Jadegold & I were discussing some items at John Cole's site and I decided it made more sense to move the conversation here.
I was stating why Independents such as myself see no realistic alternative to Bush in 2004. My main three political issues are protecting the unborn, fiscal responsibility, and national security.
On protecting the unborn, Bush wins hands down over all the Democratic contenders (and this is too bad, you would think at least 1 pro-life Dem would run for president). On fiscal responsibility, a lot depends upon which Democrat wins the primary. Assuming Dean, I would say he was more fiscally responsible based upon his reputation as Governor than President Bush has been in his first term in office. If Dean wins the primary, I'll research specifics on his fiscal policies. For this discussion let us assume Dean would be more fiscally responsible than Bush.
So this leaves national security as a tie-breaker if I weighted all three things equally. Jadegold asked me:
Can you articulate what the Bush plan for Iraq is? Please be specific; I'm not looking for a 'free and democratic Iraq which joins the community of nations as a freedom-loving partner'-schtick.
Also, does it not concern you that you were lied to as to the reasons why an invasion and occupation of Iraq was necessary?
It sounds like you have already made up your mind on this issue, but I will share my perspective. I think Bush’s long-term goal for Iraq is indeed partly the 'free and democratic Iraq which joins the community of nations as a freedom-loving partner'-schtick you want to avoid. I believe this is part of a larger strategic plan to deliberately destabilize the Middle East since the status quo is repugnant to President Bush. I also do not think President Bush lied on this issue. I followed the news very closely on this ever since 9/11 and remember all the reasons Bush gave and I agree with most of them. Those in the media who claimed Bush lied on this issue either have not looked up his speeches or are deliberately spreading a lie.
Having said that, I may surprise you again by saying I fear President Bush did lie about his post-liberation plans. Not for Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is of little strategic importance. If we spent $100 billion dollars creating a modern democracy out of Afghanistan, I doubt it would start a chain reaction. And $100 billion may not be enough in Afghanistan since they do not have an easy way (such as oil) to start bringing in their own revenue. So I fear President Bush will not follow through on his promises to help make Afghanistan a better place in the long-term since he will not want to spend the cash. We kicked out a bunch of thugs who harbored terrorists, but I fear we will leave in a few years and a new bunch of thugs will take power. Incidentally, this is yet another reason why the US needs to be in sound fiscal shape. If we had no debt, we could easily afford to rebuild a nation every year.
Getting back to Iraq, I have two more points. One concerns President Bush. While our the liberation of Iraq was exceptionally well planned by our military, the follow-up has been problematic. While things are much better than the media presents, there are some real significant problems and the Bush administration has missed some major opportunities (such as turning the Iraqi army - sans Baath party members - into a police force responsible for their own defense). I certainly agree the current administration of Iraq could be vastly improved. President Bush has the determination to continue in Iraq, but I believe another administration could do a better job.
This leads to my last point. While many people could arguably do a better job managing Iraq than the current leadership, only one person will be Democratic nominee for President in 2004. Whether or not one agrees with our liberation of Iraq, or our reasons for doing so, the fact remains we are there. So voters who care about national security will want to know what our next leader will do if elected. Sticking with the assumption that Howard Dean will be the Democratic contender, the Democrats will lose on this issue. I will go out on a limb and assume you lean toward the left side of the spectrum. Therefore, I will quote two left-leaning sources on this subject. William Saletan, Slate’s chief political correspondent, stated that Every time Dean talks about foreign affairs, he gives off a whiff of hostility or indifference to American military power. Even more to the point, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, stated:
Believe me, being a liberal on every issue other than this war, I have great sympathy for where the left is coming from... It would be a lot easier for the left to engage in a little postwar reconsideration if it saw even an ounce of reflection, contrition or self-criticism coming from the conservatives, like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, who drove this war, yet so bungled its aftermath and so misjudged the complexity of post-war Iraq...
But here’s why the left needs to get beyond its opposition to the war and start pitching in with its own ideas and moral support to try to make lemons into lemonade in Baghdad:
First, even though the Bush team came to this theme late in the day, this war is the most important liberal, revolutionary US democracy-building project since the Marshall Plan. The primary focus of US forces in Iraq today is erecting a decent, legitimate, pluralistic representative government from ground up. I don’t know if we can pull this off. We got off to an unnecessarily bad start. But it is one of the noblest things this country has ever attempted abroad, and it is a moral and strategic imperative that we give it our best shot...
For my money, the right liberal approach to Iraq is to say: We can do it better. Which is why the sign I most hungered to see in London was, ‘‘Thanks, Mr Bush. We’ll take it from here.’’
This is the message that Democrats need to deliver to have a chance in 2004. Gephardt might be able to deliver this message in a credible manner. Howard Dean cannot.
Thus, assuming Howard Dean is the Democratic nominee, I will be voting for George Bush in 2004 despite his many problems.
Canmandom,
You bring up many different points, but I shall try to answer your questions. I don't understand your assertion that the poor pay the greatest percentage of their income in taxes (counting all various taxes and fees). This flies in the face of all common sense – do you have any sources for this claim? I would like to see a breakdown of this, but I suspect the middle-class pays the highest percentage.
You say you would like to know who receives cash back from tax credits without paying any taxes. As you point out, many people work and these people do pay over 7% of their income in FICA taxes (Social Security and Medicare). I will make your argument stronger, most folks who work really pay about 15% in payroll taxes. In your terms, the other half of this tax is hidden, the government makes employers pay it. However, the employer naturally considers this part of the employee's salary. If businesses did not have to pay this tax, they would be able to pay people more, charge less, and/or make more profit (and could do all three). So for parents who work, but earn around the minimum wage, it would be more accurate to say that they pay some taxes (although no income taxes), receive a refund for all these taxes via Bush's tax credits, and still become vested in FICA programs for their retirement (assuming Social Security and Medicare are solvent when they retire, which is a risky assumption if they are young).
I won't confuse the issue with people who don't work at all and live in states such as Oregon with no sales tax. However, I lived in Oregon for a while and I can assure you such people exist and live a relaxed life of relative poverty on the backs of regular taxpayers. Being poor in the US is still being wealthy beyond imagination relative to much of the world.
I disagree that eliminating these tax credits would cause the government to be closer to promoting the welfare of wealth and privilege. After all, the gap between the wealthy and poor in America has grown larger since the imposition of the income and payroll taxes.
Please note that in my SOTU post I said I had "mixed feelings" about the tax credits. They do have some advantages. They are far better than welfare programs since the money goes straight to the citizen without going through an additional wasteful bureaucracy (it does go through the IRS, but unfortunately, the IRS would exist with or without tax credits).
I also am concerned about welfare of all my fellow countrymen. Just because I have concerns about the federal government redistributing income does not mean I desire a society with no safety nets. In my ideal world, all of these safety nets would be run locally and supported by the local community. Given decades of ever growing federal safety nets, I do not expect this to occur anytime in the foreseeable future (unless the government goes bankrupt).
I have a few questions and comments for you. I reviewed your comments on the Presedent Bushes state of the union adress and on of the things that jumped out at me was that his proposals provided cash to people who pay abslutely nothing in taxes. I for one would like to know who theses people are. Anyone who works pays taxes. While they may in the end wind up paying nothing in federal income taxes the fact is that most of them wind up paying a higher precentage of there income in taxes to all levels of goverment. Social Security taxes take a minimum of 7.65% of there income from the top this tax in effect has been financing GW's reditibution of wealth from the poor to the wealth and to corpoarations, and financing the nation. Then there are the hiden taxes on gas, tobacco, ect. ad to theses taxes local sales taxes, phone taxes, and the list goes on the poor the so called non tax paying portion of our socity in fact pay a higher precentage of there income to goverment than any person of wealth. I would further be interested in seeing your reasoning behind a person who earns his income from bond verses work should recieve not only a tax reduction of 7.65% off the top due to this income not being taxed for social security purposes but a lower tax rate than if that person had to supply labor for that income. I realize that you are primarily a one issue voter(referance your biases section) and this is your progative. I to am a voter of pricipal and pricipal is outlined in the constiution and based on the principal that the benifits of goverment sould be to promote the general welfare and not the welfare of wealth and privilage.