Bush campaign plans on using 9/11 for political boost.

[Thorfinn]

hareyquinn, before I go further, have you ever read Bastiat's The Broken Window?

You know that which is seen. After you have read The Broken Window, ask yourself, what is that which is not seen.

[harleyquinn]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: hareyquinn, before I go further, have you ever read Bastiat's The Broken Window? You know that which is seen. After you have read The Broken Window, ask yourself, what is that which is not seen.

Thorfinn, I'm not niave and don't think there aren't things that go on behind the scenes that we the public don't see. The war on the Taliban, for example. Our gov't must have had some real damning evidence to have convinced other governments that were initially against us attacking them to suddenly do a complete reversal, yet we the public never saw the evidence, which is fine with me. All I was trying to say with my post is that by saying "Those repubs are so and sos..." and "Those dems are such and such..." is really watering down and generalizing the facts and therefore, actually serve to hurt your point rather than help it. I happen to usually be democrat in thinking, but there are many points the dems support that I totally don't agree with just as there are many points the Repubs support that I do agree with. I really don't think things can REALLY be broken down to "us and them" and to try to make it that black and white really whitewashes over the whole issue and misses the point altogether. If an issue is something one feels strongly for or against, they should act on it, not point fingers at the other party, that resolves nothing and only results in a circular argument between the two parties. Kinda like the discussions in the war forum.

[Thorfinn]

You misunderstand me. "That which is not seen" is not referring to backroom deals and political maneuverings. Believe it or not, The Broken Window is a one-page primer on economics and politics, from which countless essays and papers, and even entire political philosophies have been launched.

The point was that the cuts in spending are seen. You can address that which is not seen from several points of view. First is that the alternative to cutting services is probably increasing taxes, since this money does not grow on trees. Increasing taxes draws money from uses to which it would have otherwise been placed, whether a consumer buying a new pair of jeans, or a company expanding and hiring more employees. In order to fully fund the social services, i.e., that which is seen, you in effect eliminate jobs and opportunities, i.e., that which is not seen.

Bastiat goes over it slowly and with great tact. I would strongly advise reading it if you want to think about things from anything other than preconceived notions.

But in a world of limited resources, where virtually everything we do is a tradeoff of various alternative ways of using our time and stuff, the moral of the story will always come down to that which is seen, and that which is not seen.

[ 04-22-2003, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

I hardly think Clinton would run a campaign on his Lewinski affair, I don't think Jumy Carter would run a campaign on his handleing of the hostages....is it so weird that they will use the positives during their administration...has anyone noticed that despite over 6500 threats of national terrorism attacks from various groups since 9/11 there hasn't been a single successful attack?? Do you really think that happened by accident? I think not.

Say what you like but there have been many threats and none have succeeded since 9/11. One may happen tomorrow or the next day but so far we have been safe.

As for the money thing, historicly it has been the Dems that have outspent the repugs, so where was all the whining back then? And as I hear it there is a certain lady congress person from NY of late, who unlike the repugs got to keep her multi-million dollar book deal advance, and who has not handed in a single page yet...who has a war chest that is of dubious origin...so why not go after her?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MagiK: As for the money thing, historicly it has been the Dems that have outspent the repugs

Disagree entirely. Dems hire 10 government workers, Repugs come along and call it waste, fire the 10 workers, and subcontract their jobs to a 175-member firm. That's not decreasing government, it's privatizing it. Also, can you back up this statement, especially in light of Reagan, Bush41, and Bus43 spending increases, particularly for the military.

Or, did I misunderstand that whole "read my lips" thing?

Both are addicted to spending - wait, addicted is a false word that makes it seem it's not their fault. Both choose to keep spending like rabid Valley Girls with Auntie's credit card.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: As for the money thing, historicly it has been the Dems that have outspent the repugs

Disagree entirely. Dems hire 10 government workers, Repugs come along and call it waste, fire the 10 workers, and subcontract their jobs to a 175-member firm. That's not decreasing government, it's privatizing it. Also, can you back up this statement, especially in light of Reagan, Bush41, and Bus43 spending increases, particularly for the military.

Or, did I misunderstand that whole "read my lips" thing?

You misunderstood my post kiddo I ment in the campaign arena [img]smile.gif[/img] Im not saying that repugs cannot waste as many billions as the Dems...I think that by now both parties are quite capable of wasting infinate amounts of capital.

Both are addicted to spending - wait, addicted is a false word that makes it seem it's not their fault. Both choose to keep spending like rabid Valley Girls with Auntie's credit card.

I completely and whole heartedly agree with you on this comment [img]smile.gif[/img]

Edit: My thought is that they should take a number that is 10% less than what the current annual budget is and say this is IT. This is the absolute spending cap, so live within your budget (to the federal government)[/QUOTE]

[ 04-22-2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[john]

Look out for the hanging chads and brother Jeb...He didn't win the last one and I pray he gets dumped big time in 04.

[Attalus]

Actually, Jeb beat the Damnocrats big time, and I hope he does it again. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[HolyWarrior]

Originally posted by Rokenn: Have they no shame? For 2004, Bush's Aides Plan Late Sprint for Re-election excerpt: quote: The president is planning a sprint of a campaign that would start, at least officially, with his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, a speech now set for Sept. 2. The convention, to be held in New York City, will be the latest since the Republican Party was founded in 1856, and Mr. Bush's advisers said they chose the date so the event would flow into the commemorations of the third anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. The back-to-back events would complete the framework for a general election campaign that is being built around national security and Mr. Bush's role in combatting terrorism, Republicans said. Not incidentally, they said they hoped it would deprive the Democratic nominee of critical news coverage during the opening weeks of the general election campaign.

[/QUOTE]Why, I'm SHOCKED such a thing would happen! Imagine a party using symbolism during their convention!
Come back when you have a REAL issue to discuss [img]graemlins/yawn.gif[/img]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by HolyWarrior: Why, I'm SHOCKED such a thing would happen! Imagine a party using symbolism during their convention! Come back when you have a REAL issue to discuss [img]graemlins/yawn.gif[/img] [/QB]

Ok chew on this then, came accross this editorial piece today
Yellow Streak by Michael Tomasky. He sums up what is so wrong with this better then I did. He also lays out how the Dems would respond if they had the balls.

Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee made an announcement on April 21 that is in every way more offensive and shocking than any idiocy that tumbled out of Santorum's mouth. For the entire history of the two-party system in this country, the parties have had a gentlemen's agreement that the conventions will take place before Labor Day, with the real, head-to-head campaigning to commence thereafter. But as we know very well, we are no longer dealing with gentlemen. So now the Republicans announce that they are going to meet in New York City about three miles from Ground Zero as near to the anniversary of the tragedy as possible. And they in essence acknowledge, discreetly but quite openly, that the purpose is to squeeze as much political gain out of the attacks, and the national-security issue, as they can. This is a many-layered offense -- to the traditions and integrity (such that remains) of the American political process, to the firefighters and police officers who did not give their lives so that Bush could later use their deaths to get a bounce in the polls, to every American citizen who doesn't drink Karl Rove's Kool-Aid, and to plain decency. And what have the Democrats had to say about this? Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe issued one statement, and to be fair, it was toughly worded. (Although he did issue two official statements on the Santorum flap.) But aside from that, I've seen nada. So here we have it: The one inviolable political rule that supposedly emerged from 9-11 was that no one, and no party, was to seek partisan advantage from the tragedy Yet the Republicans are doing exactly that, and the Democrats scamper like mice. They hand Bush the issue on a golden platter and dly emerged from 9-11 was that no one, and no party, was to seek partisan say practically nothing. It just so happens that September 11 is a Thursday -- historically, the evening on which the party's nominee gives his convention speech. Do they really have the cojones to . . . one supposes they'll probably do it the week before, but why wouldn't they choose the 11th? It's OK with the Democrats!

edit: part of quote got mangled in the cut and paste

[ 05-06-2003, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]