Brad DeLong has some rather disappointing criticisms of Bush's State of the Union. In short, the claim is that at last year's State of the Union address, Bush: 1) Used the phrase "Axis of Evil" but doesn't anymore, 2) promised to get bin Laden dead or alive, 3) said the budget deficit would be small and short-lived, 4) said that his economic plan then was oriented toward jobs, and 5) his fans will uncritically praise anything he says.
DeLong is a smart guy, but:
#1 is probably true but meaningless, #2 is false, #3 is arguably a fair criticism, #4 is twisted because most in the administration, including Bush himself, have been saying that the tax plan will take more than a year to have a salutary effect and that more needs to be done, and #5 is demonstrably false.
So what's it boil down to? Oh yeah. The economy's weak, we've seen continued increases in unemployment, and the deficit's going up like it usually does during economic slumps. So why not just say that? Why the need to act like such intellectual weaklings with criticism?
#1 I would have thought that the difference in treatment of North Korea and Iraq would give it some meaning.
#2 Technically you may be right but what he gave people to understand is a different matter. Google gives up
"President Bush Monday repeated his vow to track down Osama bin Laden" for ABC news report on the dead or alive speech. There is a reason tha politicians avoid such highly emotive language even if it would provide short term popularity or make them appear tough.
#3 Is clearly fair criticism since initially there was supposed ot be no deficit at all!
#4 But he has been talking about taking action that will have no short term effect and, in terms of bangs per buck of deficit, will provide little stimulus when it does by targetting the wealthy.
#5 Is at least arguable. If you have become exasperated by the way that many BUsh fans have bent over beckwards to understand the administration's economic policy, for instance by saying that it is a cunning plan to bankrupt the government and force spending cuts in the future ( although not now of course) you could be forgiven for making such an accusation.
So the economy is in a slump? I thought Bush's '01 tax plan was to prevent that--remember he said that last one would create jobs? What a ton of BS. Even the White House OMB is forecasting 200 - 300B deficits, which could hardly be blamed on a slump anyway. Your defenses of Bush are disingenuous.
You guys wuold have some kind of point if he promised the tax cuts would fix everything but he didnt and he has been talking about needing to do more for a year so what the hell?
No one who likes bush criticizes him? You know he never promised to get bin Laden but you'll pretend like he did anyway? What the hell?
You cant please everyone I guess and can't even win for trying.
Uhhh, Bushs '01 tax plan couldn't have prevented a slump, since the economy was already in one. Clearly , then, your thinking was wrong. I suspect that this is not the only instance of that.
One thing before I forget:
Everyone knew that Bush meant to get Osama dead or alive.
Hell, they liked that about Bush.
So whether or not the words "Osama" and "dead or alive" collided in the same sentence isn't relevant. We all knew what he meant.
That said, let me tell you what really bothers me about the aftermath of the SOTU --
The inclination of the media (specifically Fox, because that's who I have on right now) the inclination of the media to use the word "attack" when describing what the Democrats are doing when they speak up about their perceived deficiencies of Bush's plan.
"Attack?"
It bothers me.
Not because the Dems are toothless. It bothers me because it isn't descriptive of what's happening.
Jets crashing into skyscrapers constitute an "attack."
Politicians bitching about the opposition is not an "attack." Nor is it unpatriotic.
So -- Fox, NBC, ABC, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, etc. get over it.
So can we stop using that word in that manner?
Thanks.
[End of sermon.]
P.S. POTUS is looking tired, don't you think? Dude is definitely taking this hard. It happens to all of them, and it is always hard to watch. Hair's gone grey, voice sounds tired, hm.
The economy was doing quite well, and jobs were at hand until a dishonest, poor looser got into office. I knew with that tax refund in 2001 we were in trouble. Now, stocks are plunging, jobs are becoming scarce, and this man is talking about more tax cuts to "encourage spending?"
Come on Bush, one cannot spend what they do not have. Rather than worry about irrelevant issues such as affirmative action, you need to sit down and take a look at the real budget..... not the fake spreadsheet you look at.
People like myself have spent thousands of dollars for a piece of paper that is suppose to get us any career that we want, and be able to make more than poverty salary, is now useless because the job market sucks and you cannot find anything in your area of study.
As far as Bin-Laden is concerned, he is sitting back laughing at how foolish this country, and the politics here have became. If anything, He may get Bush, "Dead or Alive." My warning to Bush is not to step into something that you cannot get out of. If you play with fire too long, you will get burned!
Everyone knew that Bush meant to get Osama dead or alive. Hell, they liked that about Bush.
We still like it about him. But I believe it's intellectually vapid (at best) to read that as anything but a promise to go after him and give no quarter in doing so.
Anyone who's been watching the administration and its statements knows that from day 1 they have avoided defining success as capturing bin Laden, and avoided any promise to get him. They've done so for a host of pretty obvious reasons, first and foremost being that capturing him would not end the terror. Also, he might well be killed without us ever being able to verify it.
But why am I explaining this? It's self-evident to anyone who isn't hellbent on finding something, anything to criticize, isn't it?
--
As for the word "attack": Having read and heard extensively about Republican attacks on President Clinton, I decided to consult a dictionary. According to the American Heritage, the second most common use of the word "attack" is "to criticize strongly or in a hostile manner."
---
Regarding Bush getting tired: the only exception I can remember is Reagan, who actually looked younger in 1984 than he did in 1980. %-)
You can apply all those criticisms to Clinton as well.
>> Come on Bush, one cannot spend what they do not have. Rather than worry about irrelevant issues such as affirmative action, you need to sit down and take a look at the real budget..... not the fake spreadsheet you look at.
Deonna,
There is one fly in your ointment. Tax cuts to not spend money the government does not have. Tax cuts always involve BEFORE tax revenue. Therefore, Bush’s tax cut is not spending anything. Your argument is a common fallacy proffered by obvious liberals who do not understand tax cutting anyway. Do you?
Bush’s proposal is a tax cut for those who actually pay income taxes. You cannot cut taxes for those who do not pay them. Those poor people already enjoy a 100% Income Tax cut and have done so for years. Remember, Reagan received much the same criticisms when he cut taxes in 1981. Tax revenues doubled by the time he left office. Also, if you actually DO remember the fecund Clinton years so well you also remember that deficits turned into surpluses due to economic expansion. Bush is expecting this same expansion.
Dean:
I'm sorry we let Osama get away. I really am. Once upon a time, we wanted his head on a pike. We wanted him dead or alive.
If that puts me to the right of Ariel Sharon, then I'm proud to occupy that niche.
In contrast, inside the Beltway, Osama has become the answer to a trivia question.
Now all of Washington seems to be satisfied that he's "on the run."
Whatever the hell THAT means.
That said, you can also...
"Call me a hawk on the war in Iraq."
(c)2003 Ara Rubyan
Makes a good bumper sticker, dontcha think?
Speaking of the war in Iraq...
A year from now, are we going to be accepting the same nonsense about Saddam that we accept now about Osama?
It just seems like it's happening all over again. The administration is talking about:
Saddam, Saddam, Saddam.
I'm hoping for the best:
"Full closure" on Saddam. Much, much more than we got on Osama.
But having seen the denoument of the Osama episode, I'm preparing myself for the worst:
Unacceptable outcome: will we be wondering where Saddam is, twelve months from now?
Worse yet, will he be living in a villa in Libya by then?
Worst of all, will he still be in power?
Never mind how much this is going to cost.
I want Saddam's head on a pike outside the gates of his palace in Tikrit.
Failure on this is not an option.
And...am I the only one who's paranoid about a counter-attack happening HERE after the war starts, and not in Iraq?
Kevin,
With a mouth and brain like yours, you should really run for a political office and join Bush in his venture to pursue "truth, justice, and the 'conservative' way." And yes, how can you cut taxes in a struggling economy? I mean, we see what the first tax cut did.... NOTHING! What needs to be done is a re-assessment of the finances.
And, I hope that he does catch Saddam and Ossama. We need something else to occupy the news.
Ara: Since I see no evidence that we've given up on bin Laden, I have no idea how to even respond to that. It's like responding to a man who insists that he is made up entirely of chocolate mousse. %-)
Ara, I have to ask what your goal is: supressing terrorism or revenge?
If the best Al Quaeda can accomplish these days is the occasional drive-by shooting, isn't that an improvement? If Bin Laden (IF he is still alive) is so busy running that he doesn't even have time to flip a bird in the direction of Washington, isn't that a good thing?
Which means, I believe, I've answered your question: it means AQ has been rendered ineffective to a great degree.
I have a question: just what will we accomplish by putting Hussein's head on a pike? Do you think that will change France's opinion, or Kennedy's? Or National Review's opinion, for that matter? :) Short of revenge, that is...
To answer your other puzzle: the adminstration has more than one line in the water. They know they can take Baghdad without much trouble, but it would be nice to get UN approval, so give it a shot. Same thing with the "exile gambit"; it's a long shot, but give it a chance. You never know, Hussein may grab the opportunity. I doubt it, considering his psychology, but it's worth a shot considering we need to take time anyway to fulfill logistic requirements for a land war.
Sun Tzu understood the mental component of warfare. The best general wins without fighting. :) Of course this depends on your goals. Vengance changes things.
Deonna, you are really making yourself look bad. I don't know why Kevin's last post set you off, unless you were offended by his remark about "obvious liberals who do not understand tax cutting anyway."
To be honest, I don't think you have a very strong grasp of economics myself. One of your earlier statements was "The economy was doing quite well, and jobs were at hand until a dishonest, poor looser[sic] got into office."
If you think the economy was "doing quite well" at the time, you are obviously not aware of the "dot-com bust".
I must add that anyone who thinks that tax cuts are a bad idea (especially during a weak economy) has a very weak grasp of fundamental economic principals. Do you think that the US government is the driving force behind our economy, and that we need to fund it at all costs?
I have suspicion your vehemenence on this score is related to a comment you made in one post:
"People like myself have spent thousands of dollars for a piece of paper that is suppose to get us any career that we want, and be able to make more than poverty salary, is now useless because the job market sucks and you cannot find anything in your area of study."
Or in other words: "it's Bush's fault I don't have the job I want."
I will even go out on a small ledge and guess that your degree is related to business administration, liberal arts, teaching, or some other soft science instead of something truly useful such as: engineering, mathematics, medicine, physics, electronics, or computer science.
>> With a mouth and brain like yours, you should really run for a political office and join Bush in his venture to pursue "truth, justice, and the 'conservative' way." And yes, how can you cut taxes in a struggling economy? I mean, we see what the first tax cut did.... NOTHING! What needs to be done is a re-assessment of the finances.
Deonna,
Thank you for the compliment. You may call it mouth and brain; but I know you really do mean erudition and scholarship. I know about what I speak. That is correct grammar, too. If you actually ready ANY history at all regarding taxes and government financing you would capably remember the 1961 tax cut of John F. Kennedy’s. The economy in 1961 was recovering from a recession with more modest growth than we have today. Inflation was also 1%. Kennedy cut taxes despite today’s modern day arguments against tax cuts.
Reagan also inherited a struggling economy experiencing double-digit inflation and double-digit unemployment from our “Keynesian” President Jimmy Carter. His tax cuts stimulated an ailing economy giving us strong economic growth that continued almost unabated through the Clinton years. Yes Deonna, tax cuts do stimulate the economy. History proves it. When did you last read a history book?
Bush’s first tax cut was not very successful since it was too small. An ailing economy needs a large tax cut to stimulate it out of a recession. I can tell you never experienced an economics class in your entire life. If you did, you would understand the nature of this debate at least in Keynesian vs. monetarist terms.
Kevin. F.Y.I., I have a degree in american history and political science. As well as a masters degree in political science. I am aware of all of the administrations and the deficits/recessions... ect, including the works done in their administrations. Because of my democratic mind and background, you should pretty much know that I am against most of what the republicans feel and think, because it is for selfish reasons why they do some of the things that they do, which is clearly stated in most history books if you had the knowledge to analyze them.
As far as the comment about you considering an office, contrary to what you think or feel, I was quite sincere in what I said. You have what it takes to represent your party,and I would vote for you strictly because some of the things you are saying, for the most part I agree with (until we get more democrats that are more qualified). The Comments that you make, I truly do not appreciate, and would suggest any that pertain to my intelligence or you trying to insult it, you keep it to yourself. I will feel what I want to feel regardless if you like it or not. I must have some intelligence and knowledge of my background, I was a department coordinator for my school district in the concentration of Social Studies,modern world history, american history, and government & law. In fact, I was picked to serve on a committee that helped write and plan a curriculum that is one of the tops in my state, as well as help write questions for the basic skills tests. I have also coordinated two campaigns here for people, who were Democrats, that won their elections. I am sorry that my change in my career has taken me away from really looking at the news and reading the papers like I used to look and analyze the news.
Now I feel a very sarcastic remark brewing on your end. Might I suggest that you forward all other comments to my email address for the sake of respecting Dean, and the readers of this site.
Casey,
F.Y.I., "it is Bush's fault why I do not have the job I want?" I never said that. I am quite content with the job I have. I am speaking of the many people, who graduated with me, that are having difficulties finding a job in their area of concentration. I know people with graduate degrees that are waiting tables because the jobs are not there for them like they were even 6 yrs ago.
Now, I will say that the economy begain to dwindle during the last couple of years of the Clinton Administration. That's because he begain to loose his focus. And yes, at this point, a tax cut would be a good idea. I have taken time to reassess my thinking, and look closely at the economic status of the nation (A vacation without taking work home with you will allow you to do that). While I still dislike Bush tremendously, I have said previously, whatever he can do to change the state of the country for the better, more power to him.
Also, when you say that a degree in education is not useful, that is quite insulting to all teachers. It may not be an important field to you because it is not "useful," but to others, it is quite a demanding area. They have more job openings for teachers than for an economist. Any fool would know that as long as there are children, young adults, and educational institutions, there will always be a need for educators. That will be one field that will not likely die out anytime soon, no matter how technology advances. Someone will still need to teach it!
As far as making myself look bad? I don't have to agree with anything anyone says about these issues. I know a large amount of people who agree with most of what I am saying, which boils down to a need for change. I do not see where this administration is making or even attempting to make change. Whatever I can do to help Bush make the changes, I will, even my support, he will have. I sorry, I still do not see any basis or grounds for us getting involved with this war. He could have the support of all countries, and I will still feel the same. I pray every night for this nation, and the leaders who make these decisions.
As far as republican leadership goes, I feel that President Regan,and his administration, did an outstanding job. He is my favorite republican president.
Dean,
McCarthy was maliciously maligned at least a little. The United States Army actually moved the Aberdeen proving grounds targeted by the Russians to either Arizona or NM in 1955 in a very sotto voce manner for fear of the publicity generated if the public discovered the reason why. The Russian communists were actually successful penetrating east coast defense sites as Whittaker Chambers and Joseph McCarthy asserted. Removing them to the American west made this spying more difficult.