War and the Left

[Sikander]

Originally posted by DuncanK

Arrain, Clinton had to ballance the budget from the last Republican **** up. He did so and kept the economy intact. I think he deserves a little credit.

What version of the constitution are you reading from? It is Congress (in this case a Republican Congress, in the case of the big deficits prior to '94, Democrats) that decides how much money is allocated, and for what. The Executive is the far weaker branch here, with only their veto to use as leverage.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon
As for North Korea - again that is Bush's fault. Things were going pretty well with the North Koreans until Bush decided to basically tell them they were evil and he was going to get them. All the present shenanigans are an attempt by the North Koreans to get a non-aggression treaty from the US. If they get one, things will go back to normal.

Yea, things were going swimmingly as the U.S., South Korea and Japan were propping up Kim while he was busy building nuclear weapons in direct violation of the agreements that were feeding (some of) his people and his regime. Shame on Bush for telling the truth about a brutal and shameless regime, we should just pay up and shut up whenever we are swindled. And he never said that he was going to get them, even before the nuclear weapon was "outed". He simply said that he was going to deal with them on the basis of mutual respect, or lack thereof.

Originally posted by Agathon
And the guy who started this thread says he's on the left. Take it from me, when someone from the US says they are on the left they usually aren't.

That's pretty arrogant of you. Why do you assume that he means that he is on the left of some sort of international political spectrum rather than to the left of the U.S. political spectrum? Most people still define themselves in relation to others in their country, as it is much simpler to understand those who are around you and where you stand in relation to them.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap

Pacifism and leftist critique are not the only reasons to view this war as a dangerous gamble.

No, but they are the most common and the weakest.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap
As we know today, size of standing army is no measure of national power, plus the US army was better equiped and better trained. That a bunch of European pundits believed the size of the of the Mexican army was what made it more powerful does not make it so.. unless you think what European pundits think it the measure of truth.

Oh , and what about adding the Navies? After all, the rgeat power of the time, Britian, had a small army compared to any Continental power, but a great Navy. How big was the Mexican navy at the time?

Neither force was large enough to do much more than raid and haul troops, which gave a firm advantage to the Americans, who took to the strategic offensive. Of course the Mexicans could have done the same thing, but didn't.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by DuncanK

Nonsense, the majority of US were better trained and they had repeater rifles.

I agree that your statement is nonsense. Why did the U.S. give up on repeaters in after '48? By the beginning of the Civil War most small arms in the U.S. inventory were still muskets, and the vast majority of the rest were muzzle loading rifles.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sava


Government spending and the government budget affect every aspect of the economy. And the president controls most of this. This is basic Economics Arrain...

No, it is basic civic illiteracy.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Sikander
What version of the constitution are you reading from? It is Congress (in this case a Republican Congress, in the case of the big deficits prior to '94, Democrats) that decides how much money is allocated, and for what. The Executive is the far weaker branch here, with only their veto to use as leverage.

The presidents veto is powerfull. Agreed that Congress also has a lot of power. They are about equal. Just look at history. Presidents usually are able to force a comprimise to put their agenda thru.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Sikander


What version of the constitution are you reading from? It is Congress (in this case a Republican Congress, in the case of the big deficits prior to '94, Democrats) that decides how much money is allocated, and for what. The Executive is the far weaker branch here, with only their veto to use as leverage.

Anyway, the point is that Clinton was behind the tax increases and Reagan was behing the tax cuts. For that, Clinton deserves the credit and Reagan deserves the blaim.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, Reagan deserves the blame for presiding over a good economy and taking us out of the gloom of the '70s.

[Arrian]

Continuing the President & the Economy threadjack (as opposed to the Mexican American War threadjack)...

Sure, the government has some effect, but I'm arguing it's minor. That effect is delayed - often manifesting itself under the subsequent administration. But there are a ton of other factors that have much more bearing on the health of the economy.

As has been pointed out, it is the Congress that holds the purse strings, not the President. He sets the tone, so to speak, by presenting the budget for approval, and by wielding his veto power if needed. However, every single budget that gets passed is a compromise (some more than others, depending on the makeup of Congress).

So, to recap:

The government has a minor effect on the economy (thank goodness), and most of that has to do with the Fed.

The effect the government does have does not manifest immediately, but rather often takes months or years to kick in.

Yet time and again, the American public praises/blames the sitting President for the "state of the economy."

If it were that simple, we would not be living in a capitalist representative democracy.

-Arrian

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, Reagan deserves the blame for presiding over a good economy and taking us out of the gloom of the '70s.

All that was false growth. The tax cuts couldn't pay for themselves. A future government had to pay the cost for that growth. Reagan should recieve no credit.

Oh, and how did Reagan stop the oil shocks?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Arrian
The effect the government does have does not manifest immediately, but rather often takes months or years to kick in.

Arrian,

In some respects you are right. However, usually the actions of government have an immediate effect. Take taxes for example. This affects peoples income immediately and therefore affects their spending and investment decisions. Take also regulation. Businesses make immediate decisions regarding new laws and if successfull immediately changes the industry being regulated.

There is something to what you are saying though. Tax cuts have a lag effect, because usually other administrations have to increase taxes. Regulation, deregulation, and tax increases and spending have an immediate effect though and their consequences should be seen as the result of current government.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sikander


Yea, things were going swimmingly as the U.S., South Korea and Japan were propping up Kim while he was busy building nuclear weapons in direct violation of the agreements that were feeding (some of) his people and his regime. Shame on Bush for telling the truth about a brutal and shameless regime, we should just pay up and shut up whenever we are swindled. And he never said that he was going to get them, even before the nuclear weapon was "outed". He simply said that he was going to deal with them on the basis of mutual respect, or lack thereof.

Oh blah blah blah. This is international relations not some silly schoolyard game. The facts are that things were getting better than they were, no matter what bad things the North Koreans were doing that was outweighed by the positive progress towards peace and eventual reunification that had been made under the Clinton administration.

The plain fact is that Bush has made it worse. If you have a choice between a North Korea that is pursuing reconciliation with the South and pursuing nuclear technologies in a limited fashion and a North Korea that is becoming more belligerent by the day and has accelerated research so as to become a significant nuclear power, I know what I'd choose.

When someone breaks a treaty it is a childish (i.e. Bushlike) response to immediately go off the deep end when mild concessions or more subtle means of persuasion are available. Threatening the North Koreans has created a crisis which the US is in no real position to force a conclusion that is favourable to itself (because it is occupied elsewhere). It would have been smarter to have shut up and taken up the North Korean problem when there was some realistic prospect of forcing a solution.

Answer me this question: is it good policy to provoke an enemy when you don't need to and you are in a less favourable position than you would be if you provoked him at a later date? That's Bush's problem re: North Korea.

The Bush administration is incompetent. They've just been humiliated by the French again because the French know how to play politics so as to make their side come out as the champion of internationalism and human rights and Bush doesn't.

That's pretty arrogant of you. Why do you assume that he means that he is on the left of some sort of international political spectrum rather than to the left of the U.S. political spectrum? Most people still define themselves in relation to others in their country, as it is much simpler to understand those who are around you and where you stand in relation to them.

This is an international issue being discussed on a forum used by an international audience so one should use international terms.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DuncanK


All that was false growth. The tax cuts couldn't pay for themselves. A future government had to pay the cost for that growth. Reagan should recieve no credit.

Oh, and how did Reagan stop the oil shocks?

Actually, the tax cuts created little growth. The benefits of the 80s are the result of cheaper oil, better demographics for employment, and increased defense spending. Oh, and good monetary policy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

All that was false growth. The tax cuts couldn't pay for themselves. A future government had to pay the cost for that growth. Reagan should recieve no credit.

But Clinton does . The point was that it didn't matter that we had a deficit, as long as the economy rolled on. Keynesianism at its finest.

You are so full of **** that your eyes are brown, Duncan.