RoR: Forum

Post 20

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 1:37am

Link

Edit

But Badnarik is a Saddamite. That immediately removes him from contention, in my view, to be filed under 'M' for "Maggot."

Interesting. Where, then, would you rank Bush, whose administration actually funded the Taleban? When the choice is between a man who only stopped supporting the Taleban when it ceased being politcally expedient to do so, and a man who doesn't think the war in Iraq is justified, I know who I'd vote for!

At the same time, the perilous imperatives of the moment demand that all liberty-loving people get in behind the War on Terror. That means voting for Bush, even if some measure of nose-holding is required.

Too much nose-holding for my liking. Surely, surely all of Bush's many faults add up to a worse choice than Badnarik, even if he were wrong about Iraq? Does his position on the war in Iraq override & undo all the other policies in which he stands head & shoulders above Bush?

notwithstanding the barking-mad Peikoff's utterly contemptible decision to vote for Kerry.

We're in complete agreement there! His decision to vote for Kerry is just sickening.

Post 21

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 2:14am

Link

Edit

Duncan argued, "Too much nose-holding for my liking. Surely, surely all of Bush's many faults add up to a worse choice than Badnarik, even if he were wrong about Iraq? Does his position on the war in Iraq override & undo all the other policies in which he stands head & shoulders above Bush?"

Yes!

If Badanarik's Saddamism were to prevail, we would not have the luxury of these debates, & Badnarik most assuredly would not have the freedom to advocate his "other policies."

Oh, & the US funded the Taleban way before Dubya, to help get rid of the Soviets. Realpolitik. But as I've argued many times, you can't let dubious decisions in the past paralyse you in the present.

Linz

(Edited by Lindsay Perigo on 9/01, 2:15am)

Post 22

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 2:26am

Link

Edit

Well I see my article mentioned in post 10 is now up on the front page, giving you a whole bunch of other reasons why the Right is generally a better choice than the Left (and I say this as someone who thinks Bush got it wrong over Iraq).

Post 23

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 2:27am

Link

Edit

Bush inherited the best economy in the history of the United States. By spending like a drunken sailor and cutting taxes like a mindless ideologue, he wantonly, mercilessly, single-handedly GUTTED the entire economy

He most certainly did not inherit a good economy. Quite the opposite in fact. What he inherited was an economy propped up by a price bubble fed by the drunken excesses of the Fed. Bush was elected in December 2000. The bubble began to burst from around March 2001. It had nothing to do with the change in government.

That said, the Govt deficit spending has certainly damaged the economy further. However, the tax cut plans preceded 9/11, and were in fact a Republican platform for the 2000 election. To that extent they were unambiguously a positive step (although I understand that in practice the tax cuts were something of a mixed bag). When combined with the spending increases, the tax cuts are very likely to have worsened the budget deficit, but that just means that that particular devil will have to be faced down later. That�s an argument against govt spending, not tax cuts.

Post 24

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 5:10am

Link

Edit

I fully agree that Giuliani's prosecution of Michael Milken was a disgrace. I think that if he were President, we would be in a position similar to our position with Bush: we would have a leader some of whose policies were questionable at best, but who was superb at leading the country in time of war. And so long as I think that Muslim fascism is the great threat that faces us, I will vote for the latter kind of leader.

Barbara

(I posted this to Chris S.' article on Giuliani, but I think it belongs here as well.)

Post 25

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 6:25am

Link

Edit

Wow! Arnies speech was more awe inspiring than Giuliani's!!! From reading (but not actually hearing the two speeches) I think Schwarzenegger actually outdid him!!! Anyone that hasn't already read it, here is a link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3617130.stm

Post 26

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 12:49pm

Link

Edit

Oh, & the US funded the Taleban way before Dubya, to help get rid of the Soviets. Realpolitik. But as I've argued many times, you can't let dubious decisions in the past paralyse you in the present.

Agreed there, also. Bush's post-9/11 decision to attack the Taleban & invade Afghanistan was exactly the right decision, made swiftly & with conviction - and I can't imagine either Gore or Kerry doing likewise.

Post 27

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 9:31am

Link

Edit

While Arnie had seen Communist with his own eyes, I'd been raised by the Communist ideology until my late teens and only came to US in my 20s. As a recently naturalized US citizen (in 2001 before 9/11), my own sentiments fully echo those in Arnies' speech.

Post 28

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 12:40pm

Link

Edit

The baffling and depraved support of libertarians and Objectivists for conservatism continues apace. This evil nonsense began with Ayn Rand more than 50 years ago, and shows no sign of abating. Maybe the LP, ARI, TOC, and SOLO should get together and issue a strong joint statement of endorsement for George Bush!

Okay, that was a low blow. ;-) Still, the political allegiances of high-quality libertarian and Objectivist thinkers is a never-ending mystery for me. They seem blind to the Big Picture -- or even simple common sense. Ayn Rand might call them (brace yourself) "concrete-bound" and "range-of-the-moment."

On June 3rd at his DIM talks ;-), Leonard Peikoff heavily denounced Bush for his religious "fundamentalism." On August 11th in SOLOHQ, Chris Sciabarra heavily denounced Bush for his religious "pietism." That two such different and formidable Objectivst thinkers should come out so powerfully against Bush has got to tell you something!

Listening to most of these L/O guys, it's as if the last 12 years never actually happened. (Or even the last 80, for students of economics.) But thank god William Jefferson Clinton was elected in 1992 and 1996 and not some dismal version of Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. Clinton cut the size of government significantly(relative to percent of GDP -- the only measure that counts), reduced the deficit radically and gloriously, promoted and passed GATT and NAFTA, etc. His tacit libertarianism is on high display for all to see. At least -- for those who want to, and don't have on ideological blinders, and don't spout econo-babble. And Kerry will probably be similar to Clinton.

Under the Bush boys, the size and future commitments of the federal government noticeably increased, while the deficit went thru the roof. Bush Jr., among other things, passed nasty steel subsidies and unprecedentedly bloated farm supports while supporting pork generally and pandering to the geriatrics by socializing prescription drugs (which the seniors don't even like!).

Along with all the other qualities and well-deserved-insults listed in Post 8, John Kerry is -- ultimately -- a well-educated, hard-working, rational-thinking, normal type of guy. Bush is an ignorant, lazy, superstitious, quasi-looney-tune!

(Edited by Andre Zantonavitch on 9/01, 2:10pm)

Post 29

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 2:11pm

Link

Edit

Do I see a consensus building for Arnie in '08?
ARNIE! ARNIE! ARNIE!
(who wants to start a movement to fix the law about having to be born in the U.S. to be President?)

Post 30

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 2:52pm

Link

Edit

Lindsay said:
I'm glad to hear that Tracinski, at least, among the ARI, is voting Bush, notwithstanding the barking-mad Peikoff's utterly contemptible decision to vote for Kerry.

I haven't been up to date for a little bit, so what is this about Peikoff voting for Kerry?

Post 31

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 3:50pm

Link

Edit

I haven't been up to date for a little bit, so what is this about Peikoff voting for Kerry?

Basically, Peikoff has lost what few marbles he once had, and as he states in this statement is planning on voting for Kerry in the upcoming election. It'll be interesting to hear that statement in a few years time, if the ARI deems Kerry a 'non-person' & edits out all references to him :-)

Post 32

Wednesday, September 1, 2004 - 7:16pm

Link

Edit

Clinton cut the size of government significantly(relative to percent of GDP -- the only measure that counts), reduced the deficit radically and gloriously, promoted and passed GATT and NAFTA, etc. His tacit libertarianism is on high display for all to see.

Talking of blinkers, that�s an extremely generous view of Clinton. Clinton reduced the deficit by (a) cutting the defence budget (which might be interpreted as good or bad), and (b) not increasing spending too much at a time when the economy was growing, when the tax take naturally increases. To the extent that this was a conscious step by Clinton, good - but as I understand it he was actually constrained from making spending increases by the fact that Congress was controlled by the Republicans for most of his term in office.

As for his support for GATT & NAFTA, again good. And conversely for Bush, steel subsidies etc = bad. But no one has said that everything Bush has done is good. In my case, all I said was that its not a true statement that everything was rosy until Bush came along and ruined everything. But then I�m just a �student of economics spouting econo-babble�, so what would I know! J

Post 33

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 11:46am

Link

Edit

Andre,

Contrary to media-propagated opinion, Clinton did not reduce the size of government. He did, however - through many varied, yet insidiously synergistic ways - reduce the magnification of our lens of observation.

Viewed through the new Clintonesque lens, government did indeed "appear" smaller than before. But this was a grand scheme of smoke and mirrors and we should all start waking up from this Vegas-remniscient magic show [caution: objects seen through this lens are larger than they appear!].

Clinton was perhaps the most clever and cunning president this nation has ever known. But this fact alone does not make his past presidential terms objectively valuable - at least not in any objectively-measurable, identifiable way.

Clinton was the Harry Houdini of presidents, the Sigfreid and Roy of economics, and the Pen and Teller of expediency - but he was no modern-day Thomas Jefferson; not even by a long-shot.

Ed

Post 34

Thursday, September 2, 2004 - 8:18pm

Link

Edit

Clinton cut the size of government significantly(relative to percent of GDP -- the only measure that counts)

Is it - or is it not - true that (by 1996), government was spending 33 cents of every dollar of the GDP? Was government spending this third of the GDP, or weren't they?

Were there, or were there not, unprecedented "peace-time" tax increases in the 1990s?

reduced the deficit radically and gloriously

Did we, or did we not , create over half of all our federal debt - in the 1990s?

Was our inflation rate, or was it not, higher than the average OECD rate - in the 1990s?

Anyone can respond, and please do. I just need to straighten these things out in my head - so that I can see if I'm really "on to something" here with this "Clinton was a liar" epiphany of mine. Hell, I could write a book called "His Life" - or something like that!

Post 35

Friday, September 3, 2004 - 2:18am

Link

Edit

Is it - or is it not - true that (by 1996), government was spending 33 cents of every dollar of the GDP? Was government spending this third of the GDP, or weren't they?

Spending as % of GDP:

86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	00	01	02	03	04	05
36.9	36.7	35.9	35.7	36.6	37.4	38.1	37.5	36.6	36.5	36.1	34.9	34.2	33.8	33.7	34.6	35.3	35.7	35.2	35.2

Were there, or were there not, unprecedented "peace-time" tax increases in the 1990s?

Govt tax and non-tax receipts as % of GDP:

86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	00	01	02	03	04	05
31.7	32.4	32.3	32.5	32.4	32.5	32.3	32.6	33.0	33.4	33.9	34.2	34.6	34.7	35.3	34.5	32.0	30.9	30.6	31.4

Did we, or did we not , create over half of all our federal debt - in the 1990s?

Govt surplus (deficit) as % of GDP: