Will Bush Change Course in His Second Term?

[wasteofo2]

If Bush wins, will it be, as Kerry has put it "4 more years of the same", or will Bush and his administration finally admit some mistakes and take some measures opposite to previous actions to correct them?

I'm really worried that the Bush administration is so ideological that they simply won't change course, but you never know, didn't Reagan quietly sign some huge tax-hike in his second term?

 

[Moonbear]

If a lame duck president doesn't think he's done anything wrong in his first term, why would he bother to change anything in his second term? I think it's pretty obvious it will be four more years of the same, or maybe less; the question is whether or not you think that's a good thing. There are voters out there who think the status quo is okay, but if they are expecting anything different out of Bush in the next 4 years than what he's already shown he will do, then I hope they aren't holding their breath.

 

[member 5645]

Bush has sweeping domestic reform planned. I look forward to much of it.

 

[Smurf]

what, you think bush is going to do that when he can fight another war and extend the US sphere of influence? pfffft.

 

[Gokul43201]

(In reference to phatmonky's hope) I agree. I think there's going to be big (attempts at) changes : in Social Security, Government Spending and Taxation, but I can't see very mush else changing.

What changes have been promised ?

 

[gravenewworld]

Honestly, it doesn't matter who will become president. America is #)($(#@ anyway.

 

[member 5645]

Honestly, it doesn't matter who will become president. America is #)($(#@ anyway.

Yes, a deficit that isn't the highest percentage ever(while the GDP this year was still the highest we've ever had), a war in Iraq, and a steady growth economy is truly the signs of total decline

 

[Gza]

Yes, a deficit that isn't the highest percentage ever(while the GDP this year was still the highest we've ever had), a war in Iraq, and a steady growth economy is truly the signs of total decline

I take it you have something to back that statement up with. Last time I checked we are under the highest deficit in history.

 

[BobG]

I take it you have something to back that statement up with. Last time I checked we are under the highest deficit in history.

You're both right. The budget deficit is the highest in history in raw numbers. As a percentage of the GDP, it's extremely high (around 4.2%), but not even close to the record. The record deficit as a percentage of the GDP was in World War II, when the percentages ranged from 14.2% to 30.3%. World War II was a major exception, though. Not counting World War II, the highest deficit by percentage was 1983 at 6%. 2004's 4.2% (projected) would barely crack the top 10 non-WWII years.

Still, "a deficit that isn't the highest percentage ever" is pretty faint praise for a very mediocre economic 'recovery' (job growth is almost high enough to match population growth, now).

Reference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4985&sequence=2

 

[member 5645]

Still, "a deficit that isn't the highest percentage ever" is pretty faint praise for a very mediocre economic 'recovery' (job growth is almost high enough to match population growth, now).

There's a reason I mentioned percentage.
My point is, it's not doomsday And America isn't @#$@#$@#$@#$@#

 

[Gokul43201]

Here's my concern.

Bush is on a second term and Cheney is not going to run for President after this. That in itself is a little scary.

There's one, and likely more, Supreme Court spots to fill.

The GOP more than controls the House and Senate.

Rummy and Wolfie are not getting shafted.

The people seem to want a "faith based policy".

 

[tumor]

All those numbers about how good US economy is doing might not be real,remember guys they lied to the World about WMD in Iraq.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

The people seem to want a "faith based policy".

I'm not very familiar with the foundations of America but isn't the country supposed to support secularism?

 

[wasteofo2]

Here're some of my concerns:

1) Republicans now control the whole government.

Their narrow majority in the Senate has become a larger majority, with less likelyhood that there will be enough Republicans who might vote against insane policies Bush wants, and more that may just tow the party line.

Their control on the Legislative Branch will only tighten.

How can a government controlled by one party be expected to check and balance itself?

2) People say the Iraq/Vietnam comparison is insane, that we won't need a draft etc. However, Iraq is slowly degrading, as Vietnam did. Kennedy sent the first troops to Vietnam in '62, and the draft didn't start up until '68. These things take time, but with more and more Americans dying, it seems there's no way to a resolution besides pulling out or sending more troops. Bush's made lots of promises that he couldn't keep before. He said he didn't want to participate in Nation Building, and we're building 2 nations. Of course, with that, times changed, but the same thing could happen with the draft. I have no problem picturing Bush saying "In 2004, when I said there would be no draft, things were different, times change, things have become much more dangerous in Iraq and dangerous times require somewhat drastic steps. This is why I'm re-instituting a draft".

3) Bush isn't showing any signs of realizing anything he's ever done has ever been wrong in any way. He's simply blind to reality. I'm going to have to pay off this damned debt in the form of taxes, and I'm going to have to suffer under it in the form of higher rates of damned near everything.

 

[member 5645]

Here's my concern.

The people seem to want a "faith based policy".

expand on this.

 

[graphic7]

expand on this.

I've posted this statistic 3 times. 90 percent of the people that voted for Bush in my state voted because of his 'faith.' I fail to see what Gokul is suppose to expand on.

If this statistic doesn't tell you that the American people are wanting faith, specifically Chrstianity, to be an important part of the government, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[member 5645]

Here're some of my concerns:

1) Republicans now control the whole government.

Their narrow majority in the Senate has become a larger majority, with less likelyhood that there will be enough Republicans who might vote against insane policies Bush wants, and more that may just tow the party line.

Their control on the Legislative Branch will only tighten.

How can a government controlled by one party be expected to check and balance itself?

2) People say the Iraq/Vietnam comparison is insane, that we won't need a draft etc. However, Iraq is slowly degrading, as Vietnam did. Kennedy sent the first troops to Vietnam in '62, and the draft didn't start up until '68. These things take time, but with more and more Americans dying, it seems there's no way to a resolution besides pulling out or sending more troops. Bush's made lots of promises that he couldn't keep before. He said he didn't want to participate in Nation Building, and we're building 2 nations. Of course, with that, times changed, but the same thing could happen with the draft. I have no problem picturing Bush saying "In 2004, when I said there would be no draft, things were different, times change, things have become much more dangerous in Iraq and dangerous times require somewhat drastic steps. This is why I'm re-instituting a draft".

3) Bush isn't showing any signs of realizing anything he's ever done has ever been wrong in any way. He's simply blind to reality. I'm going to have to pay off this damned debt in the form of taxes, and I'm going to have to suffer under it in the form of higher rates of damned near everything.

1>I voted for ( and he won) a local replublican congressman because he was a Republican vocal about the lack of fiscal conservatism in Washington. Don't be so sure that there will be just towing of the party line. There is also a realistic plan to pay down the deficit coming forth from Bush himself. A steady growth, steady paydown is exactly what we need - that is being offered.
2>There will be no draft. I don't understand how this can be made any clearer. It will take an active attack on the USA to bring forth such a thing, and if that happens I hope you do't have a problem fighting. I don't. Iraq won't do it.

You have more to worry if Kerry had won:
- His own party supports the draft, and even wrote a bill to begin the draft
- He opposes moving troops out of Europe and the Korean peninsula
- He wants to increase the armed forces by 40,000
- He was relying on France/Germany/Russia to help us in Iraq. HE would have to get more support


3>You'd have to worry a lot more if we implemented an awful tax and spend policy in the middle of a recession. Our GDP has grown every year. It did last year, it is this year. the deficit will start to decline. Things could be better, but this is not doomsday, and Bush is a better economic choice than Kerry (a mediocre plan vs. NO PLAN.)

 

[member 5645]

I've posted this statistic 3 times. 90 percent of the people that voted for Bush in my state voted because of his 'faith.' I fail to see what Gokul is suppose to expand on.

If this statistic doesn't tell you that the American people are wanting faith, specifically Chrstianity, to be an important part of the government, I don't know what to tell you.

I've never seen this statistic.
He didn't reference this statistic.

He is to expand on what he meant by it, where he got the info from, etc.

 

[graphic7]

I've never seen this statistic.
He didn't reference this statistic.

He is to expand on what he meant by it, where he got the info from, etc.

Go to CNN, click on TN, click on exit poll information and take a look. Don't play dumb.

 

[member 5645]

Go to CNN, click on TN, click on exit poll information and take a look. Don't play dumb.

Get off my nuts Graphic. I asked for an expansion on a VERY broad statement. I answered your questions, and I didn't know what state you were from.
There's no need for you to start acting like a little kid.

 

[graphic7]

Get off my nuts Graphic. I asked for an expansion on a VERY broad statement. I answered your questions, and I didn't know what state you were from.
There's no need for you to start acting like a little kid.

What's broad is 91% of the people that voted for Bush, thought his 'Most Important Quality' was 'Faith.'

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

 

[member 5645]

What's broad is 91% of the people that voted for Bush, thought his 'Most Important Quality' was 'Faith.'

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Perhaps I'm reading that exit poll wrong:
Doesn't that say that OF THE people that thought Religious Faith (8%) was the most important quality for their candidate, 91% of that 8% voted for Bush?

 

[graphic7]

Perhaps I'm reading that exit poll wrong:
Doesn't that say that OF THE people that thought Religious Faith (8%) was the most important quality for their candidate, 91% of that 8% voted for Bush?

I maybe be reading it wrong them, however, the totals don't add up to 100, though.

 

[member 5645]

I maybe be reading it wrong them, however, the totals don't add up to 100, though.

You'll notice the topics of importance add to 93%, meaning there were probably some OTHER,etc.

The percentage to the right all add to 99% or 100%

 

[wasteofo2]

1>I voted for ( and he won) a local replublican congressman because he was a Republican vocal about the lack of fiscal conservatism in Washington. Don't be so sure that there will be just towing of the party line. There is also a realistic plan to pay down the deficit coming forth from Bush himself. A steady growth, steady paydown is exactly what we need - that is being offered.
2>There will be no draft. I don't understand how this can be made any clearer. It will take an active attack on the USA to bring forth such a thing, and if that happens I hope you do't have a problem fighting. I don't. Iraq won't do it.

You have more to worry if Kerry had won:
- His own party supports the draft, and even wrote a bill to begin the draft
- He opposes moving troops out of Europe and the Korean peninsula
- He wants to increase the armed forces by 40,000
- He was relying on France/Germany/Russia to help us in Iraq. HE would have to get more support


3>You'd have to worry a lot more if we implemented an awful tax and spend policy in the middle of a recession. Our GDP has grown every year. It did last year, it is this year. the deficit will start to decline. Things could be better, but this is not doomsday, and Bush is a better economic choice than Kerry (a mediocre plan vs. NO PLAN.)

Honestly, at this point, I've heard too many false promises from this administration, too many optimistic predictions that turned out to be totally wrong, and too much general BS from this whitehouse to take any promise of Bush doing better seriously. He'll have to show me.

Bush can say there won't be a draft, but hell, I'm sure Kennedy and Johnson said that same thing as well.

Again, the Bush Administration has said WAY too many things that aren't true for me to take any promises of theirs seirously. Uniter not a divider, no nation building, cleaner air and water, WMD's for sure, fiscal responsibility, bringing an attitude of accountability to Washington, bringing allies to the table, fighting for smaller government etc. He's just a master of BS, even better than Clinton. Clinton was slick and slimy, Bush is like ****ing teflon, nothing he says ever comes back to haunt him and no one holds him accountable for a damn thing, especially not himself. And when he makes a promise that doesn't hold true, is he a liar? No, he's not a liar, he never made the promise in the first place, and his current justification is what it has always been and is right. 2+2 is fuking 5 with this guy.

 

[BobG]

2>There will be no draft. I don't understand how this can be made any clearer. It will take an active attack on the USA to bring forth such a thing, and if that happens I hope you do't have a problem fighting. I don't. Iraq won't do it.

You have more to worry if Kerry had won:
- His own party supports the draft, and even wrote a bill to begin the draft
- He opposes moving troops out of Europe and the Korean peninsula
- He wants to increase the armed forces by 40,000
- He was relying on France/Germany/Russia to help us in Iraq. HE would have to get more support

I agree with you that there will be no draft ... and the military would be the most opposed to it. Nobody wants to depend on inexperienced short termers - today's technology and tactics require more experience than past wars. However, increasing the size of the armed forces is smart and necessary.

The Rumsfield vision of the military was partially validated by Afghanistan and Iraq. But it was really only validated for one type of warfare. Beat the enemy as quickly as possible and then get the hell out.

Rumsfield model just plain doesn't work when it comes to occupying a country. Not only doesn't it work, but he has to get a whole lot more revolutionary about the mission of the military. Peacekeeping and occupation of foreign territories are no where in any of the military's core missions. Not only are they not core tasks, but the military has constantly complained about the number of peacekeeping missions they have been tasked for, claiming they reduce the amount of training they can devote to maintaining readiness for their core task - waging war.

There's only three options:

Don't get involved in so many of these peacekeeping missions such as Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, or Lebanon. Don't create situations where you have to occupy a defeated country to maintain the peace.

Admit the military's going to be constantly tasked for these types of missions, make peacekeeping missions one of their core tasks that they have to train for, and increase manning so they can do the job.

Just overwhelm the problem with increased manpower. Throw enough manpower at the problem and we're bound to succeed.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Bush can say there won't be a draft, but hell, I'm sure Kennedy and Johnson said that same thing as well.

I well remember that in the election campaign of 1964, Johnson swore he would not send troops to Viet Nam, and he tried to tar Goldwater as a supporter of a bigger war there. At this time we had only a small contingent there. And in January after the election, Johnson announced a big increase in the troop stength there with a jump in the draft to match.

Of course Bush (or for that matter Kerry) is a more honorable man than Johnson. Sure he is.

 

[member 5645]

I agree with you that there will be no draft ... and the military would be the most opposed to it. Nobody wants to depend on inexperienced short termers - today's technology and tactics require more experience than past wars. However, increasing the size of the armed forces is smart and necessary.

The Rumsfield vision of the military was partially validated by Afghanistan and Iraq. But it was really only validated for one type of warfare. Beat the enemy as quickly as possible and then get the hell out.

Rumsfield model just plain doesn't work when it comes to occupying a country. Not only doesn't it work, but he has to get a whole lot more revolutionary about the mission of the military. Peacekeeping and occupation of foreign territories are no where in any of the military's core missions. Not only are they not core tasks, but the military has constantly complained about the number of peacekeeping missions they have been tasked for, claiming they reduce the amount of training they can devote to maintaining readiness for their core task - waging war.

There's only three options:

Don't get involved in so many of these peacekeeping missions such as Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, or Lebanon. Don't create situations where you have to occupy a defeated country to maintain the peace.

Admit the military's going to be constantly tasked for these types of missions, make peacekeeping missions one of their core tasks that they have to train for, and increase manning so they can do the job.

Just overwhelm the problem with increased manpower. Throw enough manpower at the problem and we're bound to succeed.

I agree with this all.

 

[franznietzsche]

I take it you have something to back that statement up with. Last time I checked we are under the highest deficit in history.

But its only 4% of GDP as opposed to 6% which was the record.

 

[franznietzsche]

Another thing,something liberals will never understand:

This election was not won because of campaign promises.It was not won on foreign policy, and it was not won on the economy.

It was won on culture. One of my history professors made an interesting point: The wars of the 20th century were political and economic wars. Communism, Fascism, Democracy and Capitalism. He then said the the warsof the 21st century will be wars of culture. Christianity and Islam, Secularism and Fundamentalism, Conservatism and Liberalism. As Bush's term progressed, and especially in this election this has shown true. The conflicts between the rest ofn the world and Bush are ones of fundamental cultural belief. Conservative Theism vs Socialist Liberalism. That is what this election came down to, and the first culture is the stronger in America. People's reasons for voting have changed. OUr reasons for going to war have changed. Until you liberals figure this out and stop spouting the same useless ideas, you're going to be faced with this kind of Republican domination of the federal government. get smart, and do it quick.