I have a bit of trouble reconciling your first two paragraphs; they seem contradictory. But within that framework I'll respond. And I'm going to switch back to respect and not loved which is what you interjected.
The Europeans didn't respect Clinton for saving their bacon as you put it. They respected Clinton because it was a President that the had some sense of a consistent international policy [despite what the conservatives have been pushing]. And while you would probably identify Somalia as a brushfire war, the Europeans respected Clinton for pursuing something in which the US had no interest other than humanitarian reasons. They respected him for his attempts to make progress in the middle East and Northern Ireland; for making progress in talks with North Korea.
Was Clinton in a deferred status? We could talk about George Jr's reserve status that he didn't need to show up for. In either case, I don't think I want a rule that says a President is not allowed to commit troops unless he has served in a war. The Constitution set the Commander-in-Chief as a civilian position not a military one. They might have actually had a reason for that.
I never said that Europe shouldn't have addressed the situation earlier.
I don't wonder about Europe being an outpost of the American Empire, because the US in not an empire nor is Europe an outpost of it. So there we disagree.
Yes I remember Monicagate, and that was when Clinton got a standing ovation at the UN. I'll add to that, the Europeans that I've discussed the issue with here in Europe from the fishmonger, professional, to the foreign military saw Monicagate as a "who cares?"; it has nothing to do with governance. They were entertained by it as a tabloid story and that's about it. It turns out that the lost respect assertions were fictitious.
I have no need to bet rumors. It'll happen or it won't and we'll both know it.
The Kyoto treaty...yes, I'm aware of the Senate vote. But I also know that the US is the number one contributor of greenhouse gases on a per capita basis in the world. I also know that the other industrialized countries have taken the view that as the major contributors of greenhouse gases over the last century they believe it is their responsiblity to take the initiative in reducing their own emissions and to allow the less industrialized countries develop. I agree with this view which I believe is a more reasonable approach to the problem than the Senate vote or the current Administration's view. But beyond that, you don't tell Europe through Secretary Whitman, that you're going to work with Kyoto and then back out. and you don't tell Europe through Secretary Powell that you're doing to stay in Bosnia while you're simultaneously pulling forces out of Bosnia.
Slipping momentarily into a new subject [Powell brought it to mind]. SDI, Star Wars, put whatever name you want. I've spent a good number of years in the Strategic and Tactical Weapons business. It was lunacy in the Reagan Administration, the Bush Sr. administration, the Clinton Administration, and now the Bush Jr. Administration. It's not the delivery system that is the threat. There are numerous delivery systems that are cheaper and less sophisticated than a long or mid-range delivery system and a ballistic missile defense will never see any of them.
Children: I wasn't making a case for federal spending on education one way or another. I was making the point that using children as a justification for approving a budget was manipulative; especially given the insignificant size of that spending within the total of the proposed budget.
Marriage Tax Penalty: I agree, they should all pay the same taxes as a household, which is what the current system provides. The marriage tax penalty legislation changes that so that Case B [two earner couples] pay less. Hence my statement of bogus BS. Grab ten people randomly and ask them if they pay too much in taxes. Then ask them if they get enough vacation; then ask them if prices are too high, then ask them if they are under appreciated...You'll get the same set of answers. Now ask them to describe a fair tax system. You'll get 10 different answers....but it'll all compress down to: people like me should pay less and those other people aren't paying their fair share. I'll contend that the proposed tax code changes have very little or nothing to do with what's fair, but have to do with political mileage, there is a large segment of the population that has two-earner couples, it's about getting their vote, not about what's fair. There is a similar argument on the estate tax, referred to in a manipulative terms as the death tax, which totally ignores that wealth is not created by wage labor as the rhetoric suggests but more generally by capital appreciation which is generally gained on a tax deferred basis. So the estate tax captures the deferred taxes.
IMO, the question of too much tax without the context of standard of living is irrelevant. In spite of the criticisms we may levy against government they are responsible for delivering a certain infrastructure as part of their services. We wouldn't have the economic strength that we do have without the Federal Highways, communications infrastructure, etc. that the government provided or subsidized.
You could make the statement that childrent have a direct impact on the infrastructure. You need more schools, more medical facilities, etc. with no economic benefit to society. So why do we give a tax deduction for people to have babies, when the result is more demand on the infrastructure? Because were socialists?
You must have missed some of the disasters predicted for Bush
I probably did miss them, but had I seen them, I probably wouldn't have remembered them anyway. Perhaps a different set, some the same, were predicted when Clinton was elected and they never came to fruition either.
I've never hoped for a President to do poorly either, regardless of party. But at the moment I can only think of one thing this Admistration has done that I agree with [wrt Milosovich].
Finding one ignorant conservative doesn't mean all are. If you wish to apply a rule like that...
If I was applying the rule, I never would have written the post. Some of my best friends are self-acclaimed conservatives and they are quite intelligent and capable of dialogue. They are just harder to find on SI threads.
jttmab |
