The many books written (thus far) about the Bush Administration
- Thread starter Thunderdog
- Start date
Despite Leftist Media Claim, U.S. Not in Decline
By: Bill O'Reilly
"Just in time for Independence Day, the bible of the American left, The New York Times, continues to opine that the United States is a "nation in decline."
Hoping to see a Democrat in the White House, the newspaper has been hammering home that theme on its editorial pages.
The Times bases its claims on two primary situations: the negative view of America abroad and income inequality at home. So, let's take a look at the supposed "decline."
Overseas, the world is largely a mess. Africa remains a chaotic cauldron of corruption, China continues its authoritarian rule, and there's no letup in the India-Pakistan hatred. Would you like to live in those countries?
Russia continues to lead in the league of corruption, Mexico is fighting a brutal war against its own drug traffickers, and South America remains mired in poverty. Call me crazy, but I don't see many immigrants pounding on those doors.
Of course, many liberal Americans blame the USA for the world's misfortunes and side with those who, for whatever reason, verbally downgrade the United States. However, considering the sad state of a world that will not even unite against a nuclear weapons-seeking Iran, our so-called "decline" is a terrible misreading of the global picture.
Against all odds, U.S. forces have almost single-handedly defeated Islamic fascism in Iraq, one of the most complicated battlefields in history. In Afghanistan, U.S. and NATO troops continue to hammer the vicious Taliban on every front. The only reason those fascists are operating is that Pakistan protects them. If the Pakistanis would ally themselves with NATO, the Taliban would be wiped out.
Back home, the Bush administration has succeeded in making it ultra-difficult for terrorists to kill us. The FBI and other federal agencies have been effectively reorganized, and the nation is much safer for it. That doesn't sound like a decline to me. But what really has The New York Times furious is the gap between rich and poor Americans; a gulf that is now being exacerbated by escalating gas prices that rob workers of take-home pay.
Never mind that it is largely liberal policies that have shut down much U.S. oil exploration and made America even more dependent on foreign oil; the left believes capitalism must now be "tempered" by the federal government. That means income redistribution through higher taxation on wealthy Americans.
In this month's Harvard Magazine, the liberal position is clearly stated: "Americans, on average, have a higher tolerance for income inequality than their European counterparts. American attitudes focus on equality of opportunity, while Europeans tend to see fairness in equal outcomes."
"Equal outcomes," of course, means socialistic entitlements, something many European countries have embraced and a philosophy The New York Times deeply endorses.
So, it comes down to this: The committed left believes America has been too aggressive in fighting the war on terror and not aggressive enough when it comes to government-mandated economic and social engineering. Thus, in their view, the country is in decline. But that's opinion, not fact.
There's no doubt that times are tough right now, but from this vantage point, the American people are still as creative and hardworking as they've always been. Our pinheaded politicians have mucked it up recently, but we are certainly not a nation in decline.
With another Independence Day upon us, we remain strong and the world's greatest hope."
By: Bill O'Reilly
"Just in time for Independence Day, the bible of the American left, The New York Times, continues to opine that the United States is a "nation in decline."
Hoping to see a Democrat in the White House, the newspaper has been hammering home that theme on its editorial pages.
The Times bases its claims on two primary situations: the negative view of America abroad and income inequality at home. So, let's take a look at the supposed "decline."
Overseas, the world is largely a mess. Africa remains a chaotic cauldron of corruption, China continues its authoritarian rule, and there's no letup in the India-Pakistan hatred. Would you like to live in those countries?
Russia continues to lead in the league of corruption, Mexico is fighting a brutal war against its own drug traffickers, and South America remains mired in poverty. Call me crazy, but I don't see many immigrants pounding on those doors.
Of course, many liberal Americans blame the USA for the world's misfortunes and side with those who, for whatever reason, verbally downgrade the United States. However, considering the sad state of a world that will not even unite against a nuclear weapons-seeking Iran, our so-called "decline" is a terrible misreading of the global picture.
Against all odds, U.S. forces have almost single-handedly defeated Islamic fascism in Iraq, one of the most complicated battlefields in history. In Afghanistan, U.S. and NATO troops continue to hammer the vicious Taliban on every front. The only reason those fascists are operating is that Pakistan protects them. If the Pakistanis would ally themselves with NATO, the Taliban would be wiped out.
Back home, the Bush administration has succeeded in making it ultra-difficult for terrorists to kill us. The FBI and other federal agencies have been effectively reorganized, and the nation is much safer for it. That doesn't sound like a decline to me. But what really has The New York Times furious is the gap between rich and poor Americans; a gulf that is now being exacerbated by escalating gas prices that rob workers of take-home pay.
Never mind that it is largely liberal policies that have shut down much U.S. oil exploration and made America even more dependent on foreign oil; the left believes capitalism must now be "tempered" by the federal government. That means income redistribution through higher taxation on wealthy Americans.
In this month's Harvard Magazine, the liberal position is clearly stated: "Americans, on average, have a higher tolerance for income inequality than their European counterparts. American attitudes focus on equality of opportunity, while Europeans tend to see fairness in equal outcomes."
"Equal outcomes," of course, means socialistic entitlements, something many European countries have embraced and a philosophy The New York Times deeply endorses.
So, it comes down to this: The committed left believes America has been too aggressive in fighting the war on terror and not aggressive enough when it comes to government-mandated economic and social engineering. Thus, in their view, the country is in decline. But that's opinion, not fact.
There's no doubt that times are tough right now, but from this vantage point, the American people are still as creative and hardworking as they've always been. Our pinheaded politicians have mucked it up recently, but we are certainly not a nation in decline.
With another Independence Day upon us, we remain strong and the world's greatest hope."
There's that balance again that you know so well. And quoting anything (ANYTHING!) written by Bill O'Reilly is the cherry that goes on top. (Bill O'Reilly is a lying, disingenuous fool and a thug. His bullshit has been exposed for what it is time and again.)Quote from Yannis:
Well, obviously, it takes more than 8 years to clean up after the Democrats! There's only one solution available: Vote McCain!!
Let me give you a hint, since you are obviously flailing at sea here. Simply put, supply side "economics" does not work. It is not an economic theory. Rather, it is an excuse for the rich to pig out at the trough. And if you don't believe that, then just look at the results of the Bush Administration's tenure. During Bush's tenure, the rich have gotten richer, whilel the poor have gotten poorer. Plus, there are now more poor than there had been before Bush came into office. Forgive me, but whenever you affix a smiley to one of your vacuous posts, it just strikes me as an idiot's grin.
Poverty is always a bigger problem when there is a republican in office. Why? Because the media says it is.
Poor people from all over the world are trying to get In to America, not get out. All the liberal spin about how bad off the poor are in the USA is just the left's way of being "patriotic". If you want to see poor people, go to a country where their citizens are trying to come to America. Our poor are the envy of most of the rest of the world.
The gap between rich and poor is Decreasing in the US. Anytime the economy is contracting, the rich get hurt far more than the poor, because the rich own far more of the assets, and when equities and real estate take a hit, the rich bear a far greater brunt of the decrease in wealth. If you truly want to see the gap decreased even more, root for a depression. During the equity boom of the late nineties under Clinton, the gap between rich and poor increased, not decreased, as it must. Oh, but you didn't hear the media trumpeting this fact, now did you?
Liberal spin about the gap between rich and poor getting wider right now is just a lot of tortured statistics that liberal use to prove anything they want to prove. Just a little common sense tells you it is 180 degrees wrong.
Come on, AAA, that's a bit of a broad statement dont you think? As an independent, I have a lot of social liberal views. However, I believe in work-fare and not welfare. I believe those who cannot afford more children, should not have more children. Not in some Draconian way, simply cut off any benefits at some point. I think we should be fiscally conservative, and I don't think this Administration has been even close to republican expectations in that regard. The statement about either tax and spend or go into debt with the world and spend, still equals spending. Cut, cut, cut, is what I say. Privatize what can be privatized for more efficient government services.
I have to balance my checkbook and feed my kids. I think we should be charitable as a Nation, but not stupid about it. I haven't seen any decent welfare reform ideas in years. Maybe you have some ideas, as I've said before, you've come up with some good ideas. I just hate it when you, or anyone for that matter, get too extreme just to make a point, or generalize too much. Your right to do so, of course.
Let's keep Uniting, not Dividing.
c
Bill O'reilly has had the #1 Cable news comment show (The O'relilly Factor) for several years now, trouncing the likes of MSNBC, and that's why liberals like you hate him. His style is combative but fair - look at his recent interview with Hillary and the grades he gets from the likes of Media Matters. I'm sure you can find trash on him over the net, but don't bother, trash is thrown against all leaders, not the losers, and that's why you guys hate Bush so much that it hurts. That's good.
The results of Bush's tenure are stellar, to say the least, and I, and others, have posted them several times on ET: he defended the country against terrorism (no serious attacks since 9/11), passed tax cuts that salvaged the economy from the poor condition Clinton left it in, created millions of new jobs, fought successfully two justified wars to throw out bloody dictators and free two good nations (wars that I, btw, opposed on moral grounds), passed scores of positive legislation like education (with Ted Kennedy), medicare prescription program, and the like, led the country's foreign policy out of the clutches of corrupt, stupid UN, expanded NATO significantly (5 new members), made our friends love us and our enemies fear us which is what we want. Great man - not perfect, but, hey, I'd rather have a president who can't pronounce "nuclear" than someone who chases skirts all over the Oval Office, lies under oath, gets impeached and disbarred, smearing mud all over the Office of the Presidency. But what do you care? You are a Canadian, right? Well, stay up there, bro, stay there and look with envy.
The rich get richer, etc? Of course, that's how it's supposed to work: the creative, successful ones advance and create opportiunities for the rest of the population, they are the engine of this economy. It's a great plan, look it up sometimes. This massive wealth redistribution scheme that the Europeans have inherited from Communism is not the American way. What matters to us is that the average income grows, while there's a reasonable safety net under everybody. I'm driving a car and the engine is always ahead of me right? Makes sense to me.
Yes, there are more poor people now, and there's more rich people too, there are more people period. No problem, we like immigrants. We call people poor in this country at income levels that would make them rich in most of the globe. It's a problem but not as big as liberals make it out to be. Grow the economy and the poverty problem is taken care of. And then, another 20 million people come in, illegally, and there we go again, start all over. Oh well.
I think we are in agreement, but you may not like my way of putting things. All I am saying is that people respond to incentives. Punish hard work and saving and reward foolishness, all in the name of compassion of course, and guess which you will get more of. We are a hugely compassionate country, but sometimes tough love and a bit of judgmentalism is needed.
I think the main problem with welfare is federal involvement, all in the name of compassion of course. The bigger the separation between the people who pay for something and the people who decide how the money is spent, the more room for bad ideas. Even liberals don't like to see their tax money just wasted, except maybe in San Francisco. Our welfare problem got much worse in the '60's when the federal government stepped in with all sorts of "enlightened" programs that mandated what the states had to do. The federal courts also got into the act, ruling unconstitutional such common sense local laws as length of residency requirements for welfare.
I agree. BUT.... First, it is very hard to hit the optimum spot between helping someone and getting them back to work. Many of the potential recipients are not really capable of working, not well enough for an employer to keep them. Maybe our welfare history has a lot to be blamed for here, but the truth is that, in many cases, there will be people that won't cooperate and they have dependents, and what to do? Throw them in the street? We probably need to establish a network of review boards to go over each case and decide how to handle them. My gut tells me that in no way we should be giving out plain free checks - only work and a salary that comes with it. Everybody can work telemarketing in some capacity, stuff envelopes, sweep the street in fron of their house for goodness sake. Let them do such chores and get a check for it. They may pick up some additional skills doing it and a history of showing up for work, agreeing with their boss, not stealing the tools that have been lent to them, etc.
Second, I do disagree with the way this Administration has handled money, but, again, it's hard to make sure because of the two wars, Homeland Security, the oil situation, etc. It's easy to beat on Bush these days, but, let's not forget that he's a lot more popular and effective (for example, he pushed and threatened and got the FISA and the war funding bills signed off now, freeing the hands of the next Administration for several months, etc) than the Democratic Congress. Let us also not forget that Bush was getting very high marks on his handling of the economy (great growth rates, unemployment down to 4%, which is like full employment, millions of new jobs created, etc) until the Dems took over Congress and, if they are not outright guilty, at least, they should share the blame, which they don't want to do. Most members of both parties worship pork, and sacrifice the good of the country at its altar regularly - a terrible crime, similar to some of the poor who don't want to work, imo.
My main problem with what's being discussed these days is this: say someone is hard working and successful, makes good contacts, whatever, and climbs up the prosperity ladder. Let's say, he or she now has more money than needed to live relatively well on, like $200K-$300K/year. Next thing, he or she is now ready to take more risk, expand their sphere of influence, start their own business, etc.... BUT uncle Obama is waiting at the next dark corner on April 15th with a huge tax-club in his hands and BAMM! There goes the dream of the new business and new jobs that come with it. Get my point? He's attacking the very people who are best poised to hire others, create more prosperity for everyone. He wants a BIG Mommy Government like many Europeans have (80% of highschool grads in France want to become civil servants), take care of us all, forget initiative, risk-taking, rewards for success, true Capitalism. What to do? What else but vote against that?
Again, it's a pretty broad statement about what Obama is waiting to do. Hell, I don't even think he knows what he's planning to do. A sensible tax re-adjustment would make some sense, and we do have to pay the bills somehow.
I am in most affected tax bracket, and I would love to pay less than more, but as I mentioned, I don't want my grand kids to be stuck with the bills either.
We can agree to disagree on how Mr. Bush and his group did overall. Not sure I can agree with your numbers on approval ratings, but most of the negatives are war related. It would be nice if we didn't get involved in that mess, in my opinion, and yet we can argue forever as to whether we should or should not have invaded Iraq, and how it has or has not helped the U.S. in the big picture. It's hard to prove a negative like lack of terrorist attacks. At the same time, however, we can certainly prove the impact of the TSA and other pressures on our citizens.
Mr. Bush has had the veto power all along, so it's a bit tough for me to put too much blame on the dem's. Again, it's the extremes on the left that bother me as much as the extremes on the right.
We can only hope that, by some miracle, that we Americans, the actual citizens of this Great Country, can get together and move things forward, take care of our wounded children with taxpayer money, fund the capture of Bin Laden and his ilk, carry on conversations with each other instead of name calling and partisianship just for the sake of being on one side or the other, stop paying these damn talk show hosts hundreds of millions of dollars to preach hatred just for the sake of ratings. Rush making $400 million? Fine, he worked hard at working on his audience hard. Do I even think he believes half of the crap he talks about, hell no. He has worked hard on ratings, and so many have fallen for it. And, yes, we have the same blowhards on the left, I guess they're just not as good as Rush is, judging by their lower ratings and salaries.
Oh well, a long drawn out run-on sentence, I hope you get my drift.
Conversation is good, labeling and name calling are not, again, in my opinion.
c
I am in most affected tax bracket, and I would love to pay less than more, but as I mentioned, I don't want my grand kids to be stuck with the bills either.
We can agree to disagree on how Mr. Bush and his group did overall. Not sure I can agree with your numbers on approval ratings, but most of the negatives are war related. It would be nice if we didn't get involved in that mess, in my opinion, and yet we can argue forever as to whether we should or should not have invaded Iraq, and how it has or has not helped the U.S. in the big picture. It's hard to prove a negative like lack of terrorist attacks. At the same time, however, we can certainly prove the impact of the TSA and other pressures on our citizens.
Mr. Bush has had the veto power all along, so it's a bit tough for me to put too much blame on the dem's. Again, it's the extremes on the left that bother me as much as the extremes on the right.
We can only hope that, by some miracle, that we Americans, the actual citizens of this Great Country, can get together and move things forward, take care of our wounded children with taxpayer money, fund the capture of Bin Laden and his ilk, carry on conversations with each other instead of name calling and partisianship just for the sake of being on one side or the other, stop paying these damn talk show hosts hundreds of millions of dollars to preach hatred just for the sake of ratings. Rush making $400 million? Fine, he worked hard at working on his audience hard. Do I even think he believes half of the crap he talks about, hell no. He has worked hard on ratings, and so many have fallen for it. And, yes, we have the same blowhards on the left, I guess they're just not as good as Rush is, judging by their lower ratings and salaries.
Oh well, a long drawn out run-on sentence, I hope you get my drift.
Conversation is good, labeling and name calling are not, again, in my opinion.
c