respone that it is none of your business how much money anyone else makes, not is it the government's, hence the only fair tax system is a flat tax...."
Your first premise -- that it's none of anyone's business -- is one I reject.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mind a flat tax with a sufficiently high deduction, but I think that only begins to address the REAL problem: tax loopholes and corporate investment. If you institute a flat tax with a decently high deduction, it's necessary to eliminate tax loopholes in order to maintain the same level of income. Doing this, however, will drive the rich to invest in their personal corporations. In conjunction with the elimination of capital gains taxes, this will drastically reduce federal income.
For this reason, I see most flat tax proposals -- the ones that don't outright soak the poor -- as being thinly-veiled ways of sneaking in a "starve the beast" strategy.
--------
By the way, I'm STILL waiting for Rhaegar to answer my question from Page One. Do you think he will?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why can't we include capital gains in income and continue to tax them? I agree that, either way, the government will be deprived of some cashflow, but they could compensate by letting some of our big-spending programs privatize.
And no...I think Rhaegar pull the old "newbie hit-and-run".
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a flat tax would sweep with too broad a broom. There are only two data points to adjust, basically: deduction and rate. This makes it pretty much impossible to adjust the tax structure to deal with, say, a major war, which pretty much requires a more progressive tax (by major I mean land war in asia against China, or possibly a two front war against anyone), since more tax revenues are required than can be gotten by taxing evenly unless one is willing to ruin the economy -- one can only hideously overtax the rich for a short term boost to state income, it doesn't work on the poor.
I'm an advocate of a two tier system.
Also, one must recognize that many complications in tax law are not due to income tax, but other taxes on businesses. However, I'd relish a switch to a two tier system with the accompanying jaw dropping as a number of the more devious companies' profits suddenly got eaten up by the taxes they had been avoiding.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess that I was no clear in scope of my nome of anyone's business phrase. It is none of Peter's business how much Paul makes. One would need to provide figures with one's tax return for the same reasons that you do now.
Looking back I don't think that my earlier respone is very coherent. What I was trying to say was that Synesthesia feeling that the rich should pay a larger percentage than she(?) is inhierently wrong. It is not her concern how much anyone else makes. This concern is embedded in the current tax system. My solution was to switch to a flat tax system. As was pointed out this does to have it flaws, I am afraid tha I do not know enough to come up with decent replie to Tom's enumerated flaws, other than perhaps a switch to taxing consumption.which also has it's problems.
Edit to add: I was discussing this with some of my friend the other day, It seems to me that my argument was much more succinct then.
Edited again to add: Synesthesia's second post does not make any sense to me, hence I am ignoring it. How can you not make any money and have more of it go to your pocket? Are you talking about saving? Those are taxed when they are income.
posted
I'm making very little money. An amount of money so small it might as well be nothing. Why should I have to pay such a large chunk of taxes and then get some piddly little refund in return? Bad enough i got to pay union dues too. Worse was working in Americorps, getting 800 a month and seeing it reduced to 600. How fair is that? How else is a struggling former college student supposed to scramble from the ashes if all their money is being taxed away? I can't even afford to save money even with cheap rent. To make matters worse, taxing low income people just means they have to rely on public assistance to make ends meet. Yet public assistance and other social programs get cut in the light of all these tax cuts for higher income people. It just doesn't seem right.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, perhaps you've missed the fact that people who make $800 a month have all their tax returned to them, and are in fact often eligible for tax CREDITS -- meaning that the taxes the rest of us pay go to them. Your decision to work for AmeriCorps also included several other perks, which count as part of your salary consideration. (AmeriCorps frequently pays for lodging, health insurance, and school loans, for example.)
Now, Social Security "tax" is STILL taken out, which is either a good or a bad thing depending on whether you think Social Security is hopelessly broken -- but, again, tax credits help keep things fair.
In other words, you're whining.
-------
By the same token, though, the RICH are whining when they complain that SO MUCH of their money goes away. While luthe can argue from an ideological point that it's none of Syne's business how much Bill Gates makes or has to spend, the simple fact is that Syne needs every single dollar much, much more than Bill Gates does.
The advantage of a high tax deduction (on a flat tax) or progressive tax is that it recognizes that people need a certain amount of money to live, period, and that any money ABOVE that limit is ultimately disposable income, less important to their survival and happiness. This limit, of course, varies depending on a number of factors, but it's kind of pointless to deny its existence. Bill Gates pays tax, but it does not appreciably impact his lifestyle; on the other hand, the genuinely tiny amount taken from Syne (and ultimately given back to her at the end of the year, unless she claims exemption early) matters a great deal to her.
posted
Or maybe he'll fund NASA, maedicare-style. You know, not apportioning funds for it until 2006, or something. And of course, going back to the moon will take more than 5 years, so no one is going to blame him if the program is cut.
posted
I don't have a link for you, but I have heard this from two different sources:
1) The Economist magazine. True, it's a British publication, but they actually do a very fair and balanced job of reporting issues. They claimed that morale was down dramatically among US soldiers just prior to Bush's Thanksgiving visit to Iraq and this was partly due to deferred pay raises and reduction in benefits to veterans.
I dont' have independent verification of that, but,
2) NPR had a very similar report. They are much more "liberal leaning" in their reportage, but it said pretty much the same as the Economist. It went further to talk about record spending on hardware (sure hardware keeps getting more and more costly) but the perception is that this spending is coming at the expense of payments to soldiers and veterans.
Anyway, that's where I formed the opinion that Bush is not really all that good for the military personnel, but apparently very good for those who make hardware and software for use by the military.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats right. I had heard about the reduction in veterans benefits.
I was very grumpy about that because the nebulous word 'veterans' can also be interpreted as 'My father, uncles, and generally every male in my extended family older than me.'
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:By the same token, though, the RICH are whining when they complain that SO MUCH of their money goes away. While luthe can argue from an ideological point that it's none of Syne's business how much Bill Gates makes or has to spend, the simple fact is that Syne needs every single dollar much, much more than Bill Gates does.
I've always said I'm for a flat tax--anything anyone makes over $150k/yr goes straight to the government. Of course, this wouldn't ever work for like a hundred billion reasons, but still I think that's the direction we should go. Anyone who makes more money than that has no reason to complain . . . and the LAST thing they should complain about is taxes. Last year, the steel company I worked for dissolved spontaneously (long story involving the cops), and it turns out they screwed up my witholdings. So, I had to pay $112 in taxes out of my meager unemployment pay, when I wasn't even making ends meet as it was.
I'm deeply thankful FOR said unemployment pay--which is why I NEVER bitch about taxes. But whenever I hear some 45-year-old white male who makes over 100k and drives a $40,000 car p*ss and moan about Uncle Sam taking all his money, I want to SCREAM. SCREAM SCREAM SCREAM.
posted
Syn, you need to play with your W2 a little bit. If you tune it right, you'll get more with each check. Then, you'll still get what you do pay back at tax time.
I, personally, claim two dependencies on my W2. One for me, and one because I only work one job. I get about 5/6th of my check back each time.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what motivation is there to work after you've made your $150,000 a year?
While there are plenty of people who have more than $150,000 a year and don't deserve it, the ones who work for it and claim it as income, rather than capital gains ir inheritance do/ do work that is more profitable/more important/requires more education than most.
If something like your flat tax proposal ever came to pass, I'd be standing right next to the doctors, lawyers, and CEOs on the pickett line.
People who make that much money care about making money. It's their goal in life to make a lot of money. It's that drive that we need to make our economy the strongest in the world.
Besides, The Communist States of America just doesn't sound as nice.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
You are aware they haven't even attempted to use these yet right?
Tom
Just goes to show you he isn't a hardline conservative. It is possible to lead without being an idealodge.
Furthermore the Steel Tarifs are not a clear cut issue popularity wise. Overall most of the country including business leaders and unions alike opposed them. But in certain areas (like mine) they were a godsend in helping the steel industry get back on it's feet.
If he was just selling out to the polls the steel tarifs weren't a good thing to do nationally. But yet he put them there and only repealed them under threat of a massive trade war.
Not sure how you can argue that is pandering for the polls...
The Medicare bill has many flaws and should have been much smaller but sadly eldery vote a lot more than our age group(s) so they get more cash from the Dems and GOP both.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I'm wondering is why everyone here assumes George W. Bush is a conservative. People for and against him on this thread call him that as if that is really what he is. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Bush is not a conservative. A conservative believes in small, limited government and fiscal responsibility. George Bush with his huge deficits and human/natural rights crusade is more liberal than many socialists I've met.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose that's right if you believe that his human rights campaign isn't just an excuse/coverup to get to Middle East oil and/or mythical WMDs.
It's possible to be economically liberal and still be a conservative. He's not a liberal just because he's a crappy businessman and a recovered substance abuser.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really would like to respond to policy's comment, but after writing a number of replies I seem to lack the ablities needed for such a task. So I will respond with someone else's words instead.
quote: "Your money does not cause my poverty. Refusal to believe this is at the bottom of most bad economic thinking." --PJ O'Rourke
posted
Frisco, crusading around the world for human rights is a bad way to go. Now, before all the politically correct police stomp on me and say I'm wrong, they should read Edmund Burke's criticisms of the French Revolution. Anyone who believes in human or natural rights is setting themselves up for failure through totalitarian government in the longrun. Real conservatives are nearly-identical to libertarians. Conservatives are also realists. They believe in fighting all the wars you have to, but only the wars you have to. You cannot be socially liberal and be a conservative. The difference is that true conservatives see the danger in crusading for natural rights, especially when the national interest is put in danger.
Do you see why Bush is not a conservative?
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, let me try to phrase it a little differently. Those different attributes I talked about are key to what the word conservatism has meant in politics since Burke. There is no other definition. To think differently would be like trying to change the definition of the word black to white in your mind
posted
The problem is, the "conservative" voices in media, the "conservative" party in power, and so on have all shifted their messages in synch such that the vast majority of people I talk to don't realize they're espousing things 180 degrees opposed to what they parroted 7 years ago.
I used to worry sometimes, now I can't stop. Mostly because the solution is so obvious, yet doesn't fit with the ideology it's supposedly a part of. You see, when I'm dictator and set everything right, will that really be setting everything right? Discuss.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I don't like is that its not something that's as variable as that. The very word conservative means caution over unrestricted innovation and change. Core concepts like that and what I mentioned above are inseperable from the term. If Bush and the party have become something else then let themselves soil another designation.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look on the bright side. "Liberal" became its own antonym a solid 25 years before "conservative" met the same fate.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm deeply thankful FOR said unemployment pay--which is why I NEVER bitch about taxes.
I don't know how it's done in your state, but in mine it isn't the employee's taxes that are used for Uneployment Insurance - so we employees have nothing to bitch about when someone receives Unemployment Insurance because we aren't paying for it.
How much does Washington pay in unemployment benefits for workers? Unemployment benefits are paid from Washington's Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund. The trust fund balance was $1.1 billion on Oct. 31, 2003.
Unemployment Insurance is funded by taxes paid by employers. The money to pay unemployment insurance benefits comes from a state payroll tax levied on employers. The amount employers pay depends on the number of their employees who actually receive benefits from the program. The money to pay for the administration of national and state UI programs comes from a federal tax under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA). In extreme cases of high unemployment, the FUTA tax is also used for the payment of extended benefits. In the state of Washington, neither of these taxes is deducted from the payroll checks of employees.
quote: I'd like to add one of the reasons I have for not liking Bush that has developed over time: he gets rid of the cabinet members that dare to suggest his policies might be wrong.
Why? If you apply the principle of natural selection in politics, you should expect politicians to serve their own interests and political agendas. Those who put idealism on a pedestal and avoid taking advantage in grey areas of legal but biased opportunity, while noble in intent, will generally be beat out by those who walk the fine line to gain the greatest advantage. Ironically, in many cases, in the long run, the "ideal" response at an individual level is MORE wasteful than the waste that we all rightfully rue in the first place. When waste is rampant because it is beneficial to the decision-maker, non-waste will by definition be replaced by waste over time anyway, and in the process wastes the career investment in gaining the political position in the first place.
That's why we have so much wasteful pork in government. Rampant pork is a stable system state. You can you obtain pork for your constituents to equalize your position with the rest of the politicians getting pork for their districts. Or you can martyr yourself by a noble refusal for pork and be replaced by another pork-chaser. Pointing out that pork is wasteful is worthless; everybody agrees. But idealism and identification of such stable state problems will never make the problem go away. The only way to make it go away is to add a system-wide constraint that equally and simultaneously turns the wasteful action into a negative rather than a positive proposal for all decisionmakers. Generally, such system-wide constraints only appear through legislation, or through massive spontaneous social change ignited by trauma, which we should never hope for.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many Presidents have maintained cabinet level appointees that have publicly disagreed with, and even defied, them, because the reason those cabinet members exist is not to be yes men (and women) but to run their department as they see best.
Bush fires anyone who is not a yes person, and I'm certainly going to dislike him for it, particularly as many of the people he has fired have been those which early on persuaded me he might not be such a bad President after all.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lincoln was the best President we've ever had, bar none. An examination of the terrible problems he faced and the amazing difficulties he had to deal with from within proves that beyond any doubt.
I don't love Dubya at all. I'm rather lukewarm on him, in fact. I dislike him less, though, than I dislike any of the baker's dozen Democratic candidates there are (or 9, if they haven't added any).
I'm not sure if Dubya (and I've always called him that, ain't `bout to stop now) does what he thinks is right. He certainly makes the impression clear that he's doing what he thinks is right, though.
I don't know if he has guts, and frankly guts aren't always a good thing. Kind of like George Patton, who really said it takes blood and brains to win a war, guts without brains are in fact usually harmful. Does he have political guts, or does he simply not care if people don't like his decisions, or is he just stupid? I don't know. As an individual, I'd bet the first. As the President, I can't say.
I agree he's paying attention to our military, which is frankly the most critical item to a nation's sovereignty at any time, peace or war (so long as it is led by elected civilians). Clinton did terrible, unnecessary things to the military-and the military hasn't forgotten. Look at how they vote.
I don't know if he's a sleazebag or not. Many of his decisions seem decidedly sleazy to me.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If he was just selling out to the polls the steel tarifs weren't a good thing to do nationally. But yet he put them there and only repealed them under threat of a massive trade war. Not sure how you can argue that is pandering for the polls..."
Because it's targeted pandering.
Bush knows that he only barely won certain key states, and only barely lost others. Since the next election is also likely to be close, he needs to make sure that those states are likely to remember him fondly.
Ergo, he can afford to piss off a few OTHER states, as long as he wins the states he really, really needs.
The steel tariffs were very popular in a handful of states that Bush needs to win re-election.
-----
It's rather like how, every single election cycle, people go to Iowa and talk about how much they love the idea of ethanol research and subsidies, and then never mention it again. In Iowa, ethanol's big news -- and anyone who supports it is their friend. Anywhere else in the country, no one cares in the slightest about ethanol. Consequently, every candidate who passes through Iowa gives lip service to ethanol just long enough to get through the primary, and then completely forgets about it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, if you refer to ethanol by its common names, "alcohol", "liquor" and "beer" then a lot of states have done research on this. I myself, have spent too many hours studying the effects of ethanol on myself and on some of my friends. Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Speaking of which, it's good to see you. While you're here, please tell me what you think about Bush's steel tariffs and Medicare bill, keeping in mind of course that you've said the man never does things just to be popular.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree he's paying attention to our military, which is frankly the most critical item to a nation's sovereignty at any time, peace or war (so long as it is led by elected civilians). Clinton did terrible, unnecessary things to the military-and the military hasn't forgotten. Look at how they vote.
Military voting patterns have mostly to do with its recruitment base: Midwestern conservatives.
Clinton's terrible things mostly included downsizing the ranks of the military while overextending it in Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo, etc. Bush has not made similar cuts, but he has worsened the policy of overextension at just about every turn. More important to the question of "whom did military voters unknowingly elect?", though, look at the Administrations policy before 9/11: I'm very surprised there wasn't outcry from the Right when Rumsfeld was appointed. (Perhaps it was muted by the appointment of the Wolfowitz hawk-disciples, or drowned out by the Left's whining about bin-Ashcroft). After all Rumsfeld's stated doctrine for a decade has been to demolish the previous structure and move the armed forces into a much more refined group of specialized, diversified (across old departmental boundaries) task forces. Quite possibly a good move, but a far more dramatic reduction in workforce and large-scale defensive power than anything Clinton planned.
Regardless, I think you overstate the importance of military in the 21st century 1st world. If Vicente Fox is overthrown by a paramilitary drug lord, then we'll talk...except, oh wait, our Colombia policies already encourage such things...
Almost forgot: military record! If you ask me, going AWOL on a National Guard assignment and having your dad (try to) cover it up is more dispicable than dodging the draft in the first place. If you're going to object to service or prove yourself unfit to do so, at least be honest about it.
[ December 14, 2003, 06:21 AM: Message edited by: Richard Berg ]
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
You may be correct in your statement concerning recruitment base. Since you brought that part up, though, may I ask where you learned that statistic? It's something I hadn't thought of before.
I agree concerning Clinton, but in addition to that was the sensation of contempt he had-or to be charitable, was perceived as having-towards the military.
I personally believe Rumsfeld's ideas weren't met by more conservative opposition is because, frankly, they make sense. Conservatives largely believe we need a robust, large, and superior military as a matter of national policy and security. This doesn't mean that they think we should stick to the Cold War model.
As for a large reduction in defensive power...that to me sounds rather like an unbustantiated idea than a cogent military theory. You need large numbers of soldiers to take and hold ground. It takes less to conquer ground and continue moving, which has been American military doctrine since practically forever.
quote:Regardless, I think you overstate the importance of military in the 21st century 1st world. If Vicente Fox is overthrown by a paramilitary drug lord, then we'll talk...except, oh wait, our Colombia policies already encourage such things...
I think you misunderstood me, and that is my fault. When I said that the military is the most critical aspect of a nation's sovereignty at any time, I did not mean that a nation is always under threat of military conquest, and that in any given short-term, without a strong military the nation will be overthrown. I just meant that there is ultimately only one thing that protects a nation from foreign and domestic aggression, and that's the nation's military...or the military of their allies.
The fact that our military isn't actively protecting us from foreign aggressors right now is a sign of its success and a proof of my statement, not its inaccuracy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"As for a large reduction in defensive power...that to me sounds rather like an unbustantiated idea than a cogent military theory."
Actually, that was a stated goal of Rumsfeld's; he sought to replace men on the ground with improved technology, thus reducing military cost. Due to the distraction of the war, he hasn't announced whether he's changed his mind or not.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You won't hear me argue against the value of a strong military, nor that shifting doctrine away from "two fronts" is a positive step. I'm just remarking that when the Right attacked Clinton on the military issue, they talked about his cutting the rate of spending growth, the reduction in infantry divisions, and the problems every branch except the Marines was having with recruitment. Bush has already done the cutbacks if you look at base payscales in real dollars (and overall as well, if you don't count silly multi-billion-dollar weapons that will never be used); his Cabinet had planned to do the latter; recruitment was actually down between the inauguration and 9/11.
Respect among the rank-and-file is a tricky thing. If I were commanding a vast left-wing conspiracy, I'd harp on the AWOL history as much as the Right did about Clinton being a pot-smoking Canada-immigrating hippie, and would probably have good results among .mil types (breaking UCMJ is more inviolate to a Marine than sodomy to a Catholic). In the short term, it's swayed by silly things like a 2.5-hour meet & greet on Turkey Day. In the long term, it depends mostly on the length of deployments -- there's a very good reason the above publicity stunt was staged, and that's the dangerously sinking morale our current overextension had been causing. We had this problem at the height of the Bosnia affair, but even then were able to rotate troops more effectively.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom's right, the irony being that it's actually a good plan. Heck, even HRW agrees. (Did I already link that here, or was it on another forum?)
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
