A55M0NKEY's Journal: Vote ABB for US. President

I hate to rant about something as boring as 'who gets to be president' but here goes.

Don't vote for Bush. He cuts taxes and INcreases spending. This, is a recipe for disaster.

Now I am all for cutting taxes, but programs need to be cut at the same time. Otherwise we will find ourselves, in the near future, with the choice between raising taxes to unbearable levels, or cutting programs to the bone. Though I am all for cutting most programs to the bone, it is irresponsible to force this by bankrupting America.

This strategy of President Bush is called 'starve the beast'. When we are forced through economic necessity to deal with the deficit, our likely choice will be for us to cut programs rather than raise taxes since raising taxes would further harm the economy. But the destableising shock will harm many people's lives unnecessarily, and put the United States in a weakened ( broke ) position. But Mr Bush implements 'starve the beast' anyway because it lets him be very popular with the bread and circuses mob. Cut taxes? Yes please. Keep/expand the government dole? Yes please. Until we go broke. But that will be well after Mr Bush's second term so he doesn't really care. Whatever happens, the filthy rich of the world ( like him ) will still be sitting pretty.

As for Iraq: Dethroning Saddam and rebuilding his country will cost, before it is over, more than 200 Billion dollars. 200 bil / 250 million US population = $800.00 for every man/woman/elder/child in the US! Less than 5000 people died in September 11. And Iraq had nothing to do with it!

This means his war is vulnerable to ridicule on at least two tacks:

1) Although dethroning the tyrant Saddam is laudable, and the Iraqi people should be eternally grateful to the people of the US for giving them freedom and democracy, the US didn't get anything from it. It was charity. The cause of the US war on terrorism was not furthered by changing the regime of a country that although ruled by a tyrant, was not a contributor to terrorism. Basically the $800.00 per person price tag cost of this war is a FORCED DONATION from the people of the United States to the people of Iraq. When hundereds of thousands starve in Ethiopia/Somalia/Wherever how much did you donate to feed them? And their problems were more severe than those of the Iraqis. I'll bet most people's donation to save-the-starving-folks fund was no where near $800.00.

I'll grant that Aghanistan's Taleban needed to be overthrown, but I don't see order being enforced there. Opium production is more central than ever to the Afghani economy, and while terrorist training bases are no longer openly run in that country, we have not changed that country in any way that will enable us to take our eyes off of or troops out of Afghanistan with the expectation that terror camps will not spring up again. Instead of working to construct a functioning Afghanistan we have preferred to waste our time in Iraq. And there is a distinct possibility that Iraq will not remain free once we have left because the Iraqis may believe they got their freedom for free. They may not value that precious commodity because they have not fought for it. However one can hope that the Iraqis will appreciate the blood price they did pay for it when the Americans bombed their soldiers and so value their freedom appropriately.

2) Less than 5000 people died on September 11, and no further serious terrorism has taken place since then. The importance of terrorism has been greatly blown out of proportion. More than 5000 many die of AIDS every year in the US. Many more than that die of heart disease, cancer, obesity. Spending 200 billion on researching cures for the diseases of the world would save far more American lives than the War on terror ever will. Even better, the money could be spent subsidising the health insurance of Americans which would trickle down to the research departments of drug companies.

I have traditionally voted Libertarian in the past because I have traditionally not preferred the Republican candidate over the Democrat candidate or vice versa. I don't want my social liberties taken by Rebublicans beholden to the religious right, and I do not want my financial liberties taken by tax and spend liberals. ( Bush seems to be his own beast - a tax cut and spend anyway creature ) But Bush has proven himself worthy of being voted *Against*. I will therefore vote for the Democratic nominee as a foil to the current Republican Congress. Doing nothing is better than doing stupid.

You may wonder why a Libertarian-type like me would advocate doing anything with government money saved other than funding tax cuts. I reason is that I know a libertarian 'utopia' can never exist. I see Libertarianism more as an Idealistic school of thought with many insightful threads than as something that can actually exist in the real world. Money is power, and power is money. If I can force a rich guy to give me his money by voting for the government to take it from him to fund a program that will ultimately benefit me, then by golly I will. I don't give a tinkers damn about 'some rich guy' any more than 'some rich guy' cares about me. This is more fundamental and true than any Libertarian Idealist School of Thought will ever be. It just happens that I also buy into the Libertarian argument that as the government becomes more and more the source of largesse, that the government gains more and more power over the individual.

My tolerance for this kind of government power seems to be much lower than most people's to the point that my politics almost mirror what they would be if I were rich. ( If I were rich then I would not want to be taxed - duh. )

But everyone has their own idea of where the 'sweet spot' compromise between government power through being the source of largesse and getting as much as possible out of the rich. ( the rich will always be outnumbered by 'the rest of us' so their views don't factor into politics. )