Sean Penn's Letter to President Bush

[kiwimac]

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20021103Penn.html


Sean Penn's Open Letter to George W. Bush

Nov. 3, 2002

An Open Letter to the President of the United States of America

Mr. Bush:

Good morning sir. Like you, I am a father and an American. Like you, I consider myself a patriot. Like you, I was horrified by the events of this past year, concerned for my family and my country. However, I do not believe in a simplistic and inflammatory view of good and evil. I believe this is a big world full of men, women, and children who struggle to eat, to love, to work, to protect their families, their beliefs, and their dreams. My father, like yours, was decorated for service in World War II. He raised me with a deep belief in Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as they should apply to all Americans who would sacrifice to maintain them and to all human beings as a matter of principle.

Many of your actions to date and those proposed seem to violate every defining principle of this country over which you preside: intolerance of debate ("with us or against us"), marginalization of your critics, the promoting of fear through unsubstantiated rhetoric, manipulation of a quick comfort media, and position of your administration's deconstruction of civil liberties all contradict the very core of the patriotism you claim. You lead, it seems, through a blood-lined sense of entitlement. Take a close look at your most vehement media supporters.

See the fear in their eyes as their loud voices of support ring out with that historically disastrous undercurrent of rage and panic masked as "straight tough talk." How far have we come from understanding what it is to kill one man, one woman, or one child, much less the "collateral damage" of many hundreds of thousands. Your use of the words, "this is a new kind of war" is often accompanied by an odd smile. It concerns me that what you are asking of us is to abandon all previous lessons of history in favor of following you blindly into the future. It worries me because with all your best intentions, an enormous economic surplus has been squandered. Your administration has virtually dismissed the most fundamental environmental concerns and therefore, by implication, one gets the message that, as you seem to be willing to sacrifice the children of the world, would you also be willing to sacrifice ours. I know this cannot be your aim so, I beg you Mr. President, listen to Gershwin, read chapters of Stegner, of Saroyan, the speeches of Martin Luther King. Remind yourself of America. Remember the Iraqi children, our children, and your own.

There can be no justification for the actions of Al Qaeda. Nor acceptance of the criminal viciousness of the tyrant, Saddam Hussein.

Yet, that bombing is answered by bombing, mutilation by mutilation, killing by killing, is a pattern that only a great country like ours can stop. However, principles cannot be recklessly or greedily abandoned in the guise of preserving them.

Avoiding war while accomplishing national security is no simple task. But you will recall that we Americans had a little missile problem down in Cuba once. Mr. Kennedy's restraint (and that of the nuclear submarine captain, Arkhipov) is to be aspired to. Weapons of mass destruction are clearly a threat to the entire world in any hands. But as Americans, we must ask ourselves, since the potential for Mr. Hussein to possess them threatens not only our country, (and in fact, his technology to launch is likely not yet at that high a level of sophistication) therefore, many in his own region would have the greatest cause for concern. Why then, is the United States, as led by your administration, in the small minority of the world nations predisposed toward a preemptive military assault on Iraq? Simply put, sir, let us re-introduce inspection teams, inhibiting offensive capability. We buy time, maintain our principles here and abroad and demand of ourselves the ingenuity to be the strongest diplomatic muscle on the planet, perhaps in the history of the planet. The answers will come. You are a man of faith, but your saber is rattling the faith of many Americans in you.

I do understand what a tremendously daunting task it must be to stand in your shoes at this moment. As a father of two young children who will live their lives in the world as it will be affected by critical choices today, I have no choice but to believe that you can ultimately stand as a great president. History has offered you such a destiny. So again, sir, I beg you, help save America before yours is a legacy of shame and horror. Don't destroy our children's future. We will support you. You must support us, your fellow Americans, and indeed, mankind.

Defend us from fundamentalism abroad but don't turn a blind eye to the fundamentalism of a diminished citizenry through loss of civil liberties, of dangerously heightened presidential autonomy through acts of Congress, and of this country's mistaken and pervasive belief that its "manifest destiny" is to police the world. We know that Americans are frightened and angry. However, sacrificing American soldiers or innocent civilians in an unprecedented preemptive attack on a separate sovereign nation, may well prove itself a most temporary medicine. On the other hand, should you mine and have faith in the best of the country to support your leadership in representing a strong, thoughtful, and educated United States, you may well triumph for the long haul. Lead us there, Mr. President, and we will stand with you.

Sincerely,

Sean Penn

San Francisco, California

[Alden]

I've always wondered, where did Penn get his degree in political science or economics?

[kiwimac]

Alden quoth


I've always wondered, where did Penn get his degree in political science or economics?

I was unaware that you needed either to talk sensibly about issues of importance. Indeed, I would argue that often such degrees simply complicate matters more than they need be.

Certainly Thomas Paine would not agree with you!

Kiwimac

[Socrates]

Thomas Paine was a complete pillock, with his chronological snobbery and crass ignorance, as shown here (http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_CN.html). And who cares what Sean Penn thinks? Or any other latter-day Chamberlains who let despots thrive.

[Epoetker]

Defend us from fundamentalism abroad but don't turn a blind eye to the fundamentalism of a diminished citizenry through loss of civil liberties, of dangerously heightened presidential autonomy through acts of Congress, and of this country's mistaken and pervasive belief that its "manifest destiny" is to police the world.

$100 says that he never said anything like this about Bill Clinton when he took these exact same measures in peacetime, with infinitely less justification.

[Alden]

03-01-2003 @ 10:54 PM
kiwimac:

Alden quoth



I was unaware that you needed either to talk sensibly about issues of importance. Indeed, I would argue that often such degrees simply complicate matters more than they need be.

Certainly Thomas Paine would not agree with you!

Kiwimac

I said this because I think that Penn is a complete idiot. He should stick to acting, as opposed to things that he seems to know little about.

We hear his opinion because he has name recognition and the money to pay for an ad. Unfortunately, we don't hear from the million other people (either for or against the war, it doesn't matter) who have something useful to say.

[Sauron]

03-02-2003 @ 03:48 PM
Alden:



I said this because I think that Penn is a complete idiot.


Do you think it's appropriate for a moderator to use that kind of language? It doesn't bother me; but I do want to know what the boundaries are, before I use the same term in some future post.



He should stick to acting, as opposed to things that he seems to know little about.


How did you decide that he knows little about this? Because he disagrees with you?




We hear his opinion because he has name recognition and the money to pay for an ad. Unfortunately, we don't hear from the million other people (either for or against the war, it doesn't matter) who have something useful to say.

So?
The same thing is true of Schwarzenegger, who backs the President and his war.

Big deal. If you don't like what they have to say, then ignore it. But if you're going to reject what someone says, at least have a concrete reason to reject their viewpoint- as opposed to just routinely jettisoning their idea, because they're an actor.

[Alden]

You want concrete?




It worries me because with all your best intentions, an enormous economic surplus has been squandered.

Regarding the surplus, Bush gave tax rebates. What's wrong with this? Nothing. Why? Because many who have studied economics can tell you that the economy does better when people have money to spend, as opposed to when the government is keeping more of people's money, and deciding how it should be spent. Here, Penn seems to say that it is Bush's fault for the economic downturn. The economy is cyclic. During the low part of the cycle, people aren't making as much, or simply don't have jobs. Also, businesses aren't doing as well. When this occurs, the government gets less revenue in terms of all kinds of taxes.

If Penn's statement is supposed to indicate that Bush is responsible for the economic downturn, or something along these lines, he is guilty of a post hoc fallacy.


one gets the message that, as you seem to be willing to sacrifice the children of the world, would you also be willing to sacrifice ours

Bush doesn't care about the children? How does he know? This is begging the question. Prove it.

These are some of the reasons I don't agree with Penn. It's not because I'm a war-hawk, because I'm not. I don't like some of things that Rumsfeld has done, but I'm not a pacifist either. I take issue with Penn not because I don't agree with his position (although to be truthful, I don't), but because a good deal of this is subjective, sentimental rubbish.

Another thing I don't like about letters like this is that they offer criticism, but no real concrete solutions.

[Sauron]

03-02-2003 @ 04:26 PM
Alden:

You want concrete?


Regarding the surplus, Bush gave tax rebates. What's wrong with this? Nothing. Why?


Wrong. You can't give tax rebates that aren't paid for. The country should be run just like a business: all smart businesses (and households) have a rainy day fund. If you have a surplus, you stash it away for bad times. The USA had such a surplus as well, and we had paid off the federal budget deficit, too. So -what's this surplus for, in the national sense? In case of unplanned events such as, oh, (1) an economic downturn, and (2) unforeseen military action; or (3) unexpected natural disasters that require lots of civil preparedness spending. Well, now we've got all three - and no surplus to help us out.



Because many who have studied economics can tell you that the economy does better when people have money to spend, as opposed to when the government is keeping more of people's money, and deciding how it should be spent.


Actually, you're wrong. What economists (such as Greenspan) will tell you is that any tax cuts have to be paid for. What we have instead is a situation where Bush gave away the surplus, instead of saving it for a rainy day.

Moreover, what economists will tell you is that our broad consumer-based economy gets about 2/3 of its growth from consumer spending, as opposed to investments. The current economic downturn is a perfect example. Interest rates are already low; businesses have plenty of incentive to invest. Why in the world would we want to give big business even more incentive to invest, when most businesses are operating with excess capacity?

[Sauron]

03-02-2003 @ 04:26 PM
Alden:

[quote]
Here, Penn seems to say that it is Bush's fault for the economic downturn. The economy is cyclic. During the low part of the cycle, people aren't making as much, or simply don't have jobs.


Bush played his part in the downturn. He might not have caused it entirely, but his actions (and inactions) exacerbated it, instead of making it a "softer landing".

The economy is cyclic - but that is not the explanation for the current downturn.



Also, businesses aren't doing as well. When this occurs, the government gets less revenue in terms of all kinds of taxes.


Yes, businesses aren't doing as well. And tax revenues are down. But that wouldn't be such a big problem for the govt, if it only had its rainy day fund to carry us through the hard times. You're making my argument for me. :doh:

The vast majority of economists did not sign on to the Bush economic plan, and for good reasons. Tax cuts for the rich, and/or for business, are not going to spur spending. They might spur investment, but not spending. But don't businesses spend, you ask? Of course they do. But not at the moment they aren't. Right now businesses aren't buying more equipment because they don't see the consumer demand for whatever they're producing. They're skittish about laying out more capital, when the prospects of selling their products aren't that great. There's enormous overcapacity in most businesses right now.

But if the tax cuts had been targeted at the lower and middle class, there's a much higher chance that those categories of taxpayers would have rushed out and spent those tax breaks on things that they needed. That would allow business to crank up more of its unused capacity, and/or purchase new equipment to meet the increased demand.

[Alden]

Moreover, what economists will tell you is that our broad consumer-based economy gets about 2/3 of its growth from consumer spending, as opposed to investments.

That's what I was saying here:


Because many who have studied economics can tell you that the economy does better when people have money to spend


Wrong. You can't give tax rebates that aren't paid for. The country should be run just like a business: all smart businesses (and households) have a rainy day fund. If you have a surplus, you stash it away for bad times. The USA had such a surplus as well, and we had paid off the federal budget deficit, too.

Isn't having a surplus (excess tax revenue) paying for a tax rebate? When did we have the deficit paid off. I'm confused about that statement.

[Sauron]

03-02-2003 @ 05:00 PM
Alden:


That's what I was saying here:


But the bulk of the Bush tax cut didn't go to people who would spend it - it went to the upper class and to businesses, who would either stash it away, or invest it.

Your statement (1)appears to agree with what I am saying - but you are (2)defending the Bush tax cut. Those two positions are contrary to each other; if you (1), then you can't be (2).





Isn't having a surplus (excess tax revenue) paying for a tax rebate? When did we have the deficit paid off. I'm confused about that statement.

It isn't "paying for it", if you have to empty out the rainy day fund, in order to afford it. A smart business holds back some percentage of its profits (say, 5%) for such emergencies. Is it a surplus? Yes. Is it an unjustified and/or unnecesssary surplus? No - it's a rainy day fund.

In other words, running a small surplus should be seen as a normal operating procedure for a govt or a business. Instead, Bush saw it as proof that we were collecting too much in taxes, and had a massive giveaway. In the process, he emptied the piggy bank so that we don't have any rainy day fund any longer. It's as if I threw a huge birthday party for myself, but used up all my spare cash to do it. How wise would that be?

[Socrates]

I'd like to know what exactly is wrong with ending the iniquitous double taxation on dividends (as we did years ago), or ending the tariffs on our (Australian) sheep meat exports. It can't be bad for your economy if your investors are less penalized by unfair taxes, and if your consumers don't have to pay through the nose for lamb and mutton to protect your inefficient farmers

[Reba]

Pay for a tax cut?

How do you pay for a tax cut?


"Pay for a tax cut" sounds like, is like asking a robber to to paid for restitution.

[Sauron]

03-02-2003 @ 05:26 PM
Socrates:

I'd like to know what exactly is wrong with ending the iniquitous double taxation on dividends (as we did years ago),


Well, the "double taxation" argument is somewhat of a red herring, designed to drum up sympathy for poor old Big Business.

Many things in life have so-called "double taxes". The money that I get from my employer is taxed. Then, it gets taxed again if I buy a car or groceries. Is it double taxes? Not really.

Furthermore, the reason that businesses can be double taxed is because in the USA, a business is a distinct legal entity, just like a human being. It has legal standing in court, and can sue, be sued, request govt assistance, etc. That's what "incorporation" does for the business, vs. being Ltd. This is also why in a business bankruptcy, the business owner can walk away with his house, car, vacation house, whatever. But with a bankruptcy for an Ltd., the owners of the business are singularly and as a group liable, down to their own personal fortunes and possessions. In the 1800s, big business owners in the USA didn't want this kind of exposure; they wanted to make mistakes and be able to walk away from them. So they got that in the form of the incorporation status. The downside of that situation, however, is that the business, like any citizen, can be taxed for services that the govt has to provide to it.




ending the tariffs on our (Australian) sheep meat exports. It can't be bad for your economy if your investors are less penalized by unfair taxes, and if your consumers don't have to pay through the nose for lamb and mutton to protect your inefficient farmers

I could go for this one. Australian lamb is yummy, especially with mint jelly and barbecued outside after a hard day in the outdoors. :D

[Alden]

It's as if I threw a huge birthday party for myself, but used up all my spare cash to do it. How wise would that be? How does this analogy work here?

I'm not disputing your statement regarding consumer spending being 2/3 of economic growth. I haven't seen any stats on that, but I'll bite. I do think that you underestimate the importance of investment though. Consumers may account for 2/3 economic growth, but we need investment to drive research and development. R+D in turn creates new products, which in turn gives people things to buy.

[Sauron]

03-02-2003 @ 09:01 PM
Alden:

How does this analogy work here?



As a wise money manager for myself, I have a personal "rainy day fund" - in case my car breaks down, in case I'm laid off, etc. In my case, it's about $10,000. That's what I figure I need to weather most storms in life. You get the idea. And because I have that rainy day fund, I can weather a lot of bad times, without borrowing money (a bad idea) or charging things on credit (another form of borrowing - also a bad idea). A good business should follow the same philosophy, for the same reason.

Now, what would you say if I emptied that rainy day fund, and threw myself a huge birthday party? Firecrackers, jazz band, etc. Pretty reckless and irresponsible, eh? What am I gonna do, when hard times come? If that happens, then I'll have to borrow, sell my car, etc. in order to make it through. Not very smart planning.

Now the same thing applies with a country. We used to have a budget surplus. The smart thing to do is to always run a small surplus, in case of (1) war, (2) economic downturn; or (3) domestic disasters like flooding, hurricanes, etc. But instead of keeping that as a safety buffer, Bush gave it all away as a rebate. Then what happened? We had 1, 2 and 3 all happen in the same year. If it isn't smart to live on the razor's edge as a person, or as a small business owner, then why in the world would you want your government to act like that?

Furthermore, when the US Govt has to borrow money, that drives up the cost of borrowing to everyone - remember the Reagan deficit, and how 18% of the federal budget was devoted to simply paying interest on the national debt?




I'm not disputing your statement regarding consumer spending being 2/3 of economic growth. I haven't seen any stats on that, but I'll bite. I do think that you underestimate the importance of investment though. Consumers may account for 2/3 economic growth, but we need investment to drive research and development. R+D in turn creates new products, which in turn gives people things to buy.

Investment doesn't matter, if people aren't buying products in the here and now. If the broad consumer market doesn't have any money to spend, it doesn't matter what you create with your R&D - if your customers are broke, then they won't be able to afford it.

The cost of borrowing money is almost zero now, because of the Fed lowering interest rates. There's almost no barriers to borrowing. Yet businesses aren't borrowing at all. Why is that? It's precisely because they don't see any rush of customers willing to spend money and buy their products.

[Alden]

Now, what would you say if I emptied that rainy day fund, and threw myself a huge birthday party? Firecrackers, jazz band, etc. Pretty reckless and irresponsible, eh? What am I gonna do, when hard times come? If that happens, then I'll have to borrow, sell my car, etc. in order to make it through. Not very smart planning.


false analogy.

Even if Bush was wrong in giving the rebate, the purpose was to put money in people's hands, which they would, in theory, spend. The "Birthday party" is a case if you wanting to have fun with explosives and jazz.

It's not that I'm opposed to explosives and jazz ( on the contrary, I like them very much:teeth: ), it's just that the analogy doesn't work. I do understand what you are getting at though.

And yes, I do know that a credit card is another form of borrowing:thumb:

[Sauron]

03-02-2003 @ 09:48 PM
Alden:



false analogy.

Even if Bush was wrong in giving the rebate, the purpose was to put money in people's hands, which they would, in theory, spend.


Wrong, for two reasons.

1. The analogy is still valid, because regardless of what the rationalization was, the action was still the same: you emptied the emergency fund, and put yourself in a position where you'd have to borrow. It doesn't matter what the reason was - you shouldn't do it. That money has a specified function. What is worse, there were sufficient economic signals in the air to warn this administration against such a course of action.

2. If, as you say, the purpose was to get people spending, then Bush's tax rebate targeted the wrong economic classes. By providing a tax break that primarily benefitted the upper classes adn business, that runs contrary to the idea of a tax cut "which they would, in theory, spend." Notice, for example, that there was no reduction in the payroll tax. Had Bush actually been wanting to do as you say (jumpstart the economy by putting cash in peoples pockets), then a reduction in the payroll tax would have been a good way to do it. But that's just another example of Bush's mismanagement of this economy.

[Reba]

It is NOT wrong to give back the money taken by force.

[Socrates]

Payroll tax must be one of the most counterproductive taxes around, discouraging employers from taking on new staff. But who brought this absurd tax in?

[Pilgrim]

I have a dumb questino becaue I am not an expert on finance and econimics...

If money is taxed everytime it changes hands...won't the principle keep getting smaller and won't the money eventually run out? Or at the very least, won't uit eventually all end up in one place?

[Pilgrim]

I ask because our government does not spend all the money it collects in the form of taxes in our own system...much of it goes over seas etc...so the system is not closed and thus is not necessarily renewable.

Again, I only ask for clarification becaue I get the sense that I'm missing something.

[Reba]

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9694/Ctaj/Horatio.html


This is a bit long but well worth the reading. It is also not too far of topic :smile:

[Sauron]

03-03-2003 @ 06:32 AM
Reba:

It is NOT wrong to give back the money taken by force.

What?

All taxes are taken by force. Are you saying that all taxes should be returned? :bonk:

[Reba]

Sauron,

I willingly pay some of the taxes i pay. I find it a gross injustice to tax those who are striving to improve their property or their income.

I do not mind paying for our military, or to print monies ( a true gold standard would be a better idea) and to even pay some of the federal employies. I would bet they are a couple other reasons to pay taxes also.

Does anyone here know if France ever paid back the war loan?

I do not like the idea of central govenment. The more local the better.

[bar Jonah]

03-01-2003 @ 05:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=25859#post25859)
Alden:

I've always wondered, where did Penn get his degree in political science or economics?
Home economics, maybe. He has a high school diploma. Which qualifies him for either of two jobs. Fry guy at McDonald's... or actor.

[Alden]

Actually, he's missing two important qualifications for McD's, a squaky voice and horrible acne. But hey, with his acting ability and a little stage make-up, he just might be able to pull it off. :thumb:

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 12:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45201#post45201)
Alden:

Actually, he's missing two important qualifications for McD's, a squaky voice and horrible acne. But hey, with his acting ability and a little stage make-up, he just might be able to pull it off. :thumb:
I'm just glad they scrapped those plans to remake Casablanca, starring Penn as Rick. :nc:

[Alden]

Where do people even get stupid ideas like that?:huh:

[Jaltus]

Alright, guys, give it a rest.

[Pilgrim]

Why? I don't want to rest!