Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - If Clinton were still President (instead of Bush)...

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

If Clinton were still President (instead of Bush)...
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject:

Hanson wrote:

... how different would the world be?

No one knows. Counterfactual history is worthless because there are too many variables in human affairs to accurately predict any future, real or hypothetical.

But before people on this thread argue so confidently that he would have responded so rationally to 9/11, they might want to check out Stephanopoulos's description of Clinton's reaction to the Black Hawk Down incident in Somalia, and then perhaps multiply it by several factors...

Still, I agree that the Iraqi War might have unfolded differently, if at all. Don't forget, though, that Clinton himself was on the verge of invading in 1998 -- and he also signed into law a Bay of Pigs-style plan to destablize Saddam from the south, in partnership with Iraqi exiles in Washington, D.C.

And on the antiAmericanism, many European protesters were equating Clinton with Hitler and the U.S. with the Nazi regime during Yugoslavia -- a conflict, once it got going in 1999, that some were calling World War III.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:22 am Post subject:

EFL

Quote:

This is possibly the most obtuse comment you've made yet. In no way, shape or form would policy have been the same. First, Bush came in with an agenda to go after Iraq. This is documented. Second, Bush shaped info to fit the agenda. Third, Bush lied

Quote:

O'Neill: 'Frenzy' distorted war plans account
Rumsfeld: Idea of a bias toward war 'a total misunderstanding'

WASHINGTON (CNN) --Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said Tuesday his account of the Bush administration's early discussions about a possible invasion of Iraq has been distorted by a "red meat frenzy."

The controversy began last week when excerpts were released from a book on the administration published Tuesday in which O'Neill suggests Iraq was the focus of President Bush's first National Security Council meeting.

That started what O'Neill described to NBC's "Today" show as a "red meat frenzy that's occurred when people didn't have anything except snippets."

"People are trying to make a case that I said the president was planning war in Iraq early in the administration," O'Neill said.

"Actually, there was a continuation of work that had been going on in the Clinton administration with the notion that there needed to be regime change in Iraq."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/

EFL

Quote:

Those actions give us a vastly different foreign policy vs. a president bent on problem solving. A problem solver does not go: We got attacked by terrorists! Lets go beat up Iraq!!!

Quote:

Because We Could
Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times Op-Ed Columnist

The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.

Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.

The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there � a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.

The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government � and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen � got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.

The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the real weapons of mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's missiles. The real weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated young Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states � young people who hate America more than they love life. Helping to build a decent Iraq as a model for others � and solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict � are the necessary steps for defusing the ideas of mass destruction, which are what really threaten us.

The "moral reason" for the war was that Saddam's regime was an engine of mass destruction and genocide that had killed thousands of his own people, and neighbors, and needed to be stopped.

But because the Bush team never dared to spell out the real reason for the war, and (wrongly) felt that it could never win public or world support for the right reasons and the moral reasons, it opted for the stated reason: the notion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat to America. I argued before the war that Saddam posed no such threat to America, and had no links with Al Qaeda, and that we couldn't take the nation to war "on the wings of a lie." I argued that Mr. Bush should fight this war for the right reasons and the moral reasons. But he stuck with this W.M.D. argument for P.R. reasons.

Once the war was over and I saw the mass graves and the true extent of Saddam's genocidal evil, my view was that Mr. Bush did not need to find any W.M.D.'s to justify the war for me. I still feel that way. But I have to admit that I've always been fighting my own war in Iraq. Mr. Bush took the country into his war. And if it turns out that he fabricated the evidence for his war (which I wouldn't conclude yet), that would badly damage America and be a very serious matter.

But my ultimate point is this: Finding Iraq's W.M.D.'s is necessary to preserve the credibility of the Bush team, the neocons, Tony Blair and the C.I.A. But rebuilding Iraq is necessary to win the war. I won't feel one whit more secure if we find Saddam's W.M.D.'s, because I never felt he would use them on us. But I will feel terribly insecure if we fail to put Iraq onto a progressive path. Because if that doesn't happen, the terrorism bubble will reinflate and bad things will follow. Mr. Bush's credibility rides on finding W.M.D.'s, but America's future, and the future of the Mideast, rides on our building a different Iraq. We must not forget that.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/04/nyt.friedman

Milwaukiedave

Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong

Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:50 am Post subject:

Ok Joo's psycho babble aside If Clinton was still President, the US would have a hell of a better reputation in the world in terms of fighting the war against terror. The sad fact is, whoever is dumb enough to get elected President in 2008 is going to have a HUGE mess on their hands. I don't care how far so and so tells me the national debt has gone down, it is huge. It's not going to be eliminated in my life time (and I'm only in my mid 30's). Oil prices through the roof, the days of $1.69 gas are forever gone. Hell I'd even venture to guess the days of gas under $2.50 a gallon are gone as well. The last 5 years we have spent outside our means, meaning we've spent more then taxes that have been collected. It's time to balance the budget and deal with real issues, rather then push phoney baloney issues like immigration and flag burning. Yes, they are important, but not worthy of hijacking Congress and the Presidency to try to gain political capital for the November election. Oh, and Joo don't respond because honestly I don't care what you have to say.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:59 am Post subject:

Quote:

If Clinton was still President, the US would have a hell of a better reputation in the world in terms of fighting the war against terror.

Oh really like when Europe refused to back the US on Iran sanctions during the 90's?

Quote:

The sad fact is, whoever is dumb enough to get elected President in 2008 is going to have a HUGE mess on their hands. I don't care how far so and so tells me the national debt has gone down, it is huge. It's not going to be eliminated in my life time (and I'm only in my mid 30's). Oil prices through the roof, the days of $1.69 gas are forever gone. Hell I'd even venture to guess the days of gas under $2.50 a gallon are gone as well.

The last 5 years we have spent outside our means, meaning we've spent more then taxes that have been collected. It's time to balance the budget and deal with real issues, rather then push phoney baloney issues like immigration and flag burning. Yes, they are important, but not worthy of hijacking Congress and the Presidency to try to gain political capital for the November election.

what is the cause of the deficit? - Hey silence .

Quote:

Oh, and Joo don't respond because honestly I don't care what you have to say.

that is ok cause I like to refute representatives of MOVE ON . (joke- well not really )

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:41 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

what is the cause of the deficit?

stock market correction
economic downturn
tax cuts for the rich

not necessarily in that order.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:56 am Post subject:

Well tell us the effect of tax cuts for the rich. I didn't support Bush's tax cuts but many respected individuals believe that they increase productivity.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:26 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Well tell us the effect of tax cuts for the rich.

Reduction of tax revenue.

First, let's assume the Laffer Curve. It's close enough for the sake of argument. Here it is:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

The question is, are we to the left or right of t*? Personally, I believe we are currently well to the left. Why? From personal experience working with a lot of millionaires. From comparison with past tax rates (check out the pre-JFK top marginal rates). From comparison with other countries tax rates. Given all this information, and the fact that I've never heard of a rich person refusing to make more money because of the taxes, I personally make my conclusion.

Unscientific? Of course. But it's impossible to do an empirical study and prove the Laffer Curve, much less prove were we are on the Curve. So it comes down to fidgiting with numbers and making choices based upon what's best for the whole country. (see below)

Quote:

I didn't support Bush's tax cuts but many respected individuals believe that they increase productivity.

Many individuals with a personal gain to be had by lower taxes. Hey guys, nobody likes to pay taxes. But one, we have a massive public deficit to pay off. And deficit that could only cause many problems for the US. And two, we're at war. Very few of the rich are sending their sons and daughters into battle, the least they can do is support the cause financially. Bush and Cheney are a lot more eager to push for sacrifices from those who can least afford them than from those who can most afford to make them.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:12 am Post subject:

Radical Islam would still be a huge problem, just as it was emerging in Clinton's days. His bid to placate the Islamic world by bombing a Christian country to save a Muslim people in Kosovo was a tad too subtle. But, no question, in the war against Islamic extremists we would all be doing better.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:12 pm Post subject:

huffdaddy wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Well tell us the effect of tax cuts for the rich.

Reduction of tax revenue.

First, let's assume the Laffer Curve. It's close enough for the sake of argument. Here it is:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Quote:

I didn't support Bush's tax cuts but many respected individuals believe that they increase productivity.

I people were able to keep more money would they invest more?

Would there be more incentive to work.

Look I would rather Bush's tax cuts went to pay off debt -ok , but there are good arguments in support of them , and at any rate they are not the main reason for the US budget deficit.

Actually I think the best way for the US to make up revenue is with a 5 dollar a gallon gas tax but that is another subject.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:34 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

I people were able to keep more money would they invest more?

Invest in what? Most people invest in the stock market, which doesn't do anything to create jobs or enrich the less wealthy. It just lines the pockets of the already rich. And when you've done away with capital gains taxes, that doesn't help the country one iota.

Quote:

Would there be more incentive to work.

That is the point of the Laffer curve, which I already covered in my previous post. Check out the top marginal tax rate before JFK cut it. Did you ever hear of anyone not working to avoid paying the top rate then? And what's the top rate now?

Quote:

Look I would rather Bush's tax cuts went to pay off debt -ok , but there are good arguments in support of them , and at any rate they are not the main reason for the US budget deficit.

Maybe not the main reason. But every little bit (and we're not talking about just a little bit) helps. How many people complained about the abuse of the voucher cards after Katrina? Somehow a few thousand bucks here and there is more alarming than billions in tax cuts for the wealthy.

Quote:

Actually I think the best way for the US to make up revenue is with a 5 dollar a gallon gas tax but that is another subject.

Which would do what to the economy? And then do what to the tax revenue? In an ideal world that'd be great. Realistically, it'd be a massive mistake.

Dev

Joined: 18 Apr 2006

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:21 pm Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Radical Islam would still be a huge problem, just as it was emerging in Clinton's days. His bid to placate the Islamic world by bombing a Christian country to save a Muslim people in Kosovo was a tad too subtle.

But, no question, in the war against Islamic extremists we would all be doing better.

The U.S. Gov. should negotiate with the Islamic extremists as much as it can anyway. If they don't, the radicals will never let up. Better to try to make peace with them. In history, the U.S. Gov. has had to give voices to women, blacks and gays. All these groups protested and eventually got their way. Nowadays you're not allowed to say anything negative about any of these people or else you get labeled a misogynist, racist, or a homophobe.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:07 pm Post subject:

[quote="huffdaddy"]

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

I people were able to keep more money would they invest more?

Quote:

High stock prices = more government revenue.

Besides taxes do play a big role in investment choices.

Quote:

Would there be more incentive to work.

Quote:

33% .

Koreans are less taxed than Americans and no one complains about over taxes.

We already have one bit of evidence here anyway. Europe pays higher taxes and the US economy is much more successful. Even with its military burdens.

Quote:

Look I would rather Bush's tax cuts went to pay off debt -ok , but there are good arguments in support of them , and at any rate they are not the main reason for the US budget deficit.

Quote:

I don't know I think the problems with Katria were a lot more than just not enouh voucher cards.

Quote:

Which would do what to the economy? And then do what to the tax revenue? In an ideal world that'd be great. Realistically, it'd be a massive mistake.

Simple it would force the price of oil down and provide incentives for Americans to use less gas and it would provide revenue for Alternative energy.

Oil that goes to the mideast funds the enemies of the US. Take away that money and the situation would be a lot easier.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:03 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

huffdaddy wrote:

33% .

To answer my own question: At the end of WWII, the top marginal tax rate was 94%. Yet somehow, this country had its biggest economic boom ever. In 1961 it was still over 90%. JFK cut it down to 70%. Yet the economy still continued to grow quite nicely with a 70% top marginal rate.

Quote:

Koreans are less taxed than Americans and no one complains about over taxes.

Americans in Korea may not. But Koreans sure do. Why else do you think a lot of the hagwon owners try to dodge paying health insurance, pensions, and try to over deduct for income taxes?

Quote:

We already have one bit of evidence here anyway. Europe pays higher taxes and the US economy is much more successful. Even with its military burdens.

Look up ceteris peribus. Europe also has much higher gas prices, for one. It's also a much more entrenched economy. Do you see Monaco, which has no personal income tax, growing by leaps and bounds? I'll answer for you: no. Ergo, it's not just about the taxes.

Quote:

Which would do what to the economy? And then do what to the tax revenue? In an ideal world that'd be great. Realistically, it'd be a massive mistake.

Simple it would force the price of oil down and provide incentives for Americans to use less gas and it would provide revenue for Alternative energy.

Again, check out the Laffer curve. Adding a $5 a gallon tax on gas would most likely plunge the economy into a deep recession and dry up all tax revenue. Funding for alternative energy would become a pipe dream as the government would have to spend its limited resources scrapping bodies off of the ground.

Ultimately, we're just dancing around an issue that neither one of us can produce anything more than anecdotal evidence on. Even the best economists in the world can't agree about business cycles, taxation, and tax revenues.

In the end, I believe (and would be hard pressed to change my mind) there's enough evidence to suggest that raising the top marginal tax rate (to a certain point) will not damage the economy and will lead to higher tax revenues. And given the current deficit in the US, and the sacrifices being asked of those who are less financially well off, the rich should be less interested in lining their own pockets and more interested in helping the country.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:46 am Post subject:

Quote:

When the tax rate was that high it was easy to escape.

Besides it was a different world then

Quote:

Americans in Korea may not. But Koreans sure do. Why else do you think a lot of the hagwon owners try to dodge paying health insurance, pensions, and try to over deduct for income taxes?

I meant that no one complains that Koreans are under taxed.

Quote:

No but I would say taxes are a great part of it

Quote:

why would it do that? Koreans , and Japanese pay heavy gas taxes and they don't fall.

They also pay high personal taxes.

but the gas tax would take revenue away from the enemies of the US and cut the US account deficit. That would be a huge bonus to the US

Quote:

Ultimately, we're just dancing around an issue that neither one of us can produce anything more than anecdotal evidence on. Even the best economists in the world can't agree about business cycles, taxation, and tax revenues.

In the end, I believe (and would be hard pressed to change my mind) there's enough evidence to suggest that raising the top marginal tax rate (to a certain point) will not damage the economy and will lead to higher tax revenues. And given the current deficit in the US, and the sacrifices being asked of those who are less financially well off, the rich should be less interested in lining their own pockets and more interested in helping the country.[/quote]

I agree that the deficit is a huge problem.

And I would rather the US focused on deficit reduction. That is where we agree.

As for the rest while I don' t support Bush's tax cuts. I think there is a strong argument for them . and for captial gains tax cuts in particular. and it wasn't just some scheme to help Bush's rich friends.

To go in more detail I would rather see Bush's tax cuts repealed and replaced by making medical insurance tax deductable and with capital gains tax cuts and business tax cuts.

And as I said would like to see the gas tax rasied way up- cause oil money funds the enemies of the US.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:40 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Quote:

why would it do that? Koreans , and Japanese pay heavy gas taxes and they don't fall.

They also pay high personal taxes.

Japan? They've been in deflation for the over 10 years. 0% interest rates and they still can't get it going.

Both countries also have a very high population density (especially compared to the US) and much better public transportation. Point is, you can't use just tax rates as the only determinate in analyzing economic growth.

Quote:

To go in more detail I would rather see Bush's tax cuts repealed and replaced by making medical insurance tax deductable and with capital gains tax cuts and business tax cuts.

Hmm, last time I worked in the US my medical insurance was tax deductible. At least a certain percentage was. But I was self-employed. Did they ever renew the medical savings accounts? That was a good idea. Overall, that's a pretty small component of the tax laws though.

I would keep short term capital gains (under 1 year) taxes higher. With a lower rate for long term gains. But still higher than earned income tax rates. Reward the real workers. Give the tax breaks to IRA holders.

I'd propose an alternative minimum tax for businesses. Too many Fortune 500s dodge taxes altogether. Allow deductions for reinvestment, but hit the cash horders.

Quote:

And as I said would like to see the gas tax rasied way up- cause oil money funds the enemies of the US.

Personally, I'd support raising the gas tax. I don't own a car, and I don't plan on owning one again. Realistically, it's not going to happen. Americans already whine enough about $3 a gallon gas. And a $5 a gallon gas tax would undoutedly send the US economy spiralling down, down, down. Sounds like spiting our face to save our nose.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe