Replies to post #17439 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[BondGekko]

We'll see how stupid the american people are, if they buy that shit at the convention they are suckers, i love how Bush can run on 3,000 people dead, that was what that whole convention was about

how do you run on your own mistakes and lack of a response, where is bin laden, so basically the guy is running on being able to speak through a bullhorn and throw a baseball at yankee stadium, can someone tell me what else he did right after his government slept all summer through vacation

anyway don't worry about the polls, the real polls will be after the first debate, that time magazine poll is bullshit, no way he has an 11 point lead, whoever wins this race is only winning by 2 points

[F6]

The GOP Hijacks 9/11

By The Editors, The Nation. Posted September 3, 2004.

The Republicans have exploited 9/11 with the hope that voters will abandon rational thought and rally around a "war president."

More than a thousand days have passed since September 11, 2001, yet the wounds are still raw. In recent newspaper pictures, grief was still evident in the faces of the relatives of those who died in the terrorist attacks as they listened to Congressional testimony about 9/11 intelligence failures.

All the more reason, then, that the Republican Party should avoid using the attacks as a political prop. Yet that is precisely what happened at its national convention. Any uncertainty about whether the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign would exploit the memory of the victims of 9/11 disappeared on the convention's first night, when former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani went so far as to argue that Bush should be re-elected in order to honor the dead. "We owe that much and more to the loved ones and heroes we lost on September 11," the possible future presidential candidate said as a backdrop of the New York skyline appeared behind him.

If Giuliani's exploitation of 9/11 was profoundly distasteful – and roundly condemned as such by family members of the dead – Senator John McCain was subtler but no less exploitative when he suggested that the invasion of Iraq should be seen as a part of the response to 9/11. Never mind that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda; McCain argued that the war in Iraq and the "war on terrorism" are one. And never mind that there can be no war on terrorism, since terrorism involves a tactic, not an organization or state; McCain argues that "only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war."

Was this all just convention rhetoric? No way. The Republicans are using 9/11 because they know that angry and fearful citizens will put rational thought aside to follow a leader who stirs their blood. Giuliani and McCain were trying out themes for the fall campaign.

This is a dangerous game, however, not just a despicable political tactic. In an article for The Nation this week, Dale Maharidge finds that after spending more than two years crisscrossing the heartland, the 9/11 appeals tap into a growing fury over conditions that seem incapable of being righted but have nothing to do with terrorism. Maharidge writes, "The 9/11 attacks were not solely the genesis but an amplifier of pre-existing tensions – rooted in the radically transformed American economy, from a manufacturing dynamo to that of millions of jobs of the Wal-Mart variety." With at least one million fewer jobs than when George W. Bush took office and with more than 35 million Americans living in poverty and 45 million without health insurance, millions of American workers are living in a 2004 version of the Depression. Some – not many, but a growing number – are ready to blame Muslims or Arabs or whoever else can be pointed to as the cause of their problems.

Bush may have spoken more accurately than he knew (though he later claimed he'd been misunderstood) about the "war on terror" when he said in an interview broadcast on the convention's opening day, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world." Rather than criticizing the president for what they are calling a defeatist statement, the Kerry campaign and other Democrats should welcome his comment as a sign that Bush, albeit belatedly, is learning the art of nuance.

What this country needs between now and November 2 is not a debate over who will be a better "war president." We need a debate over how to extricate America from Iraq, and how to attack the demons of poverty, joblessness and sickness that threaten so many Americans every day. Jingoism and fearmongering are cheap ways to avoid hard issues.

© 2004 Independent Media Institute.

http://www.alternet.org/election04/19772/

[F6]

What Ownership Society?

George W. Bush will talk about his idea of an "ownership society" tonight. Here's what his plans really mean.

By Robert B. Reich
Web Exclusive: 09.02.04

You haven't heard much at the Republican Convention about jobs and wages, because job growth has stalled and wages are stagnant. But you will hear about something Republicans are now calling the "Ownership Society." The notion is to expand private ownership through more tax cuts on capital investments, tax credits for saving, and privatized Social Security.

Sounds nice, but here's the problem: The Republican rhetoric assumes most Americans can save and invest. The reality is, most Americans are deep in debt. Before they can join the "Ownership Society" they've got to pay their credit card bills, their rising variable-rate mortgages, and their auto loans. After that, there's no money left because jobs are in short supply and wages are stuck in the mud.

The Commerce Department reported this week that personal incomes rose a measily one-tenth of one percent in July, the lowest rise in almost two years. And -- given rising prices for food, fuel, and health insurance -- consumers spent more than they earned. So last month, Americans went even deeper into debt. The result: Less ownership, not more.

It's true that more than half of American households now own stocks in corporations. But for most, it's just a few thousand dollars worth. And the total value of their current portfolio is less than they invested. They got lured into the stock market during the late 90s when stock prices were pumped up with accounting steroids.

The fact is, an Ownership Society based on the stock market would be a casino. The Bush administration would like you to put your Social Security payments into the stock market, but beware. If your timing is bad, you could find yourself retiring in a bear market. It's happened before. That's one of the reasons Social Security -- as social insurance -- was invented.

Face it: The Republican "Ownership Society" is hokum. Ownership of America is now more concentrated than since the days of the Robber Barons of the 19th century. The richest 1 percent of America owns more than the bottom 90 percent put together.

There are only two ways to reverse this trend, neither of which the Bush administration will support. The first is to enact a progressive tax on wealth -- say, one-tenth of 1 percent per year, on those who own the most. Right now, the only wealth that's taxed is real property. The property tax is often regressive because poor and working-class families tend to cluster in their own communities, which means they pay through their noses for schools and local services.

A fairer system would tax total wealth, and it would be administered nationally. Revenues could be distributed to communities on the basis of population -- enabling poor communities to have good schools and better services. If George Bush suggests this Thursday night, I'll eat my spinach.

The second way to reverse the concentration of wealth in America is with an educational system that assures that every American can make the most of his or her God-given talents and abilities, and become rich one day if that's what she wants. But that's not what Bush has done. The administration has left the "No Child Left Behind Act" woefully underfunded, so states don't have enough money to respond to children who are left behind in lousy schools. And the administration has cut funds for job-training, making it even harder for today's workers to get the skills they need to get ahead.

I'm all in favor of a real Ownership Society. But that's not at all what Republicans are selling.

Robert B. Reich is co-founder of The American Prospect.

Copyright © 2004 by The American Prospect, Inc. Preferred Citation: Robert B. Reich, "What Ownership Society?", The American Prospect Online, Sep 2, 2004. (emphasis added)

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8447