Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Has Anyone Else Considered Leaving?

Hi All,

With the latest right-wing antics in CA to unseat an elected Governor and the continuing lies and deceit of Bush, I wonder if others are seriously considering residence elsewhere.

For me, if Bush is reelected in 2004 I will be leaving for either Canada, New Zealand, or Australia. It all depends on where I can get in.

The thought of watching this country further destroyed by four more years of Bush is saddening beyond belief. I for one do not want to be associated with the Bush debacle any longer.

Bye.

Well Dwain,

That truly was profound.

Might you be one of those right-wingers incapable of completing a sentence?

Your reply would suggest so.

I'd suggest more education.

Food for thought.

Well, there's good news, even on that front:

http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20030811/northwest/73159.shtml

This is an amazing story. If you've even been to Tonasket, you'd know there are NO Democrats. No liberals (interesting, though - 23% of the town is on some form of public assistance.)

So now there's a trivia question: what do this left-wing hotbeds -- Madison, WI, Amherst, MA, and Tonasket, WA have in common?

Interesting to see if this catches on in Republicanvilles across the country.

to mhr,

Yes. But not precisely for the reasons you gave (although I do find it harder to identify as an American when I feel alienated by our countries' present policies).

I lived overseas so long, I feel like a piece of me is missing wherever I go. I'd like to return to Europe and even Israel (where I have citizenship)...Trouble is, I'm too poor and unhealthy to contemplate it. The dollar's too low too. What's more, it's much harder to fit in and create a network when you're not a kid. And I'm sure those countries have changed too.

Maybe sometime traveling with one or both sons (would also help with the luggage!). Of course, then I won't get to practice the languages much...

Ariel

Ok if it makes you happy I'll try and construct a sentence. Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. Happy now ?

Perhaps you can stow away in Alec Baldwins luggage. He's going to leave if Bush gets elected. But wait, he didn't did he ? I'm sure you'll disappoint us as well.

Regards

Steve

Shantinik, A couple of guesses:

1) Did they all, perchance, vote somehow condemning the Patriots' Act???

2) Is it that all three have A's, N's and S's in their names?

3) Is it that all are within a hundred miles or so (c. 3 degrees) of the same latitude?

So when do you tell us the answer?

Ariel

Well Steve,

I wouldn't be so smug if I were you.

You don't know me or what I have accomplished in my life.

To say the least, I am no lightweight.

If I make my mind up, I usually follow through.

In the meantime, I do all that I can to counter right-wingers like yourself.

Incidentally, I have yet to meet a Republican that cannot be reduced to a quivering bowl of jelly inside of five minutes.

If I do leave, it will be to a better place than Bush's Gestapo-like Amerika.

You scored okay. The difference being, however, that in Republicanville (Tonasket), they've made it against the law to carry out the Patriot Act's provisions. (and up there, the sheriff is next to God, and outranks Ashcroft by a looonnnnggg way. )

VERY interesting and encouraging article. There are many school districts who are rejecting the Bush take-over of local school curriculum as well.

Since we are posting articles, this one was in the Sunday Los Angeles Times. Written by a conservative, it has a very interesting viewpoint about the Bush Administration. Maybe there is hope from the right as well as the left.

Since the LA Times website requires registration, here is the whole thing.

Stepping Off the Platform
By Clyde Prestowitz
Clyde Prestowitz is author of "Rogue Nation" and president of the Economic Strategy Institute. He was a trade negotiator in the Reagan administration.

President Reagan once explained his political switch during the 1950s from the Democrats to the Republicans by saying, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me." In these days of neoconservative ascendancy among Republicans, traditional conservative Republicans like me increasingly understand how Reagan felt. But this time it's the Republicans who are leaving us.

We conservatives have historically been skeptical of ambitious campaigns abroad aimed at remaking the world. It was the great British conservative philosopher Edmund Burke who cautioned against imperialism by saying: "I dread our being too much dreaded." It was President Dwight D. Eisenhower who argued that "we must not destroy what we are attempting to defend" and who further noted that "an empire on which the sun would never set is one in which the rulers never sleep." And it was John Quincy Adams who warned that if America became "dictatress of the world" then "she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."

Traditional conservatives were pleased during the election campaign of 2000 when candidate George W. Bush spoke of the need for a more humble approach to U.S. foreign policy and for reducing excessive U.S. deployments abroad. It therefore came as a shock when the Bush administration seemed to go out of its way to insult and irritate longtime friends and allies.

Take, for instance, the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, a pact beloved by many of America's allies, including Britain. Traditional conservatives generally opposed it because they thought it unfair to U.S. interests. But it had not been submitted for approval to the U.S. Senate in the summer of 2001 and was not going to be because there was no way the Senate would ratify it. Since it was effectively in limbo, many conservatives wondered why the new administration felt a need to take the treaty out of hibernation and loudly reject it, thereby needlessly alienating our allies.

More surprising and of greater concern was the reversal by a small group of self-styled neoconservatives, in the wake of Sept. 11, of Reagan's winning Cold War strategy. The U.S. commitment to "no first strike" and deterrence that brought down the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union was tossed over the side in favor of a doctrine of preventive and preemptive wars. Out, too, were long-term alliances like NATO, and in their place came temporary and shifting "coalitions of the willing."

We were told that Saddam Hussein with his weapons of mass destruction and close ties to Al Qaeda was an imminent threat to the United States in response to which we had to strike before being struck. Subsequently, in the absence of any trace of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, we have been told the real reason for the invasion was to change the whole nature of the Middle East by recasting it in an American democratic capitalist mold.

So now America has a "mission" that neoconservatives have openly called one of imperialism. This is not what conservatives voted for, nor is it consistent with America's historical anti-imperialism.

Even more important than foreign policy is what's happening on the home front. Traditional conservative Republicans have always been for small government and fiscal responsibility with budgets balanced over time. They have also always emphasized protection of individual rights and supported strong state and local governments. These core conservative values have now been all but rejected.

Take the issue of big government. Although it is often associated with social programs, big government is more often the result of expansion of military programs than of anything else. The Pentagon is by far the biggest part of the U.S. government, and it is growing so fast that its spending will soon top that of all the world's other military establishments combined. Conservatives have always been opposed to rampant bureaucracy, but the new Department of Homeland Security represents a huge bureaucratic conglomerate only slightly behind the Pentagon.

As for balanced budgets, even the Congressional Budget Office's projections show that the surpluses of the 1990s have turned into endless oceans of red ink. The Patriot Act along with new visa regulations and guidelines for investigative agencies has imposed the greatest constraints on individual American freedoms since the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Then there is the plight of the states and local governments, of which California is only the most dramatic example. After the federal interventionism of the Clinton administration, traditional conservatives expected a Republican administration to reemphasize, at least to some extent, the rightful powers and authority of state and local governments. Instead, there has been a plethora of federal mandates to the already cash-strapped states, all without any federal funding. Moreover, in areas like educational testing and drug policy, the overriding of state and local government policies through the imposition of federal standards and rules has continued and even accelerated.

The irony here is that it is the supposedly liberal Democrats who are talking about fiscal responsibility, limited government, individual rights and caution on grand missions abroad. So more and more traditional conservatives have been asking the question: Who are really the liberals, and who are the conservatives? Indeed, it was Maine Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, a Republican and member of the traditionally conservative Main Street Coalition, who played a key role in capping Bush's tax cuts at $350 billion; and a large number of Republicans revolted against the neoconservative leadership to vote down new Federal Communications Commission rules allowing further mergers of large media companies. Perhaps this indicates that traditional Republicans are making an important discovery about who they are and where they belong.

There is nothing neo about imperialism. It is just as un-American today as it was in 1776. And there is nothing conservative about the giant military-industrial establishment, budget deficits or failing local and state governments. Far from conservatism, this is radicalism of the right, and it is unsustainable because it is at odds with fundamental — and truly conservative — American values.

I am just hoping Arnold Schwartzenegger can be governor of CA. That would be nice.
So far Federal Bushit and Gravis Califonia is not the best combination for people's wallet, unless you are a rich entrepreneur with caps in Oil industry and Biotech of course. Also if you were in at least one war in which the US either killed the bad guys or had the intention to do so, but didn't make it because their international allies were stupid newbs.
If you are sick, old, injured, you wash restrooms at the local Safeway. Then please be informed that your paycheck may decrease due to budget cuts that will affect the State as a whole. Please be sure that they apologize for the inconvenience this may cause, if you have any questions, please contact them. But be aware that they will not answer.

mhr

You are not the first person I have heard say the same thing. My response to others? Don't leave. The pendulum always swings back and the American people are not that stupid to not realize what is happening. The US is too powerful to be allowed to stay in this state. People like you are needed to make sure this power is not all sucked up and used by those who are so wrong.

I read an article the other day about the California Recall. The author postulated that the recall has little to do with Gray Davis. It has everything to do with people's pent-up anger and frustration over everything that has been happening in this country since Bush was elected. Davis just happens to be the recipient of it because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The author also said that he believes the anger will spread across the US and that the 2004 election may not be anything like what anyone expects. He thinks it may parallel the sea change of the 1994 mid-term election when the people were so angry they threw the Democrats out of their seats in Congress and gave control to the GOP.

He is speculating of course. The one thing I know, though, is there are a lot of angry people out there. So maybe this author is right.

John,
thanks for posting the Prestowitz article. It's great!

Hi John,

I truly hope that your observations portend a change.

I do see chinks in the Bush Administration's armor, even from established conservatives.

I can understand how Californians could be upset. What I don't understand is why Californians don't see the connection between Enron, Cheney's secret energy meetings, and California's sky high electricity rates. If it were not for the gouging that California took from Enron and others, I am sure the state's budget would be in better shape.

Despite my misgivings and the non-stop conservative media bias, I will do my part through next year's elections. After that who knows?

A.... Not smug here, you challenged for a sentence I did it. Proud but not smug.


B.... Correct I don't know you, although you sound like a quiter. Afraid to stay and fight for what you believe ? BTW you call California "antics" are you a Californian ? I am.
Getting rid of a Governor who was elected on the basis of a lie, and took a State from excess to a deficit larger than all other states combined is not an antic. Registration fee for my lousy Honda Civic is going from $200 a year to $600. Not an antic to me. If you were Californian you would probably just leave. Republicans here have chosen to take the difficult road of recall rather than let Davis drive us further under. The recall petition signatures were from patriots of both parties.

C.... So say you


D.... There's that cop out word "usually" Alec usually leaves, but he's still here.


E.... When was it that I said I was a right winger ? It's odd you don't like me assuming anything about you, but you do so about me.

F..... I'm quivering with excitement at the prospect. Please give us a demo.

G..... Please give some factual comparisons of Bush to the Gestapo. Perhaps you have some examples to back up your claim. Torture, murder, false imprisonment, destruction of property of American citizens ? BTW it's spelled America, you show your true colors with your substitutiom of a k. Quite the patriot. Right wingers put up with 8 years of slick Willie, surely you can get past more than the first two of George.


Regards

Steve

Steve,

I would not waste my time debating you on a forum like this. If we ever meet in person, I'll give you the full salvo.

As to being a quitter you are way off the mark:

Bachelor of Science, Electrical Engineering,
Masters in Business Administration,
Veteran, Officer US Navy, Honorable Discharge,
Commercial Pilot, with SE, ME, and Instrument ratings.

Quitter, I think not.

When you would like to have a match pounding sand let me know!

I have really been missing LP and his active dislike of the Bush administration. However MHR - I think you'll do.. My how I love cocky people.

SR posted: Steve, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but it's not a question of my willingness to put up with a president who does not speak for me or my values. Sure I could wait out a few years years if that's all it was.

I'm afraid of the irreparable damage the Bush administration is doing to our international relations, the economy and the environment. That means not only our own, but the world's, because of the inter-relatedness of everything these days. Damage my children will have to pay for one way or the other. And no, I don't think what I'm referring to has a thing to do with the "War against Terrorism".

I just cannot understand - maybe you can help me - why it is that Republicans support a President whose fiscal poicies are so in contradiction to traditional conservative values - of actually "being conservative", especially with money.

I know a billionaire (literally) who is livid about the tax cuts even though he's in that rarified percent of a percent of the population who stands to benefit becasue of the damage he feels is being done to the economy at large! And then, of course, there's Bill Gates Sr.

How? Why? Is it just partisan loyalty - especially when in "mixed company" (such as on this Forum) that is, liberals present, where it might be regarded as giving aid and comfort to the enemy to express any doubts?

Ariel

Hi Ariel,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. To add to your comments on the economy, many people missed the Washington Post article by Warren Buffet where he questioned the Bush tax cuts on equity dividends.

In part his argument went like this, why give me all this money when I am already rich and cannot spend it or invest it fast enough to do the economy any good. He advocated a middle and lower income tax break instead.

One wonders about the state of our society when men with the stature of Warren Buffet cannot abide by Republican policies?

The complete article is copied below.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13113-2003May19.html

Dividend Voodoo

By Warren Buffett

Tuesday, May 20, 2003; Page A19

The annual Forbes 400 lists prove that -- with occasional blips -- the rich do indeed get richer. Nonetheless, the Senate voted last week to supply major aid to the rich in their pursuit of even greater wealth.

The Senate decided that the dividends an individual receives should be 50 percent free of tax in 2003, 100 percent tax-free in 2004 through 2006 and then again fully taxable in 2007. The mental flexibility the Senate demonstrated in crafting these zigzags is breathtaking. What it has put in motion, though, is clear: If enacted, these changes would further tilt the tax scales toward the rich.

Let me, as a member of that non-endangered species, give you an example of how the scales are currently balanced. The taxes I pay to the federal government, including the payroll tax that is paid for me by my employer, Berkshire Hathaway, are roughly the same proportion of my income -- about 30 percent -- as that paid by the receptionist in our office. My case is not atypical -- my earnings, like those of many rich people, are a mix of capital gains and ordinary income -- nor is it affected by tax shelters (I've never used any). As it works out, I pay a somewhat higher rate for my combination of salary, investment and capital gain income than our receptionist does. But she pays a far higher portion of her income in payroll taxes than I do.

She's not complaining: Both of us know we were lucky to be born in America. But I was luckier in that I came wired at birth with a talent for capital allocation -- a valuable ability to have had in this country during the past half-century. Credit America for most of this value, not me. If the receptionist and I had both been born in, say, Bangladesh, the story would have been far different. There, the market value of our respective talents would not have varied greatly.

Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent.

And our receptionist? She'd still be paying about 30 percent, which means she would be contributing about 10 times the proportion of her income that I would to such government pursuits as fighting terrorism, waging wars and supporting the elderly. Let me repeat the point: Her overall federal tax rate would be 10 times what my rate would be.

When I was young, President Kennedy asked Americans to "pay any price, bear any burden" for our country. Against that challenge, the 3 percent overall federal tax rate I would pay -- if a Berkshire dividend were to be tax-free -- seems a bit light.

Administration officials say that the $310 million suddenly added to my wallet would stimulate the economy because I would invest it and thereby create jobs. But they conveniently forget that if Berkshire kept the money, it would invest that same amount, creating jobs as well.

The Senate's plan invites corporations -- indeed, virtually commands them -- to contort their behavior in a major way. Were the plan to be enacted, shareholders would logically respond by asking the corporations they own to pay no more dividends in 2003, when they would be partially taxed, but instead to pay the skipped amounts in 2004, when they'd be tax-free. Similarly, in 2006, the last year of the plan, companies should pay double their normal dividend and then avoid dividends altogether in 2007.

Overall, it's hard to conceive of anything sillier than the schedule the Senate has laid out. Indeed, the first President Bush had a name for such activities: "voodoo economics." The manipulation of enactment and sunset dates of tax changes is Enron-style accounting, and a Congress that has recently demanded honest corporate numbers should now look hard at its own practices.

Proponents of cutting tax rates on dividends argue that the move will stimulate the economy. A large amount of stimulus, of course, should already be on the way from the huge and growing deficit the government is now running. I have no strong views on whether more action on this front is warranted. But if it is, don't cut the taxes of people with huge portfolios of stocks held directly. (Small investors owning stock held through 401(k)s are already tax-favored.) Instead, give reductions to those who both need and will spend the money gained. Enact a Social Security tax "holiday" or give a flat-sum rebate to people with low incomes. Putting $1,000 in the pockets of 310,000 families with urgent needs is going to provide far more stimulus to the economy than putting the same $310 million in my pockets.

When you listen to tax-cut rhetoric, remember that giving one class of taxpayer a "break" requires -- now or down the line -- that an equivalent burden be imposed on other parties. In other words, if I get a break, someone else pays. Government can't deliver a free lunch to the country as a whole. It can, however, determine who pays for lunch. And last week the Senate handed the bill to the wrong party.

Supporters of making dividends tax-free like to paint critics as promoters of class warfare. The fact is, however, that their proposal promotes class welfare. For my class.

The writer is chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., a diversified holding company, and a director of The Washington Post Co., which has an investment in Berkshire Hathaway.

I was so confused by the way you were treating people. But not everything seems pretty clear.

I'm sure your line of credentials are really impressive to some, but to someone who never even finished High School like myself they don't really mean too much.
Commercial pilot's license is pretty cool though, do you enjoy flying, and have you been lucky enough to stay employed? I hope so...

As for leaving the country... I see why some might want to leave when things get tough. I was pretty excited to move to Germany when I did. I wasn't excited about paying over 50% tax and VAT though. "But wait, being sick, socialist medicine will be awesome" I told myself. Unfortunately I was wrong. As with all things, you get what you pay for.

If leaving is what you want to do I don't see why anyone would have a problem with it. Obviously you're hoping we will (why else bring up the question), but all those crazy right-wingers are going to be excited about one less crazy left-winger to worry about.

I'd tempt you to reduce me to a bowl of jello (TM), but then you'd tell me I wasn't truly a right-winger so I won't.

KlavierBauer