Who voted for this guy?!

Hobbes · 09-04-2001 8:15pm #1

reading up on the US tax cuts. They look quite nice, but from what I gather they aren't actually tha good. They don't come into full effect until 10 years later. This is from another board.

We won't fully feel its effects until 10 years into the future

According to the Citizens for Tax Justice, the poorest 20 percent of taxpayers receive on average a $15 tax cut the first year and $37 by 2004.

The 20 percent of taxpayers in the middle of the income distribution scale get an average of $170 in tax cuts, rising to $409 in 2004.

The average cut to the top 1 percent of taxpayers would be $13,469 in 2002 and $31,201 in 2004. The Bush plan gives 43 percent of all the tax relief to the richest 1percent of the people.

Celt · 09-04-2001 8:31pm

We know who voted for him Hobbes, we know (*cough*american idiots*cough*)

Winning Hand · 09-04-2001 8:35pm

This gets me insofar as i read somewhere that in the US the top 10% wage earners pay 66% of the countrys tax, that figure may be a bit high but you dont think these people deserve a break.

Also i found it amusing seeing that congress approved of his plan but they chopped it to pieces

Some say the end is near.
Some say we'll see armageddon soon.
I certainly hope we will.
I sure could use a vacation from this....
bull****

Victor · 09-04-2001 9:05pm

When even Bill Gates (and he has along with a bunch of other billionaires) condemns Bush's tax cuts I think we know that Bush has gone too far.

Bush's ideas make the rich richer. What even Bill Gates recognises is that if you don't give people hope, they are not going to try.

Changing call sign to SIERRA PAPA OSCAR OSCAR FOXTROT.

TwoShedsJackson · 10-04-2001 9:38am

Bush's job is to make the rich richer. That's what politicians do to stay in power.

I don't really see why people are going 'oh a politician who lied during his campaign and has made policy U-turns already and doesn't care about the poor' Quelle surprise.

Politicians don't care about the poor because most of them don't vote and none of them have any influence in society.

(/end rant)

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 10-04-2001 5:40pm

Originally posted by Castor Troy:
Bush's job is to make the rich richer. That's what politicians do to stay in power.

I don't really see why people are going 'oh a politician who lied during his campaign and has made policy U-turns already and doesn't care about the poor' Quelle surprise.

Politicians don't care about the poor because most of them don't vote and none of them have any influence in society.

(/end rant)

Making the rich richer is true of all politicians to some extent, but especially true of Republicans. The tax cuts are a classic Republican strategy, and will mainly benefit middle and upper echelons of society. The "poor tax-credit" he has proposed is specious to the extreme- most poor folk don't *PAY* taxes- so giving them tax credit for the few sales items they *do* buy is a moot point imho. Which brings me back to what Hobbes (and indeed I) have wondered for months now...(see title of this thread).

As it happens, I didn't vote for either principal candidate- in the first round I voted Libretarian (my party), and for Ralph Nader in the final popular casting. However, I think that bugler's comments are a gross over-generalization- they offend me- and not just because I'm American. It's akin to my coming into a thread and saying that all Irish people are drunken misfits- which is a rude, and offensive generalization. Certainly some of the workings in the US *are* messed up- but that doesn't mean I can't still have hope that we will do the right thing and vote Bush out after a 4-year term (sooner if he's impeached, /me crosses his fingers).

The main objection I have to Bush's recent policy-making is his decision to withdraw from the emissions talks...yet another nod to his oil-rigger's pollution paradise he's created in Texas...God Bless America

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Errarre Humanum Est=

[This message has been edited by Bob the Unlucky Octopus (edited 10-04-2001).]

darthmise · 10-04-2001 5:58pm

Drunken Misfits?!?

Drunken yeah but misfits how?

bugler · 10-04-2001 7:08pm

Sorry if my comments insult you,but theres more chance of pigs flying than of me withdrawing it.
America has always been about self-interest, and what else should we expect from pure bred capitalists? Money makes america go round,materialism reigns supreme.All modern american presidents have aimed to keep america capitalist and in many cases other countries that way too.

bugler · 10-04-2001 7:10pm

Just another word,its a pity more didn't vote like you Bob,because I like Nader, but somehow I really doubt whether a man like Nader will ever get within an asses roar of the whitehouse for some time yet.

bugler · 11-04-2001 12:51am

All of Castor's post applies especially to US society which is all the sadder.
Its a ****ed up country in its workings.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 11-04-2001 7:40am

Originally posted by bugler:
Sorry if my comments insult you,but theres more chance of pigs flying than of me withdrawing it.
America has always been about self-interest, and what else should we expect from pure bred capitalists? Money makes america go round,materialism reigns supreme.All modern american presidents have aimed to keep america capitalist and in many cases other countries that way too.

It's a shame you aren't willing to reconsider your remarks even in the face of the fact that it's an unsupportable generalization. "America acts in its own self-interest?" Begging your pardon, but isn't that the whole *POINT* of a nation-state? To act in it's own best interests? God forbid that the American government should act in its own best interests *shock horror*. The same is true of *any* nation.

As for pure-bred capitalists...it's a shame you have no clue what you're talking about in economic terms at least. The English gave the world capitalism, the stock market and the modern financial system. The US gave us alternatives to capitalist economies, such as monetarism, or the current supply-sided system. There is *no* such thing as a purely capitalist economy. Show me a purely capitalist economy, and I'll show you someone who doesn't understand economics. And money doesn't just make *America* go round, but the *world*. The sooner you wake up to this and stop singling out a particular nation, the sooner the mud-slinging can stop.

As for US presidents keeping the US capitalist- again, how is this *any* different from the majority of capital-based economies in the West? And...why the hell not? The capitalist system is tried, tested and the most adaptable to a given set of events. If you're claiming a socialist or communist state is more viable bugler- then you're wrong. Comprehensibly so- there is not a *single* lasting model that you could point to with any comparable standard of living and equivalent growth.

As for the US keeping other nations capitalist- that was during the Cold War. As embarassing a piece of history as you'd find, but similar chapters of history exist with *ALL* Western countries. Singling out the US is out of line- be specific about the systems that you think are "all messed up" and I'll respond to those claims. But until then- don't bite off more than you can chew. That generalization you made is ludicrious as it is unsupportable. Explain how you can support it- or retract it. It is that simple.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Vade Retro=

bugler · 11-04-2001 1:49pm

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
"America acts in its own self-interest?" Begging your pardon, but isn't that the whole *POINT* of a nation-state? To act in it's own best interests? God forbid that the American government should act in its own best interests *shock horror*. The same is true of *any* nation.

Maybe,but no nation has gone to such extremes in its pursuit of self-interest.Gulf war anyone? Of course Bob,you probably think that the US just couldn't stand back and watch a small country be overrun by a larger country(one which was no longer a puppet of the US either).The same is true of many large countries,it comes with being at the top of the global food chain.The original statement was to the effect that US politics has always been about keeping the rich rich,your president (and he is yours Bob) is proving this to the world all over again.Nothing even close to a socialist influence will get into the white house for the forseeable future,ffs,"liberal" is practically an insult over there.

The capitalist system is tried, tested and the most adaptable to a given set of events.If you're claiming a socialist or communist state is more viable bugler- then you're wrong. Comprehensibly so- there is not a *single* lasting model that you could point to with any comparable standard of living and equivalent growth.

Hmmmm.I wasn't referring to communist/socialist models.The capitalist system is harsh on those who find themselves on the downside of prosperity.Ask the millions of under-priveleged in your ghettoes and prisons how good the standard of living is in the US.I would not equate the US system as being the same as many of the Western worlds systems,despite the "capital based" correlation.

there is not a *single* lasting model that you could point to with any comparable standard of living and equivalent growth

Ever wonder why? Any attempt to go a different way to the US's line of thinking resulted in action to stall it.Unless it was in one of the larger states(China/U.S.S.R) who the US would not have wanted to deliberately take on,despite all the posturing.Cuba ring a bell? Once the US got wind of the fact that your large corporations may not be able to rape Cuba's sugar cane and coffee planatations what did you do? You set out to bring the government down.Money money money.China/Russia didn't last essentially because Communism didn't work.Whether this is because it is an inherently flawed system or because the personnel/regimes at the time were incompetent is open to much debate.It was neither fully one,nor the other.Cuba tried to go their own way,and be a success,what stopped them Bob? Illegal embargoes maybe? and cuba is such a threat still that you still blockade it.Despite your best efforts,and the prevention of medical commodities being shipped to Cuba,they still have an infant mortality rate as good as Washingtons,and more teachers and doctors per capita than most (maybe all..) western states.US included.

Singling out the US is out of line- be specific about the systems that you think are "all messed up" and I'll respond to those claims

This thread was about the US,so hardly surprisng that I stated the US connection after Castors post.Why not keep it on topic?
I think you could do with a few books about the US's activities in Central/South America. Messed up might be an understatement.Try the Mid-East too.You guys do some nice juggling out there to keep the dollars rolling in.Need I mention South-East Asia?! Over 58,000 Americans,over a million Vietnamese,and what was that for?! To protect the Capitalist system.Course all western countries do that.The US goes to war and engages in violence in order to keep its coffers over-flowing.So if you like,I could refer to practically all US foreign policy as being "messed up". As for the cold war being "over", look here:
*Russian diplomats expelled.

*US spy plane crashes in China(was it in international waters? Only a few people know the answer to that.I have my doubts).

*Israel.Don't want to even open this can of worms.
Needless to say,if Israel went kaboom,the US might find itself in a very dire position economically,given the power it would give to the Arab states,I think your puppet governments over there might soon change their colours(probably forced to by popular opinion).Something of a domino effect might occur.Where was the last time the term "domino effect" was used widely? Thats right? South East Asia.

The problem with your view Bob is that you only choose to see the upshot or the good points of Capitalism.You don't look at the downside.I found it interesting of your quick deducement that I may have been referring to Socialism or Communism,looks like someone may still be worried about Reds under the bed! Ask the people
(the average people Bob,not the few rich puppets) of Honduras,Ecuador,Colombia and a myriad of other countries how good a system Capitalism is for the standard of living.
The US (and those on its good side) benefit from capitalism not becaus its an economic marvel but because it exploits.Course its not exploiting you is it?
Out of sight out of mind,eh Bob?

Bush is almost everything thats wrong with America rolled into one.
As for money making the whole world and political systems rotate(if you will), having seen the list of corporate donations to Bush and Gore(for which they must be grateful,aswell as flexible) I find that hard to swallow.I won't even start on your culture,for example hiphop and what it values most.All good signs of capitalism at work though,right? It is the best system after all.Your condescending tone and inherent(and one might almost be tempted to believe permanent and irremovable)
smugness reminds me of many americans I have encountered and who spoke of the joys of Capitalism.The Kyoto accord withdrawal is yet one more instance of the US saying "screw you all,we are the most important".
Like all other countries in the west right? Wait..I didn't the other countries of the West pulling out....

[This message has been edited by bugler (edited 11-04-2001).]

Bob the Unlucky Octopus · 11-04-2001 7:46pm

Ohhhhh deaar...

It appears that I've been misunderstood here. Everyone seems to love and enjoy denigrating the "American way of life" without having lived there or seen it first hand. In fact, there is no such thing. There are pro's and con's in every system- this thread is aimed at George W...I have stated in this and several other posts that I hate him and his policies- so let's get that straight for starters. You got personal and called me condescending- that was in no way how I meant it- if you interpreted it that way I apologize. As for my "permanent" smugness...*sigh*. I'm not going to get personal with you bugler- if you're trying to get me to flame you on the same personal level- well you're going to have to do better than that. Just for the record- you got personal- I didn't- I criticized your arguments, not your personal attributes- don't take it personally, please.

Addressing your arguments in order:

1) You state "no nation has previously gone to such lengths to act in its own best interests"(?) I might be stating the obvious here, but colonization anyone? Western Europe, practically in its entirety subjected the majority of the world's landmasses to subjugation, disenfranchisement and a whole manner of other unpleasentness. To say that no nation has so aggressively pursued its own self interest to this point isn't just unsupportable, it's wrong. The spectre of colonialism still hangs like a dark shadow over the world. Subsequent events you have pointed out merely help to prove my point

a) The Middle East: The Franco-Palestinian treaty, immediatly followed by the Balfour Declaration (both *direct* results of the two colonial powers, France and Britain's involvement) are what contributed to the horrible state of affairs in Israel. The *reason* President Hussein invaded Kuwait is that the British divided it from Iraq. The root cause of the problem was colonization.

b) Vietnam: Ever thought *how* Vietnam's situation came about? The French's division into North and South was practically begging for both sides of the Cold War to turn those states into proxies.

I could point to a hell of a lot of other examples- but you get the idea. I am not for a *MOMENT* condoning the US's actions in either the Gulf War or the Vietnam war(or Iran Contra, or numerous other embarassing international incidents)...I actually stood out on a picket line in 1990 to protest the US's stance on that issue- but that's besides the point. BOTH sides in the Cold War were equally guilty of influencing proxy states. The Northern halves of Korea and Vietnam didn't "magically" acquire CPS governments...they were influenced by Soviet China and Russia. You scoff at the "domino" effect in your post... Ever wonder why every *single* government north of Malaysia in SE Asia have(or have had) Communist governments? The domino effect wasn't just a theory- but a series of well-recorded recent historical events. Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Kampuchea- I could go on forever about the domino effect's impact on these nations, even today. Both sides in the Cold war embarked on flashpoints and campaigns in the name of ideology and power- *not* money as you claim. It cost both the US and the USSR billions of dollars to become involved in Vietnam, Korea and Afghanistan(the latter being purely a Soviet action)- saying that money was the motivating factor is incorrect.

That the US has embarked upon disgraceful and morally insupportable campaigns in the past is irrefutable. To say that the US is the only nation responsible for such acts in the recent past? That isn't just a narrow-minded point of view, but a misguided one as well. It confines blame to the US, where in fact blame can be equally proportioned.

2) Your claim that the US's system cannot be compared to other Western capitalist governments...I fail to see your point. I've done community medical work with the poor in London, Frankfurt, Munchen, Paris, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Seattle and New York. The systems don't just seem similar in those four nations- they are *identical* in the way they treat the poor- and in the way the poor reached their social state. And France and Germany are supposedly "socialist" systems. The simple truth is that the poor, no matter the system, will suffer at the hands of those in power

As far is the US treatment of Cuba goes after the fall of communism- you are aboslutely right- I in no way support or condone our government's position towards Cuba. It is out-moded and air-headed- there is no reason to blockade Cuba at the present imho. Why we did it during the Cold War should be obvious to anyone.

3) True, I did focus on the positive aspects of capitalism. No one denies the negative aspects- I was simply making the point that in a cost-benefit analysis, even in a vacuum, that the capitalist-based system is more workable than any other. Show me a single source that refutes that contention- a mixed economy based on a capitalist ideology is what every economist *knows* governments should strive for. I did jump the gun a little over the issue of communist/capitalist systems, but you were literally espousing socialist doctrine in your original post- it would have been amiss of me at least not to mention it. Likening me to a McCarthyist witch-hunter won't help things

Of course the US benefits from capitalism by exploitation. But on a far less scale than colonialist nations did. Britain's arms sales to Indonesia and Micronesia aside; France's nuclear testing in Polynesia aside- I would still say that while morally insupportable, a nation is entitled to act in its own best interests. If that happens at the expense of others- there's not much any of us can do about that- the US is hardly alone in this regard.

Corporate power influencing political decisions is hardly unique to the US either. Slurring hip-hop as "US culture" is yet another gross generalization. US culture is a melding of the cultures of 20-30 nations- hip hop isn't part of that culture- it is in fact counter-culture. Check your facts on this before you post bugler- 90% of Americans find Eminem abusive and coarse- tarring all Americans with the same brush shows an unfounded annoyance with the US that your other arguments are shadowed with- it may be justified- but you conveniently ignore the historical implications of the issues you discuss.

Lastly- as for the Kyoto agreement- I have stated in previous threads that such an act was unsupportable- but tbh, whether a Western nation is signed up or not makes little practical difference. Historical precedents with the UN, GAT, and now the WTO illustrate this clearly. Unfortunate, but probably true

I apologize for the long post, and any remarks that may have caused offense to some-I can only give you my assurance that it was not my intention to do so.

I just hope to God that Bush cops on soon- or he won't be in office long- I'm hardly alone in the US as far as hating him and his policies goes...

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Veni Vidi Vici=

Hobbes · 12-04-2001 12:00am

Bob. If all the countries sign an agreement to help save the world is in everyones "best intrest", why does Bush turn around and say they are going to ignore it because it's in thier best intrest? It isn't, only benifits the oil barons at the expense of everyone.

You can have best intrests in your own country and still be nice to other people. I think Bush is one of the first US presidents (that I'm aware of) that has publically said "fuk you all, all we care about is the US". (sic). I'm sure every single president before him thought the same way but was more diplomatic about it. After all you catch more flies with honey then vineger.

darthmise · 12-04-2001 4:33pm

I think the reason that there is so much animosity and disdain for America as a nation, is that they are beyond reproach.

1)They bomb Iraq about a month ago, and two days later it's swept under the carpet.

2) They pull out of the Kyoto treaty even though their emissions are almost twice that of any other country. They ARE the largest polluters of the environment. And when they are not allowed to trade off their percentage leeway emissions with nations who already reached their targets, they withdraw.

3) They are caught spying on China (lets be honest) and nobody says so much as boo to them.

If America decides to take action against a country or state nowadays there is no single nation powerful enough to stop or deter them.
And any nation that tries to stand alongside them, gets told to sit back down. E.g. China, Iraq.

I don't think it's hatred of America is the problem, I think it's a fear of America that causes all the negative comments directed at the U.S.

The rest of the world lives in America's shadow now... and to a certain extent holds it up as a shining example of a successful nation ( if you'll forgive the contradictory pun.)

My fear is that America will become the dictator state to the rest of the world if that hasn't happened already. You need a balance, Russia used to give the world that balance, now America doesn't have anyone to look over their shoulder at.

Bob I don't see what grounds you have to be upset with anything that Bugler has said.
Your nation voted Bush in.
Bush IS symbolic of all that is American/capitalist, like it or not.
Is the U.S. the only capitalist country in the world? No.
Is it the best example to take? Yes.

Who voted for this guy?!

Comments