Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKcurly on October 11, 2004, 02:38:35 AM
-
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657
THE Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3½ years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we “always have.” We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.
In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.
Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, “If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both.” I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.
The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation’s financial structure sound.
The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today’s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.
Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.
I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits.
John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, served on the White House staff between October 1958 and the end of the Eisenhower administration. From 1961 to 1964 he assisted his father in writing “The White House Years,” his Presidential memoirs. He served as American ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971. He is the author of nine books, largely on military subjects.
-
Baaahhhh, shock outrage! Welcome to several days or weeks ago curly...
-
Wow it's John CHIRAQ Eisenhower speaking ?
-
I heard one of Regans relatives is gonna vote for kerrie too. Pretty hard to fight that swell of enthusiasm.
lazs
-
Interesting how the three Bush defenders above chose to respond to an intelligent criticism of Bush's policies: they didn't. Instead, each one makes a short, silly, sarcastic statement, as if their "genius" wit could somehow nullifiy the well-reasoned comments of a man whose understanding of politics is miles beyond their own.
And I expect their responses to this criticism to be more of the same.
Can any of you actually put together an argument that refutes what Eisenhower has to say?
Sad that when the level of political discussion is raised by someone like Eisenhower, so many others have to come along and drag it back down again.
MRPLUTO
-
Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.
I do not care who he is and what else he has to say about this election ...
-
I took my son to see "In the Face of Evil" yesterday. The unpopularity that Reagan encountered when he uncompromisingly faced down the Soviet Union is very much a reason for me to remember the past and vote for the one that will stand steadfast in opposing the tyranny of terrorism.
Rather than be "unencumbered by habits of the past" I'll observe and learn from the past and hope we don't repeat the same mistakes.
-
Eagler's post above is another way to avoid having to face this challenge: simply point one's nose in the air and declare you don't care what anybody says.
Clearly, Eisenhower's criticisms are on the mark, so methods other than reasoned discussion must must be quickly found to fight (or ignore) him.
MRPLUTO
-
When it comes to a choice of Dumb or Dumber...I choose Bush (Dumb).
Once the 60's generation of candidates dies off (Peace, Love, Dope), we should (hopefully) have some decent candidates running for the POTUS.
-
eisenwho?
BUSH/CHENEY 2004
-
More of the same...no Bush defender will take on Eisenhower, some just insult him, but even then without any wit or imagination.
MRPLUTO
-
"Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so?"
I guess that depends on how you see the threat. Many thought that détente with the Soviets was the preferred way to go. Many thought that the Soviets could not be defeated. Reagan proved them wrong. Many say that terrorism cannot be defeated. I believe they are wrong.
-
AKIron--
The issue isn't whether we can defeat terrorism, it's "have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so?"
I don't know what Reagan and the Soviet Union have to do with this; the conflicts are very different. Also, in the context Eisenhower was writing, he was refering to personal freedoms, not international conflict.
But bringing up Reagan's name in a pinch sure helps. But that's another post...let's stick to what Eisenhower said.
Can anyone refute Eisenhower's criticisms of the Bush-Republicans? I mean refute--not just say, "Well, I disagree."
MRPLUTO
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
But bringing up Reagan's name in a pinch sure helps. But that's another post...let's stick to what Eisenhower said.
MRPLUTO
If you can bring up Eisenhower's name I guess it's only fair to let me bring in Reagan's.
However, I did so because there is a parallel in fighting communism and terrorism. The price in defeating the USSR was hefty. Sounds like Eisenhower is not willing to pay the price to defeat terrorism. Foolish IMO cause we'll pay the price later if we don't pay it now.
-
Odd you'd bring up Reagan's name, the only American prez to be condemned by the World Court for sponsoring international terrorism.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Odd you'd bring up Reagan's name, the only American prez to be condemned by the World Court for sponsoring international terrorism.
If you're looking for someone embarrassed that Bush opposes subjecting ourselves to the World Court you'll need to look elsewhere. You may find what you're looking for among the Kerry supporters.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Odd you'd bring up Reagan's name, the only American prez to be condemned by the World Court for sponsoring international terrorism.
The World Court.. :rofl :rofl :rofl
:rofl One more time...
-
AKIron--
You wrote: "If you can bring up Eisenhower's name I guess it's only fair to let me bring in Reagan's"
I never said it wasn't fair, only irrelevant. The parrallel you bring up is so general, it's true of all wars...that they cost a lot. But let's look at your assertion about Eisenhower and see if it's true.
You wrote: "Sounds like Eisenhower isn't willing to pay the price to defeat terrorism", but where in his article did he say anything like that? He quoted his father, as he could have quoted many other great American leaders, as saying we must always guard our liberty above all. But.......................... .
.........when it comes to paying the price to defeat terrorism, it's Bush who doesn't seem to want to pay the price. He'd rather have a huge tax cut for his super-rich buddies and plunge the country into more debt than is necessary. Not a very conservative, Republican, responsible, or fair thing to do, Eisenhower says:
"The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility...", and: "it [the Eisenhower administration] accomplished that difficult task (balancing the budget) three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich." He goes onto say that "Republicans disliked taxes...but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keeping the nation's financial structure sound." He also criticized Bush's tax code that "heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor."
It's Eisenhower who is willing to pay the price, including higher taxes for himself, rather than make future generations pay for it.
MRPLUTO
-
As for lsenhower I find it funny how he criticizes the Bush tax cuts for the "rich" in one sentance then states that somehow the Republican party tax policy is abandoing the small business community. Not onlty that but he ius clear in hisc support of Kerry, a man who promises to raise taxes on individuals of more than 200K income. Well since many small busines owners file thier business income as personal income this will be a disater to small buisness.
But hey ABB, no?
The Gulf War 1 analogy is cute but pointless. What if France, China or Russiia voted NON on the use of force - just like the majority of the Democratis in congress voted NON! on the gulf war! I guess that wouldnt have been as pretty..
But hey US national security must pass a "Global Test" NON?
-
"America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance."
Eisenhower's statement simply isn't true.
"Once again, Reagan was forced to act without the support of others, in this case traditional US allies, and over the opposition of supporters of détente. Germany, France, Canada, Norway, Greece, Italy, and even Margaret Thatcher’s Great Britain, denounced the martial law in Poland, but refused to adhere to the US embargo."
http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.17999/news_detail.asp
-
AKIron--
In December, 1981, Margaret Thatcher actually encouraged other European nations to support US sanctions against the USSR. click me (http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id118.htm) See the entry for the 31st. So, it seems that while countries were against the US embargo, there was support for sanctions against the USSR. Knowing that, it's clear that we were hardly going it alone in opposing the USSR in Afganistan or Eastern Europe.
Furthermore, I don't think Eisenhower is just talking about our Iraq policy. Our actions regarding the Kyoto environmental treaty, for example, have been considered uncooperative and dismissive of other countries.
MRPLUTO
-
What a crock, go jump in a lake John E.
-
So the brits suporting Reagan is international uninanimity..
But Iraq is going it alone with the Brits, the Poles, the Italians, the Aussies, the Spanish (before 311)..
You know I dont put much weight in idiotic campaign slogans but Bush is right on ther money when he says that you Kerry folk will do a great job getting getting people on board by telling the coalition partners that they are nothing...
:rolleyes:
-
More thoughtful criticism!
If it's such a crock, it should be easy to refute with facts and not insults.
MRPLUTO
-
Kyoto is the one of the worst ideas ever, it would be suicide for any western economy to adopt it. Do you even know why pluto?
-
It's not just that it's suicide, what's worse is that even the people behind it know that it won't prevent global warning. There has been no cost-benefit analysis whatsoever.
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
[BHe also criticized Bush's tax code that "heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor."
It's Eisenhower who is willing to pay the price, including higher taxes for himself, rather than make future generations pay for it.
MRPLUTO [/B]
Tax cut critics have argued that the cuts have only helped the wealthiest Americans. However, 7.8 million low and middle-income families had their entire income tax liabilities erased by the cuts
http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/7million.html
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
It's not just that it's suicide, what's worse is that even the people behind it know that it won't prevent global warning. There has been no cost-benefit analysis whatsoever.
Cost-benefit? I cannot find these terms in my UN dictionary, what do they mean?
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
More of the same...no Bush defender will take on Eisenhower, some just insult him, but even then without any wit or imagination.
MRPLUTO
What did he say that needs to be "taken on"?
You cut and paste that without giving your view and expect someone to defend against someing he said.
Basically he said he didn't like the republican party and was voting for Kerry. Big deal.
-
Also wehy all this supposed emphasis on the "son of eisenhower" as if we are we are supposed to belive that you libs have some special revernce for the sons of former republican presidents...
-
Rip--
I've havn't heard informed critics argue that Bush's tax cuts "have only helped the wealthiest Americans." But I have heard them say that they disproportionately reward the very richest in America, at a time when the country can't afford it. There's a big difference between the two statements.
MRPLUTO
-
Off Topic Pluto
I thought this thread was about Eisnhower?
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
Can any of you actually put together an argument that refutes what Eisenhower has to say?
MRPLUTO
What did he say?
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
Rip--
I've havn't heard informed critics argue that Bush's tax cuts "have only helped the wealthiest Americans." But I have heard them say that they disproportionately reward the very richest in America, at a time when the country can't afford it. There's a big difference between the two statements.
MRPLUTO
They "disproprotionately" reward the richest? Did your expert compare the tax breakl ckeck of a multimillionaire to that of a 25K a year earner annd say, see the millionaire got back 200K in taxes but the 25K a year a dude only got back a grand!! I conclunde the tax cut is EVIL!!!!
-
We have a system where 20% of us pay 80% of the cost of government, and Pluto is talking about how it "rewards" those with high incomes. Orwellian Newspeak
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
But I have heard them say that they disproportionately reward the very richest in America, at a time when the country can't afford it.
MRPLUTO
that is where you are wrong..
the country could NOT afford to have NOT given the tax cuts at the time it did ... or the recession would have sweeled into a depression, complete with MASSIVE unemployment, outsourcing, food lines, riots, etc ...
then again, it would have even been much easier to boot Bush then, right???
what was skerry's/mrs ketchup adjusted tax rate last year?
I've heard 12%
what was Bush's?
heard it was over 30%
who is the scammer here again??
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
Rip--
I've havn't heard informed critics argue that Bush's tax cuts "have only helped the wealthiest Americans." But I have heard them say that they disproportionately reward the very richest in America, at a time when the country can't afford it. There's a big difference between the two statements.
MRPLUTO
Yet another similarity between Bush and Reagan. From the same article l posted earlier:
Reagan’s remarkable confidence in his own conclusions about the world--what I call the power of his convictions--was displayed again and again during his presidency. One of my favorite examples, discussed in my book, Ronald Reagan: The Power of Conviction and the Success of His Presidency, is his refusal to raise taxes during the serious recession of 1981-82, even though almost everyone--economists, Democrats, Republicans and his own White House staff--were telling him this was essential in order to enable the country to escape some of the highest unemployment since the Great Depression. The proponents of a tax increase argued in terms of the economic theories of the time--that the deficits projected in the wake of Reagan’s tax cut would keep interest rates high, and this in turn would stifle any economic recovery. But despite these claims, based on the conventional economic wisdom of the era, Reagan could not be moved. He had come to believe in the little-known and much criticized supply-side theory, and when he believed in something he held it firmly until proven wrong. As everyone now knows, Reagan was not wrong. Despite the deficits, interest rates fell and the tax cuts stimulated a burst of economic activity so powerful that 18 million new jobs were created in the United States in the 5 remaining years of the Reagan administration. In addition, countries around the world began imitating the U.S. model by privatizing government-held businesses and cutting taxes. Reagan’s convictions changed not only the United States, but much of the rest of world as well.
-
Originally posted by MRPLUTO
Rip--
I've havn't heard informed critics argue that Bush's tax cuts "have only helped the wealthiest Americans." But I have heard them say that they disproportionately reward the very richest in America, at a time when the country can't afford it. There's a big difference between the two statements.
MRPLUTO
Who pays the most taxes in this country, Pluto?
I've never worked for a poor man myself.
Also, only 3 senators did not vote for the round 4 tax cuts. Democrats included.
http://www.cbpp.org/9-21-04tax-fact.htm
-
my brother, who is a university educated consumate professional and a staunch "anybody but bush" (aka sKerry) supporter has told me in no uncertain terms that the united states needed to have its economy voluntarily truncated, its military voluntarily downsized to a glorified border patrol, its nuclear weapons destroyed and its navy scrapped for metal, all because we have been too successful, too aggressive (we are the worlds only superterrorist state, just look at the atrocity of Hiroshima), and we have polluted the worlds environment with our greed and corporate strength.
These radical positions I believe, are anti-american and equivalent to hard treason and further, deeply held convictions for many sKerry supporters and americans ashamed to be americans, and no doubt shared in no small measure by the candidate himself.
My brother lives in a very nice custom designed house (he is an architect) in a wealthy suburb, drives a 04 Jeep Cherokee and a Volvo wagon, is putting two kids through university and has money left over to go to Hawaii every winter and he wants everyone else to sacrifice away their wealth and greed and says he does his part by donating a percentage of his utility bill to advance the technology of alternate energy and he throws his salmon back into the rivers.
He is a typical liberal, believes strongly in the "anybody but bush" doctrine and no matter how hard I try to convice him, he will not move to canada even though he says its a more advanced society....but I keep trying.
I think what eisenhower had to say was just fine, I read it and Im not swayed by his opinion or his view, there are plenty of people supporting either candidate and no one individual is going to swing me. I swing myself thanks.
-
Nuke--
Blame Rip! ;) Zheesh, he's the one that brought up the misleading quote of who's really making a killing with the tax cuts. He started it!
I don't know what you mean that I "cut and paste" without ever giving my view. This isn't about my view, it's about challenging Eisenhower's arguments with something more than sophmoric insults. Argue with Eisenhower, not with me.
It started with 3 insulting comments by people who didn't like what Eisenhower had to say. Then there were more insults. The only serious response to Eisenhower's critcisms has finally come from AKIron, who provided a good quote from the American Enterprise Institute. Below it is my response.
MRPLUTO
-
FWIW, I was refuting Eisenhowers comments (as MR.Pluto suggested) without using inflammatory comments. :) Well, not actually refuting, actually agreeing that yes, they are going to benefit those who already pay 90% of the taxes today. Why SHOULDN'T they get a tax break? After all, they pay MOST of the taxes!
MrPluto:
Can any of you actually put together an argument that refutes what Eisenhower has to say?
Sad that when the level of political discussion is raised by someone like Eisenhower, so many others have to come along and drag it back down again.
The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today’s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.
-
Pluto you are full of it..
We have provided counterarguments on eisenhower jr stances about taxes, foreign policy, enviorment etc etc...
You just choose to ignore them.. Yea yea go be happy about ike jr all you want, it still doesnt make him correct on the issues
-
Uh-oh, this thread is breaking up and spinning out of control.
I think if we want to argue about taxes, we should start another thread.
MRPLUTO
-
Eisenhower's speech covered cutting taxes for the rich making taxes germane to this discussion.
-
Personal attack
-
Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.
lolololololollolollol
If you dotn know his history in the senate or after he called all the vietnam soldiers baby killers...ya..I guess he is grrrreeeat!
He sure knows about gaps in poor rich..
Theres is so much crap ..the democrats need 2 Johns to hold it