| |
Bertram31.com General Bulletin Board
Re: Isn't this the Bertram website?
Posted By: Dug In Response To: Re: Isn't this the Bertram website? (randall)
Date: Tuesday, 26 October 2004, at 12:41 p.m.
This is a response to a friend with whom I have been having an energetic debate on politics via email. He doesn't participate here. I thought I would be egomaniacal enough to share my thoughts to him with you all. At the end is one post sending clarification.
Here goes.
Well, it has taken a while, but here goes. I am a bit regretful of the delay, but I was promoted here at work, and things have been a bit busy. Time to gather my thoughts to this ridiculously fact thin argument has been scarce, like the facts.
Why do I feel you should vote the other way, well, there are reasons upon reasons. Do I support Bush 100%? No, not usually. But I am a republican, and will explain why. Do I think Bush will make a better president? Yes, I do, and I will explain that one as well.
Relative to casualties, I have a friend who has explained that one very concisely, and to paraphrase would not do the justice necessary. It is a bit bent to the right, but read the reality.
"It really grates on my nerves when the media, every damned one of them, come off with their daily statistics on who and how many got killed or injured.
HELLO! That's the very nature of WAR!! As far as our casualties go, for the time that we've been in Iraq, there have only been a fraction of deaths and injuries compared to all of the previous wars.
The other thing that really galls me is all of the whimpering left wing political correctness that not only gets applied to our situation in Iraq, but through the very fabric of our "modern" society.
If jerkoffs like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi want to hide behind women and children, OK, so be it. If he wants to hide within his mosque, OK, so be it. Collateral damage is another fact of war... I hate to see innocent by standers or religious shrines get leveled for no reason or by accident, but they shouldn't be a viable hiding spot for a terrorist.
I see no difference in not waffling to the demands of the terrorists when they threaten to, and do, behead a kidnaped prisoner, and mowing down anyone or thing between the business end of a 50 cal & some schmuck like al-Zarqawi.
The longer these types live the more deaths there will be. How many lives have to lost before we get a clean "politically correct" shot? Certainly more than the next "collateral damage" opportunity will be...
Sorry, Collateral Damage, but freedom AIN'T FREE!"
War sucks. Many have said it is not the answer. What was the question? Here goes. The question was "Do we allow Saddam Hussein to continue to thumb his nose at the UN for more than the 12 years he has already done so, or do we call him to the carpet?" Do we allow the UN to continue to become more and more irrelevant, or do we support it? I think that the UN was becoming weaker and less influential by letting Iraq get away with not letting inspectors in, flaunting the oil for food bargain, etc. No weapons of mass destruction? No. But an entire air force buried in the desert that Iraq was not supposed to have.
We've lost people in the first WTC bombing, we've lost lost people in the US Embassies in Africa, we've lost people in the towers in Saudi, we've lost people in the USS Cole bombing, we've lost people in Afganistan, and we've lost people in the WTC on 9/11. Don't you forget that for one minute.
Now let me debunk a few of the statements you made by pointing out basic fact.
1) Economy
You say the economy is not doing well. On a micro level, we are up 36% this year. We serve a broad base of industry, as well as buy raw materials of the type considered to be leading indicators. Record sales to lawn and garden manufacturers, trucking and farming. When trucking demand is up, that means that goods and services are being moved. Which means economic activity. At the same time steel prices have risen over 100% in the past year, and demand is such that we cannot buy it for some alloys and sizes. Must mean that the economy is slow as molasses. Demand and supply. Basic, first year collegiate economics class taught me that rule.
BusinessWeek magazine dated 10/18/04 states that Real Domestic Product GREW 4.5% in the first quarter of this year, 3.3% in the second quarter, and data suggests that it will grow 4-5% in the 3rd. Is this politically motivated data? Well, likely it is not, as it is the same agency that put out the low growth figures 3 years ago. The Dow? Yes it has dropped. The market (Stock market) does not like uncertainty. There is much uncertainty right now that will drive the market. The election where no one knows who the winner will be, fear of terrorism, uncertainly about how Iraq will and is going, uncertainty surrounding oil prices, the list goes on. As long as this level of uncertainty is present and is affecting the market, it will continue to drop, and idle. There is nothing Bush can do about this right now, at least until the election, which is the #1 cause of the uncertainty. My interpretation also is that much of that is caused by your second point...2) Oil prices. Are you laying the high price of oil at the administrations feet? Gawd, you give them so much power to change the world... I love the Kerry ads. Here in MA he claims that he is going to "stand up to big oil". And do what, tell them to lower their prices? Shut up. I personally would like to have an administration who knows the market intimately, as they might actually know that there are not enough reserves in the US to satisfy US demand. Oil prices are high right now for the following reasons.
- Multiple strong hurricanes in the gulf of mexico have disrupted oil supplies. It has actually removed 33% of production capacity from an area that supplies up to 30% of the US oil supply. Might have some impact, you think? Next time Bush and Washington can control the weather, you let me know, I will have them set us up to go offshore every weekend...
- Civil unrest in Nigeria. Civil wars in African oil producing countries have a long history of fucking up oil prices. Not Washington.
- Have you heard about Yukos? Back to the uncertainty and market moves. There is a lot of question in this world as to what the Russian government is up to, and Washington cannot do much about it, Kerry or Bush.
The reality is that it will have impact, but thus far it is negligible. The same business week article says that real consumer outlays have grown in the ballpark of 4.5% vs. 1.6% in the first quarter. Seems that oil is really slowing us down and the economy must really suck.
3) Interest rates. If the fed is struggling to keep them low, why are they raising them at every opportunity. They could keep them low. We have imperceptible inflation, and that is not a problem.
4) The US dollar. It has slid. It is actually up. It was over inflated, and despite the coordinated efforts for many quarters, the price was unable to be brought down. Now it has fallen, and the only people who are sucking wind are the people who were making strong bets it would stay historically high. Which it couldn’t. A less strong dollar, while a bad thing for my cousin, is not a bad thing for this country. First of all, it helps to diminish a huge trade deficit that the strong dollar helps to perpetuate. It gives companies help at making product that is more competitive price wise on the world stage. We are actually shipping product to Germany and China that is largely enabled due to the weaker dollar. It is not a bad thing, or an indicator of a weak economy.
5) Budget surplus. Easy to have one when the economy is riding a bubble, and the tax receipts from a bustling economy create government revenue. That stops, or slows, and your tax revenue will slow. That is the cause. The $500 rebate? Yes, minor impact in your bank account, because it was spent, which is exactly what was supposed to happen.
Basic college econ class again, you never stimulate an economy by increasing taxes. You cut taxes and deficit spend. Bush and his republican administration have been busting their ass to rebuild this economy that started its fall in the fall of 1999 (UNDER CLINTON! 2000 WAS THE YEAR THAT THE BUBBLE POPPED, AND BUSH WAS ELECTED IN THE FALL (LATE FALL) OF 2000) and everyone likes to say it crashed under Bush. Not true entirely.
Why is Kerry the worse choice? Easy.
In 4 terms of 6 years each as a US senator, I cannot think of a single thing he has actually done for this state. Kennedy, while I don't always agree with his politics has actually done things I can point to. Kerry has not. That is a sad shame. He flip flops miserably. Example #1 and most pointed is that he liked to lambaste the "benedict Arnold" ceo's during the primary. Then in BusinessWeek, during the last week of July, he adjusted his explanation to say that he actually meant those ceo's who headquarter companies overseas to save on taxes. That is not what you meant Mr. Kerry. Not at all. Because Edwards is an ambulance chasing lawyer who made his money suing doctors for medical malpractice. Christ, Kerry might as well have picked James Sokolove for his running mate. The guy is a vacuus, panty-waisted liberal ambulance chasing lawyer. (not like you Tony, a lawyer who works for something more substantial.) You want medical costs brought down? Malpractice insurance is a real cause of those higher prices. Want National healthcare? Bill Frist, who is the majority leader in the house of reps, and is republican, is a world renowned heart surgeon. IS he better qualified to help direct this debate? Hell yes. National healthcare because you want to make it more affordable? Lets talk tort reform and less malpractice suits just as a starter. Enough said.
Because Kerry had to petition for each of the 4 non-battle related purple hearts and has the audacity to run his campaign on his service in Vietnam and say that because he has 4 purple hearts he is better able to run the military. That would be the military he denounced when he threw those same purple hearts away...
Because Kerry has the worst vote attendance record in the US senate.
Because Kerry has a long history of raising taxes and raising costs to the us taxpayer. In MA as Dukakis's lieutenant governor, the administration raised taxes into a recession in the early 80's and killed the economy of this state.
Because the normal reaction of a democrat in this country is as follows relative to the economy "if it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; and if it stops moving, subsidize it." Let the damned market make the decisions more often Democrats.Because as an example, Schwarzenegger has spent the beginning portion of his republican term in CA unduing ridiculous Democrat oriented legislation. One example is that in CA there is a law that will let you sue a company for damages, despite not having to prove injury!!!!! Are you crazy? You call that consumer protection? Fairly typical. No you say? Lets not even get into the repetitive motion legislation that was a narrow miss for OSHA that companies like ours would have to abide by. And Democrats say they are for a competitive us manufacturer. Well, I think not.
Those are just the tips of the iceberg. You asked.
Now that you waded through that, here is the last minute add on.
One last thing that I want to clarify. I am not a huge Bush fan either. I am in a quandary. I really don't like John Kerry. For the reasons I have detailed and more. But I don't like the way that the Bush administration has undermined the US credibility in the world by continually lying to me and my fellow Americans.
My vote will be for a republican administration.
I just cannot bring myself to vote Democrat. It ain't worth my perception of the downside to me.
| |
Bertram31.com General Bulletin Board is maintained by Patrick McCrary with WebBBS 5.12.