|
Quote:
|
The Bush administrations stance of Foreign Policy has been a dream come true for the Right Wing of American Politics. For years they have cried that the US should quit the UN and kick it out of the US. They have advocated stopping Foreign Aid, telling other nations that we are going to do this or that whether they like it or not and telling them to put it where it doesn't shine if they don't like it. It is a put America first stance instead of cowtowing to the whims of foreign interests regardless of the consequence or lets call a spade a spade, because in reality they don't like us anyway.
Sound vaguely familar? However what the Dummys don't realize is that US Foreign Policy has always put US interests first. The US has always fked em in the a$$, but has always left em feeling good about themselves by giving them a reach around. Bush has ceased the reach arounds and tells em we are gona fk U in the a$$ whether you like it or not. Liberals on the other hand are concerned whether it was good for you to. Sensative Ba$tards. |
And this policy has been successful how?
I must be missing something somewhere. I believe in "America First" and agree that it would be great if more countries stood on their own two feet and took responsibility. However, the "foreign aid" nowadays seems to be more appeasement than anything else (N Korea for example, promise to supply Iran with nuclear fuel for their power reactors if they give up developing a bomb). Perhaps if it were limited to "humanitarian aid" that directly impacted people and supplied them with the essentials while they began the long road to self reliance. That would be in a perfect world. Given the world we have, that ain't gonna happen. Mistrust of the UN, much of which is deserved, will alienate nations and peoples even further, entering the world into a long period of isolationism and nationalism. To return to that kind of world might just be worse than what we have today. |
Quote:
There is not too much to argue with you about. However I want to put an additional perspective of the defceit spending. 911 was a hugh shock to the financial system, which could have brought about its collapse. To stave off the collapse and keep the system liquid, money had to be pumped in. This was done by lowering interest rates which led to excesses down the road when the situation stabilized. It led to unrestricted federal spending, which led to excesses by the legislative branch down the road. My take on it is that America and the Bush admin was thrown by 911 and had to take action which went contrary to what they would have done otherwise. Bush in his natural habitat is a fiscal conservative, 911 forced him out of it by necessity. Nobody wants to admit what a potential death blow 911 was to the world economic system. However if explained with that premise in mind the actions and events seem to make sense, where they make little sense with another explaination. |
Bush and his Right Wing cronies foreign policy stance is a failure.
The US has been very successfull with the reach around philisophy. The USA remains the 1000 lb Gorilla militarily and the 500 lb Gorilla economically. CA alone = the 7th largest econ in the world, give me a break. The reach around works. The Right Wing just doesn't realize the Reach Aorund is just the cost of doing business. U don't have to like it but it is good customer relations. |
Temporarily removing the capital gains tax simply allows investors to sell without paying taxes. It does not promote investment. It promotes disinvestment. Except that investors know that, from time to time, the capital gains tax will be suspended.....and they will have their opportunity to sidestep taxes. And so, in that sense, it encourages them to invest.
The left is not so confused as you think, about the importance of creating an optimistic and robust business climate. But again, here we're talking about American politics. One group of politicians is willing to borrow money from my grandchildren, and another group thinks that's a problem. Interestingly, the identities of the two groups is the opposite from what many people have been told to believe. The R's promise tax cuts. They forget to mention the deficit and debt problem this creates. Then, eventually, somebody will need to deliver the bad news. I would say that Presidents have better control of the economy that the NEXT President will enjoy than the one they are stuck with. |
tabs, why do you assume that GW, doesn't understand the impact of his actions or words? Why do you assume that his foreign policy has not been properly received by his intended audience?
|
[QUOTE=Superman;3499808]Temporarily removing the capital gains tax simply allows investors to sell without paying taxes. It does not promote investment. It promotes disinvestment. Except that investors know that, from time to time, the capital gains tax will be suspended.....and they will have their opportunity to sidestep taxes. And so, in that sense, it encourages them to invest.
QUOTE] I don't want to go down the "R" road of discussion, if U read the above posts you get what I think happened and why. BTW that doesn't make the great majority of Rs happy either. I disagree with you about the "disinvestment" incentive a lower capital gains tax provides or taxing passive income as income. Why does it need to be a "temporary suspension" do the $$ my money earns belong to someone else? I should be penalized for excelling and being prudent? The problem with the Soviet Union was there was no incentive to excell, there was no benfit derived from putting out any extra effort. Little or no effort was rewarded equally with maximum effort, so no one put out any effort. That is also the problem with Unions in America and the tax structure, it deadens the steps of people who want to excell. Ask me how I know! Give them an incentive program whereby they gain from their extra effort and watch them run over each other to excell. Based just upon that, you give me incentive to put money away and I will keep at it. You might say it goes back to the story of ant and grasshopper. |
I must confess, this thread started out as a total POS, but Bob and Tabdullah turned it around, thanks guys.
|
Quote:
Well on one hand I'm not a believer in conspiracies. Two the results in Iraq put the US and world economies into grave danger. The American Presidency has become an agent of Globalization. Globalization is the manifestation of the American Empire, an empire built on a financial and cultural system an empire of ideas rather than occupation and military might The military for U who would question that premises with some facts, miss the role the military has to play today, that of being a policeman to dampen down the fires of discord, to keep the peace. The Pax Americana. Thus by putting Globalization in danger, Bush has failed in his job, which nobody really wants to do. As for Bushs intended audience, honey will get U more than salt. If I were President I wouldn't antagonize I would lull you into complacency before I fked U. I would also co-opt U so that it would be difficult for U to complain too much. Problem with Iran is that they don't want to be co-opted, they have been there and done that. |
GW tends to mix his metaphors...to him Freedom and Globalization are synomous.
|
Quote:
There in lies the role of the media. To keep Ameicans fat dumb and happy fatted calfs. If the American HERD gets spooked like it did on 911 and STOPS SPENDING and/or runs out the bank door with their money...No more cash flow and BOOM GOES THE ECONOMY. When Americans run out of money the Japanese, Chinese and Indians are being groomed to take their place. |
tabs I thought we all understood that Arabs see all that honey as weakness and salt as strength. Are you certain that Iran is the intended audience for GW's words and actions?
|
Quote:
Well enlighten me with who that audience might be? |
tabs, Pakistan is a nation with nuclear weapons, and a population with ties to the tribes that embraced the rule of the Taliban and the presence of Bin Laden. It also has a political and military leader with a tenuous grip on power.
Could it be that the 1000lb gorilla was not so feared prior to 911, that our big stick was not seen as an enduring threat, that if the gorilla was hit back it would run away? Is it possible that the sharp words for N. Korea and Iran were aimed at less potent threats, but that they sent a more serious message to a more substantial and immediate threat? Possibly the words and actions of GW were to show a terrible, determined and enduring effort would be put forth by this nation to keep weapons of mass destruction from falling under the influence of readical Islam. Because Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the hands of Al Queda would certainly threaten Globalization. |
The threat of the "Axis of Evil" would have been lost on Pakistan as they had allready signed off on being a Bush Team player. Musharraf has the backing of the senior military, or he would not have remained in power this long. Also the "Axis of Evil" speech came after Afgan had fallen in 12/01 and the Qaedea was on the run. So the audience would not have been Pakistan.
When I asked you to enlighten me I ran through the possible response and Pakistan was one of them and I discounted it for the above reasons. I also came up with China and Russia. However China isn't interested in the world stage unless an internal problem demands their engagement. Russia has allready been there and done that, and are not about to embark on another round of a cold war. So Mexico and Canada are the only possible alternatives left. |
It is very astute of you to realize Pakistan is at risk. Musharraf has a tiger by the tail and God help us if he should let go. CIA officers are so easily picked out in a Central Asian market place, they do stand out with their aviator sunglasses, crew cuts and polo shirts.
|
Tabs, are you absolutely sure that GW is not a chimp? :confused:
|
Musahraff isn't the only power in Pakistan, there are others who need to believe that the US isn't a paper tiger. It is much more likely that he will be left in power, even as a US ally, if his opponents believe the US would intervene in a meaningful way.
|
We waited a decade for the majority to get out from under Saddam's thumb in Iraq and it never happened. As I understand it, the majority of Iran is not so much keen on the Islamic Republic thing, more afraid of their head ending up in a basket.
Pakistan scares me a lot more than N Korea or Iran really, they already have The Bomb and are in a pretty tough neighborhood. Though I suppose Kim Wrong Ill could sell a device to some guys to bring into NY Harbor in a boat, or maybe SF or San Diego, it would probably be an easier trip to Cali. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website