07-03-2003 13:27									#121
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by DuncanK Arrain, Clinton had to ballance the budget from the last Republican **** up. He did so and kept the economy intact. I think he deserves a little credit.

What version of the constitution are you reading from? It is Congress (in this case a Republican Congress, in the case of the big deficits prior to '94, Democrats) that decides how much money is allocated, and for what. The Executive is the far weaker branch here, with only their veto to use as leverage.

	07-03-2003 13:37									#122
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Agathon As for North Korea - again that is Bush's fault. Things were going pretty well with the North Koreans until Bush decided to basically tell them they were evil and he was going to get them. All the present shenanigans are an attempt by the North Koreans to get a non-aggression treaty from the US. If they get one, things will go back to normal.

Yea, things were going swimmingly as the U.S., South Korea and Japan were propping up Kim while he was busy building nuclear weapons in direct violation of the agreements that were feeding (some of) his people and his regime. Shame on Bush for telling the truth about a brutal and shameless regime, we should just pay up and shut up whenever we are swindled. And he never said that he was going to get them, even before the nuclear weapon was "outed". He simply said that he was going to deal with them on the basis of mutual respect, or lack thereof.

quote: Originally posted by Agathon And the guy who started this thread says he's on the left. Take it from me, when someone from the US says they are on the left they usually aren't.

That's pretty arrogant of you. Why do you assume that he means that he is on the left of some sort of international political spectrum rather than to the left of the U.S. political spectrum? Most people still define themselves in relation to others in their country, as it is much simpler to understand those who are around you and where you stand in relation to them.

	07-03-2003 13:38									#123
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by GePap Pacifism and leftist critique are not the only reasons to view this war as a dangerous gamble.

No, but they are the most common and the weakest.

	07-03-2003 13:39									#124
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by GePap As we know today, size of standing army is no measure of national power, plus the US army was better equiped and better trained. That a bunch of European pundits believed the size of the of the Mexican army was what made it more powerful does not make it so.. unless you think what European pundits think it the measure of truth. Oh , and what about adding the Navies? After all, the rgeat power of the time, Britian, had a small army compared to any Continental power, but a great Navy. How big was the Mexican navy at the time?

Neither force was large enough to do much more than raid and haul troops, which gave a firm advantage to the Americans, who took to the strategic offensive. Of course the Mexicans could have done the same thing, but didn't.

	07-03-2003 13:42									#125
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by DuncanK Nonsense, the majority of US were better trained and they had repeater rifles.

I agree that your statement is nonsense. Why did the U.S. give up on repeaters in after '48? By the beginning of the Civil War most small arms in the U.S. inventory were still muskets, and the vast majority of the rest were muzzle loading rifles.

	07-03-2003 13:44									#126
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Sava Government spending and the government budget affect every aspect of the economy. And the president controls most of this. This is basic Economics Arrain...

No, it is basic civic illiteracy.

	07-03-2003 22:50									#127
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Sikander What version of the constitution are you reading from? It is Congress (in this case a Republican Congress, in the case of the big deficits prior to '94, Democrats) that decides how much money is allocated, and for what. The Executive is the far weaker branch here, with only their veto to use as leverage.

The presidents veto is powerfull. Agreed that Congress also has a lot of power. They are about equal. Just look at history. Presidents usually are able to force a comprimise to put their agenda thru.

	07-03-2003 22:52									#128
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sikander What version of the constitution are you reading from? It is Congress (in this case a Republican Congress, in the case of the big deficits prior to '94, Democrats) that decides how much money is allocated, and for what. The Executive is the far weaker branch here, with only their veto to use as leverage.

Anyway, the point is that Clinton was behind the tax increases and Reagan was behing the tax cuts. For that, Clinton deserves the credit and Reagan deserves the blaim.

	07-03-2003 23:17									#129
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Yes, Reagan deserves the blame for presiding over a good economy and taking us out of the gloom of the '70s.

	07-03-2003 23:37									#130
	Inflate your Upload Space

Continuing the President & the Economy threadjack (as opposed to the Mexican American War threadjack)...

Sure, the government has some effect, but I'm arguing it's minor. That effect is delayed - often manifesting itself under the subsequent administration. But there are a ton of other factors that have much more bearing on the health of the economy.

As has been pointed out, it is the Congress that holds the purse strings, not the President. He sets the tone, so to speak, by presenting the budget for approval, and by wielding his veto power if needed. However, every single budget that gets passed is a compromise (some more than others, depending on the makeup of Congress).

So, to recap:

The government has a minor effect on the economy (thank goodness), and most of that has to do with the Fed.

The effect the government does have does not manifest immediately, but rather often takes months or years to kick in.

Yet time and again, the American public praises/blames the sitting President for the "state of the economy."

If it were that simple, we would not be living in a capitalist representative democracy.

-Arrian

	07-03-2003 23:47									#131
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Yes, Reagan deserves the blame for presiding over a good economy and taking us out of the gloom of the '70s.

All that was false growth. The tax cuts couldn't pay for themselves. A future government had to pay the cost for that growth. Reagan should recieve no credit.

Oh, and how did Reagan stop the oil shocks?

	07-03-2003 23:57									#132
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Arrian The effect the government does have does not manifest immediately, but rather often takes months or years to kick in.

Arrian,

In some respects you are right. However, usually the actions of government have an immediate effect. Take taxes for example. This affects peoples income immediately and therefore affects their spending and investment decisions. Take also regulation. Businesses make immediate decisions regarding new laws and if successfull immediately changes the industry being regulated.

There is something to what you are saying though. Tax cuts have a lag effect, because usually other administrations have to increase taxes. Regulation, deregulation, and tax increases and spending have an immediate effect though and their consequences should be seen as the result of current government.

	07-03-2003 23:57									#133
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Sikander Yea, things were going swimmingly as the U.S., South Korea and Japan were propping up Kim while he was busy building nuclear weapons in direct violation of the agreements that were feeding (some of) his people and his regime. Shame on Bush for telling the truth about a brutal and shameless regime, we should just pay up and shut up whenever we are swindled. And he never said that he was going to get them, even before the nuclear weapon was "outed". He simply said that he was going to deal with them on the basis of mutual respect, or lack thereof.

Oh blah blah blah. This is international relations not some silly schoolyard game. The facts are that things were getting better than they were, no matter what bad things the North Koreans were doing that was outweighed by the positive progress towards peace and eventual reunification that had been made under the Clinton administration.

The plain fact is that Bush has made it worse. If you have a choice between a North Korea that is pursuing reconciliation with the South and pursuing nuclear technologies in a limited fashion and a North Korea that is becoming more belligerent by the day and has accelerated research so as to become a significant nuclear power, I know what I'd choose.

When someone breaks a treaty it is a childish (i.e. Bushlike) response to immediately go off the deep end when mild concessions or more subtle means of persuasion are available. Threatening the North Koreans has created a crisis which the US is in no real position to force a conclusion that is favourable to itself (because it is occupied elsewhere). It would have been smarter to have shut up and taken up the North Korean problem when there was some realistic prospect of forcing a solution.

Answer me this question: is it good policy to provoke an enemy when you don't need to and you are in a less favourable position than you would be if you provoked him at a later date? That's Bush's problem re: North Korea.

The Bush administration is incompetent. They've just been humiliated by the French again because the French know how to play politics so as to make their side come out as the champion of internationalism and human rights and Bush doesn't.

quote: That's pretty arrogant of you. Why do you assume that he means that he is on the left of some sort of international political spectrum rather than to the left of the U.S. political spectrum? Most people still define themselves in relation to others in their country, as it is much simpler to understand those who are around you and where you stand in relation to them.

This is an international issue being discussed on a forum used by an international audience so one should use international terms.

	07-03-2003 23:59									#134
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by DuncanK All that was false growth. The tax cuts couldn't pay for themselves. A future government had to pay the cost for that growth. Reagan should recieve no credit. Oh, and how did Reagan stop the oil shocks?

Actually, the tax cuts created little growth. The benefits of the 80s are the result of cheaper oil, better demographics for employment, and increased defense spending. Oh, and good monetary policy.

	07-03-2003 23:59									#135
	Suffering from ads?

quote: All that was false growth. The tax cuts couldn't pay for themselves. A future government had to pay the cost for that growth. Reagan should recieve no credit.

But Clinton does . The point was that it didn't matter that we had a deficit, as long as the economy rolled on. Keynesianism at its finest.

You are so full of **** that your eyes are brown, Duncan.

	08-03-2003 00:04									#136
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: All that was false growth. The tax cuts couldn't pay for themselves. A future government had to pay the cost for that growth. Reagan should recieve no credit. But Clinton does . The point was that it didn't matter that we had a deficit, as long as the economy rolled on. Keynesianism at its finest. You are so full of **** that your eyes are brown, Duncan.

That's not Keynesian. That's bastard Keynesian. Tax cuts don't create sufficient growth. You need specific spending increases that directly create jobs and increase wages.

So you don't think that the 90s tax increases prevented economic growth?

	08-03-2003 00:16									#137
	Remove this text

quote: All that was false growth. The tax cuts couldn't pay for themselves. A future government had to pay the cost for that growth. Reagan should recieve no credit.

*cough* military spending *cough*

quote: So you don't think that the 90s tax increases prevented economic growth?

There was going to be a boom anyway, I think the tax increases put a cap on growth, until Clinton changed his ways and turned rightward and started approving some minor tax cuts... and of course some lower interest rates in the early 90s.

However, the government doesn't have the effect on the economy as most would believe. The tax increases were very minor.

	08-03-2003 00:20									#138
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: So you don't think that the 90s tax increases prevented economic growth? There was going to be a boom anyway, I think the tax increases put a cap on growth, until Clinton changed his ways and turned rightward and started approving some minor tax cuts... and of course some lower interest rates in the early 90s. However, the government doesn't have the effect on the economy as most would believe. The tax increases were very minor.

The interest rates didn't have to be high in the first place, and the taxes decreased peoples incomes. Of course even you know that people use their income to invest and spend.

	08-03-2003 00:21									#139
	Tired of ads?

wow this thread has gotten way off topic, dont you guys think??

Anyways many people I dont think know the true reasons why Bush wants to invade Iraq.
If you listen to his news confernce the other day, you would get a pretty good idea of his reasons.

He views Iraq as a direct threat to the UNited States.
In his mind that sooner or latter that Iraq will hand over weapons of mass destruction to some terrorist group, and that they will use it on the United States, or Iraq itself will do this. He wanted to pass that resolution to force Iraq to dissarm right away, not drag it out like they have been doing lately and have done for the past 12 years.

9-11 changed the thinking of Bush and his adivisors. Before that they thought they could contain Iraq and that no millitary action would be nessecary, but after 9-11 Bush feels that trying to contain countries like this will not work, and that if he does nothing, terrorist will get their hands on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and attack US. That is why he no longer wants to wait. In his mind he has has 12 year to dissarm, and has not done so and will conitnue to do what he did in the past to delay things. So he wants to go in now and not let Saddam have more time to build more weapons and maybe hand them to terrorist.

In his press confrence he did not even say that Saddam has ties with Osama. But he does have ties with homus(hoped i spelled that right).

So I just want to post this. I know that many dont agree with this, but this is what is in Bush's mind. To him this war is about defending the United States, and that Iraq is a direct threat to US and if Saddam was really dissarming that he would lay out all his weapons for the inspectors to see and be able to destroy them. To him Iraq has not dissarm and has voliated resulotion 1441.

	08-03-2003 00:24									#140
	Got spare money?

You Republicans never blame Reagan for the high interest rates and the tax increases of the 90s though. Still, you are quick to give him credit for the growth of the 80s that was mostly caused by things other than the tax cuts.

	08-03-2003 00:26									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Jack_www,

Everything is determined by economics

	08-03-2003 00:28									#142
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Oh blah blah blah. This is international relations not some silly schoolyard game. The facts are that things were getting better than they were, no matter what bad things the North Koreans were doing that was outweighed by the positive progress towards peace and eventual reunification that had been made under the Clinton administration. The plain fact is that Bush has made it worse. If you have a choice between a North Korea that is pursuing reconciliation with the South and pursuing nuclear technologies in a limited fashion and a North Korea that is becoming more belligerent by the day and has accelerated research so as to become a significant nuclear power, I know what I'd choose.

The difference, Agathon, between your view and mine (and I think Sik's) is the bolded portion. You seem to actually believe that NK was really pursuing reconcilliation with SK. I do not. IMO, they were doing the barest minimum necessary to get food, oil, money, etc. out of the US, SK and Japan. It seems that even getting them to take the extremely limited steps that they took may have involved a $500,000,000 bribe (this remains just an allegation, however, so I treat it with a large grain of salt).

By providing the NK regime with food, oil and money, we helped prop it up. I do NOT consider that to be a good thing.

I say let them pour their limit resources into nuclear weapons technology. We watch them like a hawk, and do our best to prevent proliferation, but otherwise do nothing. No food. No oil. No money. Nothing. Wait them out. Ignore the blackmail attempts.

Does that strategy carry risks? Yeah, sure it does. No more, IMO, than the current one, and it carries the added benifit of NOT assisting a regime which I consider one of the worst on the face of the Earth (if not the worst), and hopefully hastening its collapse.

-Arrian

	08-03-2003 00:28									#143
	Inflate your Upload Space

WIth France and Germany.
In their eyes Iraq is dissarming.
They think that they can get Iraq to dissarm with the weapons inspectors. They see the little signs of dissarment an indication that he will dissarm.
While bush see it as the same old game Saddam played before.

They think that Saddam does not pose a dirrect threat to anyone and that they can still contain Iraq as they have done in the past. They never had a 9-11 type attack to change their view on things.

Also anther reason I suspect they are oppose to the war, is that they want to be a world power, and they dont like the US dictating to them what to do. They really I think want to be in the place US is right now as terms of power. They get really pissed that the US doing this all on their own, and basicly telling Europe that we are attacking weather or not you apporve of it, so you might as well come on board with us. well that is the way they see it anyways.

Thus there oppostion to US grows because of this. Also the anti american feelings of their people also play a part in it as well.

	08-03-2003 00:34									#144
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: The facts are that things were getting better than they were, no matter what bad things the North Koreans were doing that was outweighed by the positive progress towards peace and eventual reunification that had been made under the Clinton administration.

What positive progress toward peace and eventual reunification have we seen from the DPRK as a result of the "Sunshine policy"?

	08-03-2003 00:34									#145
	Got spare money?

quote: You Republicans never blame Reagan for the high interest rates and the tax increases of the 90s though. Still, you are quick to give him credit for the growth of the 80s that was mostly caused by things other than the tax cuts.

Why should we blame him for things that happened outside his watch and power?

And if you wanted to see high interest rates look at Volker's Fed... and that is also an example to show that the President can't get the Fed Chairman to do anything he doesn't want to do.

The tax cuts did help (they always do), but it doesn't influence much in the capitalist cycle. What REALLY is the big success of Reagan is removing the crushing regulations of the 70s, allowing the economy to breathe a little. He may have gone too far, but it was well needed.

	08-03-2003 00:34									#146
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by DuncanK Jack_www, Everything is determined by economics

Yes I realiaze that, but people started to debated weather or not president should be held responsible for down turns, and weather or not their polocies hurt or helped the economy.

Also their was a debated started about the Meixcan American war as well.

So we have gone off in several tagents with in this thread.

	08-03-2003 00:34									#147
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Jack_www Anyways many people I dont think know the true reasons why Bush wants to invade Iraq.

I don't think most people do, although I am certain they are not the reasons that he's been giving us. After all, he can't come out and say "I want to invade Iraq to shore up US power in the region and provide us with bases from which we can defend our interests in this energy rich region."

quote: He views Iraq as a direct threat to the UNited States.

A direct threat? This is so laughable that it isn't funny.

quote: In his mind that sooner or latter that Iraq will hand over weapons of mass destruction to some terrorist group, and that they will use it on the United States, or Iraq itself will do this.

Second first - Iraq doesn't have the capacity to directly threaten the US nor is it likely to get it in the next ten years. They don't have the money or materiel.

There is no way that Saddam Hussein would hand over WOMD's to terrorists because the risk of detection is too great. In any case why would he spend all this money on WOMD's and then give them to Al Quaeda who are his enemies.

If we want a real threat of WOMD's making it into the hands of terrorists it is in Pakistan, where the ISI was heavily involved with the former Taliban regime.

quote: He wanted to pass that resolution to force Iraq to dissarm right away, not drag it out like they have been doing lately and have done for the past 12 years.

He doesn't care about disarmament. He cares about installing a US friendly regime in Iraq. If they only cared about disarmament they would agree to forcible inspections which is a cheaper and more politically feasible option.

quote: 9-11 changed the thinking of Bush and his adivisors.

Yes it did, as Zbigniew Brezinski (an FP bigwig) argued, it gives them more flexibility with the American people in pursuing an aggressive foreign policy. 9-11 made the American people feel threatened and more likely to agree to aggressive foreign policy.

quote: That is why he no longer wants to wait.

Yes, because the hangover from 9-11 won't last that long.

quote: In his mind he has has 12 year to dissarm, and has not done so and will conitnue to do what he did in the past to delay things.

The US messed up the previous inspection regime by using it to spy on Iraq so this is not an honest appraisal of the situation.

quote: In his press confrence he did not even say that Saddam has ties with Osama. But he does have ties with homus(hoped i spelled that right).

Hamas has nothing to do with 9-11. Saddam's ties with Hamas are tenuous. Wealthy Bostonians had much the same ties with IRA terrorists that Saddam has with Hamas and the UK didn't see that as grounds for war.

	08-03-2003 00:39									#148
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Arrian The difference, Agathon, between your view and mine (and I think Sik's) is the bolded portion. You seem to actually believe that NK was really pursuing reconcilliation with SK. I do not. IMO, they were doing the barest minimum necessary to get food, oil, money, etc. out of the US, SK and Japan. It seems that even getting them to take the extremely limited steps that they took may have involved a $500,000,000 bribe (this remains just an allegation, however, so I treat it with a large grain of salt).

NK needs to pursue reconciliation and a more open policy. It doesn't really have a choice, its economy has falied and the social system will not be far behind (where have we heard this before, I wonder?). When US officials can visit North Korea and talk to them I consider that a step up from nothing.

In any case you haven't answered the question of whether it would have been better for Bush to shut up until the US was in a better position to deal with the North Koreans.

	08-03-2003 00:41									#149
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc quote: The facts are that things were getting better than they were, no matter what bad things the North Koreans were doing that was outweighed by the positive progress towards peace and eventual reunification that had been made under the Clinton administration. What positive progress toward peace and eventual reunification have we seen from the DPRK as a result of the "Sunshine policy"?

Actual diplomatic contact is a good start.

Look, NK is screwed economically, socially and in every conceivable way. That's what forced them into a more open policy. Do we want this to continue or some wild Gotterdammerdung in which the Korean peninsula is reduced to rubble.

	08-03-2003 00:41									#150
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Agathon, there is anther thing you should know about Bush, and it is in the lattest Newsweek. He is really religous person, and I think that this too is influencing his decission about Iraq. My post was mainly to point out what Bush is thinking, and I base this on facts about him and what he has said in public.