Democrats Balanced Budget Rhetoric

[adios]

Many in the Democratic party and on the left in general are railing against the Republican party in general and George Bush in particlar regarding the current US budget deficit. I believe the 2002 budget deficit is something like $262 billion (btw the absolute number isn't significant, it's the percentage of GDP that is). I've got news for all those on this forum railing against it. You won't get $262 billion in budget cuts by cutting defense spending only i.e. funding for inititiatives that the Democratic party in particular and the left in general favors would surely have to be cut. The only way to keep all of these programs the Democrats want is to increase taxes which IMO would be disasterous for the economy. I'm a little surprised the Republicans haven't called the Democrats out on this issue although the Republicans may feel that they are encouraging the Democrats to run on raising taxes. I'll admit I'd enjoy seeing the Democrats campaign for raising taxes but that seems to be way too much to hope for. The main reasons that the US has gone from a surplus to a deficit are the decreased government revenues due to the 50% increase in unemployment from it's lowest levels as well as a general economic downturn and the increased costs of homeland security. Here's a link to all kinds of information regarding the Federal Budget. I had a reletively sane discussion about the budget deficit with Clarkmeister once. Perphaps a rational discussion of the budget and the implications of a deficit would be more useful than trying to gain political points on a poker site message board where a lot of "preaching to the choir" goes on among leftist posters. Here's a link to all kinds of information regarding the Federal Budget:

Budget of the United States Government (http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/budget.html)


I'm a little surprised I got no response to my analysis of Senator Lieberman's energy policy statement.

Three Posts that got a lot of attention.


Regarding Andy's post on Iraqi Democracy:

U.S. moves to ban Baath party officials (http://www.canoe.com/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2003/05/17/89250.html)

Apparently you draw the following conclusions from this article (it has the direct phrase of original post so I assume that you're using this article as your source):

"But if it forever bans those who took part in a government it did not like, those words are empty. Note that the United States did not say that those people who are banned could not reform a tyrannical government. They are banned from taking part in the nascent democracy. It is not the appartuas which is being banned. It is certain people."

Here's what the article states:

The United States moved yesterday to purge its Iraqi reconstruction effort of any Baath party influence and successfully worked to recover millions of dollars taken by Saddam Hussein's family and regime.

Not the words reconstruction effort.

A senior official from the U.S. Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance said between 15,000 and 30,000 Baath party officials will be banned entirely from participating in any future Iraqi government.

You equate this with official US Policy regarding Iraqi efforts to form a new government? You're implying in my mind that the USA is ramming something down the throats of the Iraqis that they don't want because it's undemocratic. Methinks that you're being at least slightly disingenuous.


The Jessica Lynch Post

Well I don't see a lot of upside for the US military to stage the events that transpired with her capture and subsequent rescue. In fact I see a lot more downside than upside.

nicky's post about Bush

That post has so many half truths, irrelevant issues, and outright lies that it makes me think that only someone with a diminished mental capacity and an agenda would post such a thing without any kind of discussion of the relevancy and factualness of the issues brought up. His post was a mundane and tired rant at best.

[nicky g]

"nicky's post about Bush

That post has so many half truths, irrelevant issues, and outright lies that it makes me think that only someone with a diminished mental capacity and an agenda would post such a thing without any kind of discussion of the relevancy and factualness of the issues brought up. His post was a mundane and tired rant at best. "

Cheers, Tom. I certainly have an agenda, as does everone posting here, and by popular consent a diminished mental capacity (though what that actually means, I don't know - did I previously have a higher one?), along with the rest of us whacko Europeans (and others) who think Bush is a crook. D'you mean the list and link I posted, or my own rant about Bush in response to a post of yours a while ago? If the former, I didn't write it, I cut and pasted it from a round robin email. From its tone I would have thought it was supposed to be humourous, though with a serious point - something known as satire. I'd be happy to discuss any issues it brought up - that's why I posted it. Clearly you'd rather not. If the latter, I'm disappointed as I thought you were going to respond to some of my points. Oh well. Keep living in your bubble.

[andyfox]

"A senior official from the U.S. Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance said between 15,000 and 30,000 Baath party officials will be banned entirely from participating in any future Iraqi government."

Tom: You equate this with official US Policy regarding Iraqi efforts to form a new government?

Andy: Yes. The meaing of the words are plain enough. We claim that we will not make decisions for the new Iraqi democracy, the Iraqi people will run their own institutions. But we have banned up to 30,000 people from being considered by the Iraqi people. How is this democracy?

[MMMMMM]

Well we've also said we won't permit the installation of Islamic law as the basis of government (even if they were to vote for it). It must be realized however that if Islamic law were voted in it would then take over the political process and rule, and effectively prevent democracy from ever really taking hold. So in a democracy you just can't have "anything goes" even if it's voted on. That's one reason why there are Constitutions in democratic republics.

Similarly if Baath Party officials who were instrumental in fostering and maintaining Saddam's reign of terror were to control many important government posts Iraq might soon largely revert to what it was before.

So yeah, it's not a complete democracy yet. A Constitution needs to be drawn up first too. And true Baathist thugs are going to be sort of shut out for a while. Too bad, huh? It really isn't perfect.

I get the sense that many of your dissatisfactions with all manner of things (including the USA and politics in general) stem from their inabilities to live up to idealistic perfections. I guess that's just the way the world works. I greatly wish it were otherwise too, but it isn't, and Iraq isn't going to be completely liberated, reconstructed or democratized overnight. And its democracy probably isn't ever going to be perfect (and I guess the Blame America First crowd can always carp about that too).

[andyfox]

"I get the sense that many of your dissatisfactions with all manner of things (including the USA and politics in general) stem from their inabilities to live up to idealistic perfections. I guess that's just the way the world works. I greatly wish it were otherwise too, but it isn't, and Iraq isn't going to be completely liberated, reconstructed or democratized overnight. And its democracy probably isn't ever going to be perfect (and I guess the Blame America First crowd can always carp about that too)."

-I don't think I'm dissastisfied with all manner of things. I'm definitely a bit more curmudgeonly in my dotage (I'm 50) than I was in my youth; but I'm certainly not a perfectionist. Political bull does rile me though. If anything, I'm more keen to it when it comes from the left (thus my many posts criticizing the Dems, both current and from the recent past) because I expect more from those with whom I am close to on the political spectrum. Don't tell me we're interested in a democracy when we're not. Don't tell me you're in favor of considering a bailout for the airlines when your wife is their number one lobbyist.

But hell, you might be right about me. It's easier for others to see what one is about then oneself, no doubt about it.

The one thing I definitely disagree with is the "Blame America First" crowd. I see a don't blame America at all ever crowd, but I don't see a blame America first crowd. Who would you characterize as a charter member of the blame America first crowd?

[MMMMMM]

Well first off when I say 'all manner of things' I am not saying you are dissatisfied with all things, but rather I am trying to refer to a broad spectrum of things with which you may be dissatisfied. I'm certainly not saying you are dissatisfied with all things.

What would make you think we aren't interested in a democracy in Iraq? I think we are; we just don't want one comprised of Islamist fanatics or internal-security-apparatus terror-masters who would be likely to abuse and probably ruin any nascent democracy.

Noam Chomsky is a shining example of the philosophy of the blame America First Crowd. Never mind that the USSR and China slaughtered scores of millions more than the US ever did; compare America instead to some lofty imaginary ideals that were never practically unattainable, instead of comparing America to other world behemoths. All had to operate in the same imperfect world...and did so imperfectly. Yet the overall legacies of terror and slaughter by the communist giants were far, far greater than America's in total. However Chomsky prefers to blame America for most of the world's ills and directs his venom as if there is something inherently evil about America or the American people or the American system. Chomsky also even went so far as to cheer on the North Vietnamese communists (who after the fall of South Vietnam revealed their true nature as cold-blooded killers in both South Vietnam and in the massive killing fields of Cambodia).

Chomsky too made 9/11 sound as if America was to blame for bringing the attack on itself, when in fact al Qaeda are unappeasable fanatical religious militants. The only thing that will truly appease al Qaeda is the conversion of the entire world to their version of hard-line Islam.

[Parmenides]

Bootlicking fascists are in denial.

The budget used to be balanced under the Clinton/Gingrich compromise. The world experienced the largest economic boom in history as a result.

Your fuhrer ended all of that with his policies of making the payroll tax working man pay for almost everything. The American aristocracy receives more corpoate welfare under this stooge than any ELECTED president,

I'm surprised that the Neocons haven't created a special Bush salute yet. Yet is the key word in that sentence.

[Parmenides]

Pure propaganda.

The American government is responsible for just as many deaths of indigenous peoples and minorities as either behemoth. American foreign policy sunce WWII has sponsored dictatorships. The School of the Americas trains the security forces in the use of torture.

You believe in the US of white people. That's clear.

[adios]

Also thanks for the stock tip on Haliburton it's up about 16% or so since you "recommended" it and I'd be remiss in not thanking nicky too because his Cheney smear of the bogus accounting issues peaked my interest. Haliburton should be paying a dividend soon as well. Seriously I mean it. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[Parmenides]

Of course they should. They have large contracts arranged prior to the invasion of Iraq. Cheney is powerful enough to have anyone that would testifiy against him killed. The business outlook for them is bright as long as goose steppers continue to kiss his bosses behind.

[nicky g]

Good for you Tom. You can be happy in the knowledge that you're investing with a reputable, ethically run company.
Cheney firm paid millions in bribes to Nigerian official (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,952170,00.html)

[MMMMMM]

The USSR and Red China killed scores of millions of their own people. This is historical fact. Stalin killed 20 million + of his own people while Hitler killed 6 million Jews. Mao deliberately starved tens of millions of his own people. If you add up all the people the USA has killed, it just isn't anywhere near such enormous numbers.

Also, I really don't care what race anybody is, but I do frown strongly on stupid, harmful ideologies and customs, and on ignorant beliefs and systems which lead to severe oppression and violence. And it just so happens that you will generally find much more of that outside of the West.

[MMMMMM]

nicky, if true that just shows good business acumen in dealing with corrupt overseas governments. Do you really think most companies can operate in say Russia or Mexico (or Nigeria, lol) without paying some sort of bribes or protection money to the highly corrupt officials who infest every level of government. In such countries, bribes and kickbacks are a way of life and business, and politics is in bed with organized crime. I'll even bet that if the subsidiary didn't pay this Nigerian official bribes in order to get tax breaks, the subsidiary would have soon faced other major problems (and not by happenstance). You can't be a Boy Scout all the time when surrounded by Al Capones. The subsidiary's mistake was probably in getting caught.

[nicky g]

"Protection" money is one thing, though I would not really approve of that anyway. But bribes in return for tax breaks? That suggests as much corruption on Halliburton's behalf (more, in fact) as it does on the Nigerian government's. Of course, there's no need for such corruption in the US at the moment because the energy corporations have seconded their staff to run the government anyway.

[MMMMMM]

I would suspect it's just what got caught, if true.

Also, to what degree does a huge parent company really have control over all its subsidiaries?

This discovery, if true, could suggest many things. It doesn't have to suggest that the parent company is essentially corrupt.

[andyfox]

I think we profess to be interested in democracy in Iraw, but that it's true only insofar as it advances our interests. We've never been oppposed to oppressive governments that have been open to economic penetration. And we have been opposed to democratically elected governments that veered to far outside of our economic domination.

Criticizing our foreign policy is not the same as Blaming America First. It is much more important, in my judgment, to be tough on one's own government, which professes, for example, to be interested in setting up a democracy in Iraq, when one sees illogic or untruths being propogated, than to be critical of a foreign government.

Chomsky does believe that our government has caused more sufferering in the world than the Communist governments.

And in Vietnam, we too were cold-blooded killers, and much more efficient ones than were the Communists. I find our killing harder to take than that of the Communists.

[andyfox]

"In such countries, bribes and kickbacks are a way of life and business, and politics is in bed with organized crime."

I would agree with this statement if you changed the word "such" to "all."

[MMMMMM]

Again you seem to ignore the consideration of degree. Of course corruption exists everywhere but it is proportionately far more pervasive and serious in Russia, Mexico and Nigeria than in the United States.

When comparing things, yes, apples are apples, but 50 apples don't equal 500 apples. Nor does a barrel of apples with say 10% of the apples rotten to the core equal a barrel of apples with say 50% or more of the apples rotten to the core.

This is the biggest flaw I see in many of your and Chris Alger's arguments, statements or positions: ignoring matters of degree.

[MMMMMM]

"Chomsky does believe that our government has caused more suffering in the world than the Communist governments."

Then Chomsky is either a highly educated idiot or a despicable liar. Add up the numbers of people slaughtered by the USA compared to the numbers slaughtered by the USSR or by Red China and you will see there is no comparison.

Also realize that Chomsky tends to lay all the blame on the USA for atrocities committed in countries where we supported bad regimes without considering that even without our support these countries would still probably have been hell-holes. And does he lay the blame equally on China or the USSR when they supported bad regimes?

Yes I know you'd rather look at our ourselves first for improvement, and all other things being equal so would I, but the point is, all other things are far from equal: the USSR and China terrorized and slaughtered far more people than we ever did--many times over. That's not to say we shouldn't be self-critical or instrospective with an eye to improvement but let's realize where the bulk of the suffering really came from. If Chomsky fails to acknowledge this he is either lying or being deliberately deceptive. I suspect it is the latter.

[MMMMMM]

"And in Vietnam, we too were cold-blooded killers, and much more efficient ones than were the Communists. I find our killing harder to take than that of the Communists."

So who killed more in Southeast Asia, us or the communists? Obviously the numbers slaughtered by the communists--the 100,000 South Vietnamese slaughtered by the North after our withdrawal--and the, what is it? 2 million slaughtered by Pol Pot?--dwarfed our numbers.

So you find our killing harder to take. OK, I'll buy that...in a way, so do I...but how about the victims? Who created more victims? Who do you think the masses of victims would vote as the worst, if they could somehow be resuurected to express their opinions? The communists wreaked far more death and destruction in Southeast Asia, so I think in the balance of things their killing is harder for humanity to take. I suggest that looking at it just from "our" point of view ignores the truly universal humanitarian aspect of the matter--and that humanitarian aspect must condemn the communists more than us in this case.

Sure we feel worse if we do something bad. But do the victims really care who did it?

[nicky g]

Er - estimates of people killed by the US in South-East Asia are between 2 million and 4 million. The 100,000 you claim killed by the North Vietnamese after the war doesn't even approach the numbers killed by the US. Also the Vietnamese communist regime did much more than the US to combat the Khmer Rouge, and it was the illegal bombing of Cambodia by the US that led to the conditions which allowed the Khmer Rouge to prosper in any case.

[MMMMMM]

Well I'm certainly no scholar of that war;-) If any of your facts are wrong I'll leave it to others to point out. Sorry if my own impressions were wrong.

At any rate it doesn't change the main point that on a global scale the scores of millions slaughtered by the communists dwarfs any other figures. Estimates of the totals of their own citizens starved to death, executed, or who perished in USSR and Chinese forced labor camps range up to 80 million. To get a sense of how the figues of various atrocities added up over the years, check out The Museum Of Communism and read of the human rights violations specifically under Lenin, Stalin, Mao and in other time periods in the Museum Of Communism FAQ (right side column clickable link, then numbers 4,5,6,7 especially).

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/musframe.htm

[MMMMMM]

By the way, nicky, I just read the section on post-war Vietnam in the Museum of Communism FAQ. It seems that the executions were not the whole story: "The post-war executions, concentration camps, and deportations probably produced several hundred thousand additional deaths."

Regarding the Khmer Rouge: the Khmer Rouge were Communists. My point was not about only the North Vietnamese but Communists in general. So add their killing fields to the list of Communist atrocities. Chomsky's claim that the USA did more harm to the world or to humanity than the Communists would be laughable if it were not so tragically and immensely wrong.

[andyfox]

And I think it is you that ignores the consideration of degree. The corruption in Mexico is petty compared to the corruption in our country. It is more blatant and less subtle, more hidden from view and less sophisticated. The numbers of dollars involved, the size of our government and corporations--these things mean that the scale of corruption in our society drafts that of a country like Mexico. The kind of crookedness exemplified by the careers of, for example, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton (to name two politicians from each party) is certainly indicative of a highly corrupt society. Look at how the two parties and the Supreme Court of the United States behaved in the aftermath of the last presidential election.

[MMMMMM]

andy I think you are just plain wrong on this. The politicians in Mexico are deeply entertwined with the drug smuggling business (and that is huge money too). It's not like here where some politicians get a bit extra from special interest groups or extra campaign money--heh--in Mexico probably most politicians are getting direct cash payments from the drug mob and we're talking guys at the highest levels. Do our governors get direct cash payments from drug smugglers? Well most of their counterparts in Mexico probably do, along with their police chiefs and military leaders. It's like a freaking circus.

In Moscow you practically can't open a Mom and Pop store without paying protection money to the mob. Many of the Russian politicians are actual mobsters themselves, and the mob is also comprised of many ex-KGB officials. Some years ago I read, in a mainstream news source, of a scam that was making the rounds in Moscow. The mob placed ads offering to buy nice apartments at very attractive prices and as part of the deal would offer the sellers cheaper replacement apartments to boot. Not a bad deal if you owned a nice apartment and wanted a goodly chunk of cash, hmmm? So they took the prospective sellers out and showed them the replacement apartments and inked the deal buying their apartment and handed them a handsome check. Then they shot them dead and dumped them in ditches off the sides of the roads all in and around Moscow. Yep, hundreds of them.


You like to read. Why don't you pick up a used copy of The Underground Empire by award-winning journalist James Mills. It's a great read, non-fiction, and a real eye-opener. Take a look into what really goes on behind the scenes in the world's illegal drug trade. At the date of publication (1986), the international narcotics industry was the largest growth industry in the world with annual revenues of over half a trillion dollars (whether it still is I don't know). It's a book you can't put down until you fall asleep, and if you think Tricky Dick Nixon was corrupt, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

[andyfox]

"The politicians in Mexico are deeply entertwined with the drug smuggling business"

-Read Dark Alliance by Gary Webb and/or Whiteout by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair.

"Do our governors get direct cash payments from drug smugglers?"

-Sprio Agnew received bribe money in his office while Vice President. The list of United States senators and member of the House of Representatives who have received cash from organized crime would be extensive.

"if you think Tricky Dick Nixon was corrupt, you ain't seen nothin' yet."

-Thanks for the book recommandation, I'll pick it up. You should try Anthony Summers' The Arrogance of Power. Let me know what you think about Tricky Dick then. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

[nicky g]

I agree with you that Communists have killed more people than the US, vastly more, and caused more suffering too. It's an odd comparison though, given that dozens of nations have been one shade of communist or another, while there is only one United States. There are also different types of "communism"; in the 50s-70s any Latin American nation displaying remotely independent thought was labelled communist for instance. Maoism, Khmer Rouge philosophy and democratic socialism are all very different things, for instance. It's absurd to use the Khmer Rouge as the standard bearer of communism - there's no mention anywhere in classic Marxist texts of the need to kill every educated person in the country. The Khmer Rouge was a bizare death cult that grew out of an incredibly brutalised nation. It would be like suggesting Pinochetism (or what happened in Vietnam) is represntative of capitalism. (I am not a pro-communist, by the way, far from it - just pointing out that you have to careful with generalised terms). I doubt the figure of hundreds of thousands of people executed after the fall of Saigon but I also don't know.

[MMMMMM]

The list might be extensive but I doubt the percentage of deeply corrupt officials is anywhere near as high in the USA. We're talking corruption as a way of life in Mexico, Russia, etc.--it's what most government officials do. It's like why they are there in the first place.

In the USA many of our officials go into public service so they can try to further their political visions, do some good, gain some personal perks and advantages and power, etc. In certain other countries they go into public service so they can take bribes--that's like the main reason.

You and Cyrus have both recommended Whiteout so I guess it's a good pick;-)

[MMMMMM]

Andyfox: "Chomsky does believe that our government has caused more sufferering in the world than the Communist governments."

I posted a few reasons why Chomsky is terribly wrong on this...

nickyg:" I agree with you that Communists have killed more people than the US, vastly more, and caused more suffering too."

So then: how deluded or deceptive must Chomsky be to claim the opposite?

And regarding the deaths in post-war Vietnam, the figure of hundreds of thousands is a combined figure of executions, re-education camp deaths, and deaths of fleeing people (mostly drowned attempting to flee in boats).

[nicky g]

Well I certainly think he's wrong, if that's what he does believe. But I also think as I said that it's a pretty meaningless comparison.

[MMMMMM]

Even just China or the USSR beats us in numbers slaughtered and suffering inflicted--no need to throw in the Rouge or Latin "communists." Your point is fine but Chomsky's claim isn't.

[ACPlayer]

A related question: Is there anything such as economic violence?

[ACPlayer]

I think one could easily argue that corruption is more potentially disruptive in this country than others. Specially if you include the corruption of lobbying, corporate access to govt, soft money donations with expectations of returns for stockholders, etc.

Sure, we rarely have to slip five bucks to the DMV clerk to move a file so we can get a drivers license like one has to do in some countries. But if you believe that "corrupt" money does not grease the way for business to operate in this country ....

[MMMMMM]

Free trade benefits both parties, because otherwise they wouldn't trade, would they?

And if andyfox offers a job to immigrants, they wouldn't take it unless it benefits them too, right?

Also, the USA's economic strength benefits the world. If it weren't for us, would poorer countries have as many options for trade or for export?

Communist societies inevitably have ended up as total economic failures. So maybe, if there is such a thing as economic violence, it can be found in communist societies whose governments first seize control of all personal property by force, and then proceed to slowly bankrupt the nation as a whole which of course further reduces the living standard of their hapless citizens.

[nicky g]

I would say that frcing third world countries into opening up thir markets (particularly agriculture) to heavily subsidised European and American producers, while keeping many of our own markets closed, is an example of terrible economic violence. Sanctions arealso of course economic violence, if more defensible (I don't agree with them in many cases, but their is an argument for them).

[MMMMMM]

"I think one could easily argue that corruption is more potentially disruptive in this country than others."

Well you could argue it all you like, but that isn't the point when a third-world policeman stops you for no reason and your only out is to pay him off.

"But if you believe that "corrupt" money does not grease the way for business to operate in this country ...."

Did I say I believe that? I said corruption exists here, but it is far more pervasive in certain other countries.

[nicky g]

On this topic, hereis an article from the former British Secretary of Trade and Industry Stephen Byers, saying that he was wrong to push trade liberalisation policies on poor countries, and that he has seen their real devastating effects since leaving office.

I was wrong. Free market trade policies hurt the poor (http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,958731,00.html)

[MMMMMM]

I wasn't aware that we kept "many" of our markets closed, but I do agree they should be opened. I also think subsidies should be eliminated for the most part. The only exceptions might be if it were determined that we need to produce at least x amount of certain foodstuffs for national security reasons (to ensure being able to feed ourselves). Sugar isn't a necessary foodstuff so I think it is pointless to subsidize sugar beet farming in this country.

[andyfox]

I was in Mexico (Leon) when the cops stopped us coming out of the airport. When I asked our host what he wanted, the answer was "breakfast."

But I've also been in Chicago and been stopped by a cop for speeding. He threw his cap in my window across me into the passenger seat. He said, "You're the twentieth person I've stopped today." I said, "What?" He repeated what he said, with special emphasis on the TWENTIeth and I realized I was suppposed to put a twenty into his cap. Which I did.

There was, of course, no citation issued in either case.

[MMMMMM]

Well I'm not trying to say that we should push trade liberalization policies on poor countries, although I probably didn't make that clear. I'm saying if they choose to do business with us it's because it benefits them too.

[MMMMMM]

Cool story andy;-) So if you really were the 20th, he had already collected $400;-) I'll bet 20-1 that the percentage of cops doing that sort of thing in Mexico is far higher.

[nicky g]

Yeah, I wasn't really disagreeing with anything you wrote, just giving an example of what I think could be categorised as economic violence today.

[Jimbo]

I bet Andy being the generous philanthropist that he is tossed a Benjamin in the hat and said "Give the next four suckers a break as well." /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[andyfox]

I bet MMMMMM has a better chance of being right than you.

/forums/images/icons/smile.gif