Kerry vs Bush (again)

[Durandal]

But if you consider the fact that before 9/11 terrorists were becoming more and more bold with their terrorist attacks and since 9/11 there has been nothing on scale with several events of the 1990's I fail to see how you are less physically safe because GWB is the sitting President of the United States of America.

Tell that to the people in Spain, you fucking idiot.

[Perinquus]

LBJ was a complete bastard in foreign policy. The shit he pulled on Greece is the main reason Americans are going to get booed and heckled at the Olympics.

But in domestic policy, he was one of the best, if not the best. The Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights, abolition of poll taxes, actual prosecution of those who lynch blacks, expansion of rural electrification, and too many others to list here. When Johnson took office, the poverty rate was 21%. When he left office, it was 11%. He was one of only three Presidents in the lat hundred years to actually balance the budget: Truman and Clinton were the others. His job creation record was second only to FDR's.

Only a big government loving liberal would call the LBJ presidency on of the best, if not the best economically. The "Great Society" was a failure. None of its goals were achieved. It made things worse, not better. And statistical representations of the poverty levels before and after don't tell the whole story. Sure there was a lower "poverty rate", but that was only because more people were on the dole. The program wasn't lifting them out of poverty, it was merely throwing taxpayer money at them, and giving them little incentive to stop taking it. The welfare programs instituted under the "Great Society" consumed $3 trillion in 25 years and trapped many in an endless cycle of poverty that does not reward individual initiative - that removed incentive to get off teh dole and made it attractive to stay on it.

As for Johnson's civil rights legislation, I think he was more cynically opportunistic than concerned. This is, after all, the man who said: "I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years." while speaking to two governors about his true motivations regarding his support of civil rights legislation, while aboard Air Force One. And though it is little remembered today, it is a matter of fact that when you look at civil rights legislation that has come through congress, Republicans have a better record on it than Democrats.

As for Carter being naive: BULLSHIT! The military buildup of the 1980s (which Reagan's acolytes claim the Gipper started) began in 1979. When Reagan debated Mondale in 1984 and Mondale accused him of spending too much on the Pentagon, Reagan claimed (truthfully for once) that his proposed military budgets for 1981-85 were the same or lower than Carter's. Carter also had the good sense not to climb into bed with Third World thugs like Reagan did.

The final straw that cost Carter his presidency was his refusal to pay ransom for hostages. Reagan did pay extortion to the mullahs, thereby becoming Khomeini's bitch for years and encouraging more kidnappings and murder. Carter was in fact a very tough man with more balls and backbone than any of his successors could hope to have. If he had payed the ransom and told Volcker to hold off on strangling inflation, he would have been re-elected. To see a man of such sterling character vilified is pretty disgusting.

Carter was naive. He was a failure. He did alienate his own party. He did gut the military. Deal with it. After taking office Carter slashed the military budget by $6 billion. Let's also not forget the SALT II treaty. Many Americans were outraged over the perceived advantage that the treaties gave the Soviets, and by the adamant refusal of the USSR to allow inspection teams in to verify that they were keeping their side of the bargain - and by Carter swallowing this condition. Senator Henry Jackson, a Democrat, said: “ To enter a treaty which favors the Soviets such as this one does…..is appeasement in its purest form.” Carter was compared with Neville Chamberlain. Fortunately, the treaty died in the Senate.

Carter's raising of the military budget was done only as damage control after it was learned that the U.S.S.R. was providing funds to undermine the pro-American regime of the Shah, and it became clear that the revolution was going to succeed. Any attempt to characterize Carter as other than the dove he was is just out of touch with reality. Carter may be good man (even his political opponents have always said he was). So what? He was a lousy president.

[MKSheppard]

You know why? Because Bush, instead of making a concerted effort to finish off Al Qaeda in Afghanistan

In June, we had over 100 Al Q members killed by US Marines in A-Stan,
and just now, we shot up over 70 of them with an AC-130U Gunship,
A-10s and AH-64s while Northern Alliance troops advanced....

[MKSheppard]

Tell the Iraqis and the other foreign workers snatched off the street and thretened with beheading that the world is much safer thanks to Mr. Bush's invasion. Tell t6he 900 dead soldiers and thousands crippled or worse that the world is safer as their buddies dodge ambushes and leave the cities to go into fortified bases to avoid inviting more attacks.

Not the "How can you help the Serfs by melting their children’s eyes" argument from the Drakaverse. God how I hate that line.

[Andrew J.]

Nixon was actually quite a good foreign policy president. His domestic policy was not really bad either. The only thing he did that might earn him a place on the list was the Watergate scandal, and I remain convinced that that was no shadier than some of the things other presidents have done, and just didn't get caught at.

Then he was the worst president at not getting caught.

In terms of his performance as president, I honestly don't think Nixon belongs on the list of "very worst". True, Watergate really did shake Americans' faith in the honesty of their political leadership, but Johnson had already shaken it badly when it became clear he was not being entirely honest about the Vietnam War, so Nixon can't even take full credit for that.

Johnson was a dishonest jackass. Nixon was pure evil, a symbol of everything that can ever go wrong with elected officials, egomaniacal, and not really even that intelligent.

[Cao Cao]

You know why? Because Bush, instead of making a concerted effort to finish off Al Qaeda in Afghanistan

In June, we had over 100 Al Q members killed by US Marines in A-Stan,
and just now, we shot up over 70 of them with an AC-130U Gunship,
A-10s and AH-64s while Northern Alliance troops advanced....

Too little, too late.
Bush escalated things by invading Iraq at precisley the wrong time. It'd take a lot more than that to make up for such a blunder.

... and frankly, I find the recent successes in tracking down Al Qaeda leaders and members to be rather... suspicious.

[Perinquus]

Nixon was actually quite a good foreign policy president. His domestic policy was not really bad either. The only thing he did that might earn him a place on the list was the Watergate scandal, and I remain convinced that that was no shadier than some of the things other presidents have done, and just didn't get caught at.

Then he was the worst president at not getting caught.

That I will agree with.

Johnson was a dishonest jackass. Nixon was pure evil, a symbol of everything that can ever go wrong with elected officials, egomaniacal, and not really even that intelligent.

And breaking into a building and covering it up later was worse than lying to the American people about an incident which was then used to escalate the Vietnam conflict (and subsequently lying about the rest of the war's conduct as well) how, exactly?

[Howedar]

In June, we had over 100 Al Q members killed by US Marines in A-Stan,
and just now, we shot up over 70 of them with an AC-130U Gunship,
A-10s and AH-64s while Northern Alliance troops advanced....

This is fucking awesome, but the problem is I'm not seeing any evidence that AlQ bases anything out of Afghanistan anymore. Killing a bunch of Taliban blowhards is great, but this may or may not be in any way related to current terrorism threats.

[Spyder]

Johnson was a dishonest jackass. Nixon was pure evil, a symbol of everything that can ever go wrong with elected officials, egomaniacal, and not really even that intelligent.

[Andrew J.]

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/spyda/nix.jpg

Exactly!

[Elfdart]

LBJ was a complete bastard in foreign policy. The shit he pulled on Greece is the main reason Americans are going to get booed and heckled at the Olympics.

But in domestic policy, he was one of the best, if not the best. The Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights, abolition of poll taxes, actual prosecution of those who lynch blacks, expansion of rural electrification, and too many others to list here. When Johnson took office, the poverty rate was 21%. When he left office, it was 11%. He was one of only three Presidents in the lat hundred years to actually balance the budget: Truman and Clinton were the others. His job creation record was second only to FDR's.

Only a big government loving liberal would call the LBJ presidency on of the best, if not the best economically. The "Great Society" was a failure. None of its goals were achieved. It made things worse, not better. And statistical representations of the poverty levels before and after don't tell the whole story. Sure there was a lower "poverty rate", but that was only because more people were on the dole.

The goal of the Great Society was to allow even the most downtrodden in the country a chance at participating in the mainstream of the country. For the most part, it worked. No, poverty wasn't decreased simply by people going on the government teat. People were able to recover from a setback (death in the family, serious illness, job loss) and get on with their lives. Only a tiny percentage of people stay on welfare for more than a year or two. Poverty was decreased as minorities, women and poor whites were finally placed on an equal footing for education and jobs.

The program wasn't lifting them out of poverty, it was merely throwing taxpayer money at them, and giving them little incentive to stop taking it.

Bad understanding of cause and effect. Welfare isn't exactly generous, in spite of Von Reagan's racist jibes about food stamp queens in Cadillacs. The incentive to get off is the same as the incentive for not going on the dole in the first place: Everyone wants a higher standard of living.

The welfare programs instituted under the "Great Society" consumed $3 trillion in 25 years and trapped many in an endless cycle of poverty that does not reward individual initiative - that removed incentive to get off teh dole and made it attractive to stay on it.

That figure is phonier and more grotesque than Pamela Anderson's right tit.

In 1995, the US Government spent @ $77 billion on "welfare": AFDC, Food Stamps, Housing for the poor and aid for the disabled. If we assume for the sake of argument that the government had spent that much every year from 1965-1995 (30 years!), we end up with 2.31 trillion dollars. But DID the government spend $77 billion every year? NO! I call bullshit on this figure of 3 trillion dollars.

How do right-wingers come up with this bullshit statistic? By including Social Security. But SS isn't welfare. EVERYONE who applies collects, whether a pauper or a billionaire. They also call agricultural subsidies "welfare", when most goes to conglomerates like ADM.

As for Johnson's civil rights legislation, I think he was more cynically opportunistic than concerned. This is, after all, the man who said: "I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years." while speaking to two governors about his true motivations regarding his support of civil rights legislation, while aboard Air Force One. And though it is little remembered today, it is a matter of fact that when you look at civil rights legislation that has come through congress, Republicans have a better record on it than Democrats.

Ah, the Neal Boortz fallacy! Yes, LBJ referred to black people as "niggers" and was cynical as could be. He tried to bully Richard Russell into voting for the Civil Rights Act by threatening to leak that Russell had a black mistress. When White House aides said, "But that's not true!", Johnson said "Let him deny it." But when Johnson came to office, black citizens could not vote in much of the country -and not just the South. Either they were prohibited by law, or subjected to all sorts of harassment when they did. Johnson made this illegal. The very fact that minorities can now attend public schools anywhere in the country owes a lot to LBJ.

True, liberal Republicans like Jacob Javits supported the civil rights laws, while Dixiecrats like Jesse Helms were against it. But liberal Republicans are as extinct as Smilodon, while Dixiescrats like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott became Republicans -and it wasn't because they became big fans of Abraham and Ulysses Grant. The latter-day Javitses are people like Teresa Kerry and Jim Jeffords: Democrats or Independents. The modern-day Jesse Helmses are Republicans. Nice attempt to confuse the issue though.

[Crown]

Carter was naive. He was a failure. He did alienate his own party. He did gut the military. Deal with it. After taking office Carter slashed the military budget by $6 billion.

The current US military budget is well in excess of $400 billion dollars, I assume that during the Cold War it would have been similar (indeed more), so how can a cut of what amounts to 1.5% of the military budget could be considered a 'slash' I don't know.

Am I missing something here?

[Perinquus]

Only a big government loving liberal would call the LBJ presidency on of the best, if not the best economically. The "Great Society" was a failure. None of its goals were achieved. It made things worse, not better. And statistical representations of the poverty levels before and after don't tell the whole story. Sure there was a lower "poverty rate", but that was only because more people were on the dole.

The goal of the Great Society was to allow even the most downtrodden in the country a chance at participating in the mainstream of the country. For the most part, it worked. No, poverty wasn't decreased simply by people going on the government teat. People were able to recover from a setback (death in the family, serious illness, job loss) and get on with their lives. Only a tiny percentage of people stay on welfare for more than a year or two. Poverty was decreased as minorities, women and poor whites were finally placed on an equal footing for education and jobs.

Really? Well if it was such a success, why was it overhauled in a bipartisan effort in 1996? With both parties admitting the system was badly in need of fixing?

The program wasn't lifting them out of poverty, it was merely throwing taxpayer money at them, and giving them little incentive to stop taking it.

Bad understanding of cause and effect. Welfare isn't exactly generous, in spite of Von Reagan's racist jibes about food stamp queens in Cadillacs. The incentive to get off is the same as the incentive for not going on the dole in the first place: Everyone wants a higher standard of living.

Yes, but not everyone is willing to put in the work that it takes to get it. Some people are quite content to coast along at a lower standard if they need to put only little or no effort into doing so. Some people are simply lazy.

The welfare programs instituted under the "Great Society" consumed $3 trillion in 25 years and trapped many in an endless cycle of poverty that does not reward individual initiative - that removed incentive to get off teh dole and made it attractive to stay on it.

That figure is phonier and more grotesque than Pamela Anderson's right tit.

In 1995, the US Government spent @ $77 billion on "welfare": AFDC, Food Stamps, Housing for the poor and aid for the disabled. If we assume for the sake of argument that the government had spent that much every year from 1965-1995 (30 years!), we end up with 2.31 trillion dollars. But DID the government spend $77 billion every year? NO! I call bullshit on this figure of 3 trillion dollars.

How do right-wingers come up with this bullshit statistic? By including Social Security. But SS isn't welfare. EVERYONE who applies collects, whether a pauper or a billionaire. They also call agricultural subsidies "welfare", when most goes to conglomerates like ADM.

It isn't just right wingers. Here are some more statistics for you:

Between 1965 and 2000, welfare spending cost taxpayers over $8 trillion (in constant 1999 dollars) -- Johnson's estimate of $970 million, not withstanding.

From the start of the "Great Society" in 1964 to 1972, families on welfare tripled (approximately 1 million to 3 million). As a showing of appreciation to Johnson for this wonderful job, there was massive and bloody rioting in the ghettos of American cities, peaking in 1967.

Out-of-Wedlock births for African-Americans, driven by welfare system rules, has grown from around 20% in the early '60s to nearly 70% in the '90s.

The total state and federal annual spending for welfare programs has grown from approximately $40 billion in 1960 to $450 billion in 2000 and continues to increase in spite of the so-called "ending of welfare as we know it" legislation of 1996.

From 1960 to 2000, the crime rate has tripled and the incarceration rate has increased by nearly 400 percent (another form of welfare?) -- see Charles Murray's "The Underclass Revisited". (Murray also has a book of the same title, available here.)

At the start of the National School Lunch Program in 1946, there were approximately 7.1 million students that participated. By 1997 there were nearly 27 million participants in spite on an enormous increase in the economic well being of the country during that time (source, USDA "School Lunch Program - Fact Sheets"). Sadly, grades, nevertheless, went down.

Poverty's Paradoxes and Intractable Dilemmas
Yes, what a marvelous success the "Great Society" welfare program has been...

The approach the "Great Society" took to solving the problem of poverty is best described by a quote from a Johnson administrator, attributed by Marvin Olasky:

"The way to eliminate poverty is to give the poor people enough money so that they won't be poor anymore."

Of course, that's just giving a man a fish, so to speak, not teaching him to fish. You haven't helped him become self supporting.

The problem is that there is not one single type of poor person on the dole. There are basically two kinds. There are the deserving poor, whose situation is not entirely their fault, and who just need a little help getting back on their feet when they've fallen on hard times. But there are also the underserving poor - the lazy opportunists, who are able-bodied and free to work, but disinclined to do so as long as they can freeload. I'm all for a welfare system that will help the former and yet not allow the latter to take a free ride indefinitely. The "Great Society" welfare program was not that system. It did not provide an active incentive for people to get off welfare, either in the form of some sort of positive feedback for getting off, or negative feedback for staying on too long. It simply depended on people having enough pride and self respect not to want to live on charity indefinitely. Well some people did have enough pride and self respect. A lot didn't.

And in fact, the welfare system provided a positive incentive for single mothers to stay single and unemployed:

Apparently it is difficult to design a system of help that rewards the right behavior. For an example of what not to do, I quote Robert Rector from Chapter 7 of his online book, WELFARE: Expanding the Reform,

The welfare system that has existed for the past 30 years may best be conceptualized as a system that offered each single mother with two children a "paycheck" of combined benefits worth an average of between $8,500 and $15,000, depending on the state. 14 The mother had a contract with the government. She would continue to receive her "paycheck" as long as she fulfilled two conditions:

1. She must not work.

2. She must not marry an employed male.

You can't even blame the welfare mother for this, really. She is not sitting down to think of such abstractions as the long term consequences to society of its having to support her and millions like her. She is simply acting rationally to the alternatives presented to her. On the one hand (being poor and probably not having much in the way of job skills), she can slave away at long hours in a menial job, or on the other hand, she can keep her free time and get the same money from Uncle Sam that she'd make at that menial job, and not have to slave away at a crappy job for it. Well duh! Faced with alternatives like these, it's no fucking wonder that illegitimate births among lower class minorities jumped from 20% to 70% in three decades. Such was the brilliantly conceived welfare scheme of Johnson's vision.

The "Great Society" welfare program is simply not the success story you think it is.

As for Johnson's civil rights legislation, I think he was more cynically opportunistic than concerned. This is, after all, the man who said: "I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years." while speaking to two governors about his true motivations regarding his support of civil rights legislation, while aboard Air Force One. And though it is little remembered today, it is a matter of fact that when you look at civil rights legislation that has come through congress, Republicans have a better record on it than Democrats.

Ah, the Neal Boortz fallacy! Yes, LBJ referred to black people as "niggers" and was cynical as could be. He tried to bully Richard Russell into voting for the Civil Rights Act by threatening to leak that Russell had a black mistress. When White House aides said, "But that's not true!", Johnson said "Let him deny it." But when Johnson came to office, black citizens could not vote in much of the country -and not just the South. Either they were prohibited by law, or subjected to all sorts of harassment when they did. Johnson made this illegal. The very fact that minorities can now attend public schools anywhere in the country owes a lot to LBJ.

And he did it for entirely self serving reasons. He wanted to create an entire class of voters who would feel beholden to him and his party, so that his party could use that to stay in power. I grant you that making sure blacks could exercise their right to vote was just. But intentions are not insignificant. When someone does something laudable for frankly contemptible reasons, I am not sure they deserve praise for it.

True, liberal Republicans like Jacob Javits supported the civil rights laws, while Dixiecrats like Jesse Helms were against it. But liberal Republicans are as extinct as Smilodon, while Dixiescrats like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott became Republicans -and it wasn't because they became big fans of Abraham and Ulysses Grant. The latter-day Javitses are people like Teresa Kerry and Jim Jeffords: Democrats or Independents. The modern-day Jesse Helmses are Republicans. Nice attempt to confuse the issue though.

Yes, all republicans today are completely unconcerned with civil rights, equality, and democrats are all concerned with these things. You know, I'm not sure whether that's a black/white fallacy or a hasty generalization fallacy.

[Talon Karrde]

You won't consider a 3rd party candidate? You'd rather reelect someone who is arguably the worst president in America's history?

No. I will not vote for a 3rd party candidate, most likely ever. If I had my way, the Constitution party would be very prominant in this country. Instead, I can settle for the Republican party. I'm not going to waste my vote where it can't be heard. And I like how you insert "arguably the worst president in American history," so easily. Funny how just a few short years ago the other side was saying the same thing to Clinton because he drug our country through the mud, making us look like sexual addicts

[Colonel Olrik]

Funny how just a few short years ago the other side was saying the same thing to Clinton because he drug our country through the mud, making us look like sexual addicts

Actually, the rest of the western world's opinion about the matter is that an important number of conservatives in the US are sexually repressed religious fanatics, and Clinton's a normal guy who likes sex. That opinion has not changed.

[Talon Karrde]

Actually, the rest of the western world's opinion about the matter is that an important number of conservatives in the US are sexually repressed religious fanatics, and Clinton's a normal guy who likes sex. That opinion has not changed.

And thats why this country is split 50/50 down the middle. Conservatives were unhappy with the lifestyle of the liberal president, liberals are unhappy with the faith of the current administration.

[Cao Cao]

[Kodos]Go ahead. THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY!![/Kodos]

[Talon Karrde]

[Kodos]Go ahead. THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY!![/Kodos]

That's what I say to liberals, vote for Nader.

[Iceberg]

[Kodos]Go ahead. THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY!![/Kodos]

That's what I say to liberals, vote for Nader.

Not likely, since in most states Nader can't even get on the ballot without fraudulent Republican support.

[Talon Karrde]

[Kodos]Go ahead. THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY!![/Kodos]

That's what I say to liberals, vote for Nader.

Not likely, since in most states Nader can't even get on the ballot without fraudulent Republican support.

Fraudulent? Don't know that I would call it that. Do the petitions to place him on the ballot specifically say, "I heareby sign this petition to support Ralph Nader for president?" I kind of doubt it. I'm guessing the petitions are asking to put him on the ballot, not asking people to vote for him.

[Durandal]

You won't consider a 3rd party candidate? You'd rather reelect someone who is arguably the worst president in America's history?

No. I will not vote for a 3rd party candidate, most likely ever. If I had my way, the Constitution party would be very prominant in this country. Instead, I can settle for the Republican party. I'm not going to waste my vote where it can't be heard. And I like how you insert "arguably the worst president in American history," so easily. Funny how just a few short years ago the other side was saying the same thing to Clinton because he drug our country through the mud, making us look like sexual addicts

What "rest of the world" were you looking at? The world I saw during that time thought that America was a puritanical, prude nation, so up-tight that it would initiate proceedings to kick its president out because he lied about getting a blow-job. That's why we were the laughing stock of the rest of the first world, not because Clinton made us look like "sex addicts," you fucking idiot. Have you ever been to Europe? Do you know what it would take for us to make us look like sex hounds to those people?:

[Talon Karrde]

You won't consider a 3rd party candidate? You'd rather reelect someone who is arguably the worst president in America's history?

No. I will not vote for a 3rd party candidate, most likely ever. If I had my way, the Constitution party would be very prominant in this country. Instead, I can settle for the Republican party. I'm not going to waste my vote where it can't be heard. And I like how you insert "arguably the worst president in American history," so easily. Funny how just a few short years ago the other side was saying the same thing to Clinton because he drug our country through the mud, making us look like sexual addicts

What "rest of the world" were you looking at? The world I saw during that time thought that America was a puritanical, prude nation, so up-tight that it would initiate proceedings to kick its president out because he lied about getting a blow-job. That's why we were the laughing stock of the rest of the first world, not because Clinton made us look like "sex addicts," you fucking idiot. Have you ever been to Europe? Do you know what it would take for us to make us look like sex hounds to those people?:

Hmm.... perhaps we'd like to hold ourselves to a higher standard?

[Zac Naloen]

The world I saw during that time thought that America was a puritanical, prude nation, so up-tight that it would initiate proceedings to kick its president out because he lied about getting a blow-job.

And you did it all over again with janet jackson.

Hmm.... perhaps we'd like to hold ourselves to a higher standard?

Standard set by whom? I much prefer being liberal, its far more fun.

[Darth Wong]

Hmm.... perhaps we'd like to hold ourselves to a higher standard?

It's a "higher standard" to be puritanical morons?

Of course, idiots who think that the Bible should be applicable to the laws and governmental practices of a modern society despite its ridiculously stupid content (we're talking about a document in which it is said that hailstones are stored in fucking warehouses in the sky) will no doubt say "you say tomato, I say tomahhto", so I expect you to use this exact Golden Mean fallacy now.

Oh wait, that's what you already did in one of your previous posts, isn't it?

[Iceberg]

That's what I say to liberals, vote for Nader.

Not likely, since in most states Nader can't even get on the ballot without fraudulent Republican support.

Fraudulent? Don't know that I would call it that. Do the petitions to place him on the ballot specifically say, "I heareby sign this petition to support Ralph Nader for president?" I kind of doubt it. I'm guessing the petitions are asking to put him on the ballot, not asking people to vote for him.

Many of the signatures on many of the petitions have been found to be forgeries signed by the same individual, i.e. fraudulent.

Not that it's going to make much of a difference. Most liberals blame Ralph Nader for throwing the presidency to Bush last time, I'd be surprised if he got more than a hundred thousand votes nationwide this time.