I'm particularly interested in how you think Bush will be viewed from a historical perspective.
Printable View
I'm particularly interested in how you think Bush will be viewed from a historical perspective.
Good poll choices - now it should be interesting to read the reasons why people voted the way they did.
Failed foreign policy in regards to Iraq, Weak and/or failed domestic response to emergencies that effected the nation, pushing the Prescription Drug Plan,
Failing to get a balance budget hrough Congress.
Bring President Bush down into the below average catergory which becomes Mediocre when I add in the Supreme Court nomination of a decent judge, and the tax cut.
Other comments to follow depending on how the general audience response to such a poll.
I think BP's poll had the full range necessary. Is there any doubt he is, at least, a great President?
Coming from someone that most likely voted for him this is quite an amusing responce. ~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes: ~:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Ecomenys not the best. Time can only tell with Iraq. theres no so-so option and hes not quite a good preisedent rounding down so i vote mediocre
Seriouly who voted for bestest president ever?~:joker: :hide:
I chose GAH! because it's not my president and because I feel a little GAH! when his name appears in any place.~D
As for his historical view, I think that with the information effect, this president will be the less "comprehended" of all time, even if he was as incompetent as other's in his charge, the information spreading about he and his administration, and his lose of prestige will be heavy.
I think he is one of the worst presidents the nation has ever had. He's going to rank right in there with Buchanan, Coolidge, Harding, Hoover, and Nixon--elbowing them for space at the bottom of the list. "Worst president ever" is hard to be certain of, however, "Bad president" is insufficient. Given some time to research it, one could probably make a strong case for "worst."
Hoover's heart was in the right place from what I've gathered, but he didn't really understand the magnitude of the problem the country faced, and had too much faith in the free market sorting things out. I don't think he was a crook, he just lacked the empathy required for the time. His policies were certainly no worse than Dubya's and he didn't muck up as much in as many areas.
Nixon from my understanding was not all that bad as an executive, but his abuse of power was a problem. Frankly, what he did pales compared to what Dubya's crew has done. Nixon's crimes were simply more provable.
None of Bush's policies are sustainable. Everything he has done has been disguised for short term gain. The polarization he has caused in the nation is unacceptable, and this has been a conscious choice of his. Dubya is the fruition of the GOP Southern Strategy.
Bush....the man has convictions he refuses to be swayed by polls and he has never had his knob polished by some fat intern. He handled 9-11 extremly well. Saying that Iraq has turned itno a mess with no clear plan. Our economy is currently taking it up the butt from the EU and China. Although things could be worse. Overall when history looks back on Bush. I beilive they will see a man a kin to Andrew Jackson. Saying this I still beilive America TEH PWNS
For the record, I intended 'mediocre' to mean average, which is one possible meaning of the term. Of course the word can also mean inferior. Since I can't change the poll now, can we all assume that by 'mediocre' we mean 'average'?
I chose him as worst ever, although I do think the point is debatable. Like any other country, the US has had some bad rulers, but I find it hard to think of someone worse than Bush. Hoover was naive. Carter was ineffectual. Nixon corrupt. But did any of them launch a preemptive war on claims that later proved to be false? Did any of them preside over the greatest intelligence failure in US history and then fail to hold anyone accountable for it? Did any of them swing America from the greatest budget surpluses in its history to the greatest deficits (and in a single term, to boot!)? Did any of them squander the good will America had enjoyed from the rest of the world after 9/11 so quickly and so fruitlessly? I honestly can't think of anyone else with a comparably awful record.
He's alright. He has done some bad and good. Mostly bad though.. so he prob ranks as a C- or D+
Possibly, but that wouldn't be particularly favorable in the context of our times. While I have some respect for Jackson's Federalism, he was also a bit of a scoundrel and matches up with Dubya in ways. He introduced the spoils system of political patronage to the presidency, he heavily damaged the banking system, and he was a strong advocate of the Indian Removal Act.Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
care to make a friendly "wager" on it~;)
When people look back on Dubya two decades from now, he will be reviled. The only question I have is, "how reviled?"Quote:
Originally Posted by strike for the south
i suppose only time will tell whether he was either inconsequential (despite everything) or ruinous (because of everything)
my question define reviled. Gah Im in no mood for debate as the cowboys losing in overtime has made me and my pops ditruaght. The Blue collar boys didnt even cheer us up~:mecry:
Reviled as in he will be loathed for his character, his methods, his policies, and the results they produced. People might agree with his political ideology still, but they will no longer consider him the paragon that they once did.
I don't believe history will be very kind to Dubya. If nothing else, he has single-handedly destroyed small-government conservatism within the Republican Party. Just say no to fiscal sanity. And just say no to limited government, whether in terms of finance or power.
There are lots of other issues, and many that are more important than the bankrupting of our children, but for this alone I put Bush in the back-bench of Presidents.
The US has never had a ruler. FDR is the closest we've come.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin Rules
You had better hide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
I'm sick and tired of everyone making fun of our bestest, and greatest, President.:angry:
Bush will be considered to have failed, scandals will taint his reputation, and we will be paying off the debt we have accumulated (giving big $$ to his cronies) for a long time.
Hopefully the people will remember come election time, how the Republicans have lied about damn near everything and pushed the limits on acceptable government.
Of course, the democrats have yet to develop a clear and coherent strategy, so who knows.
ichi:bow:
Future historians will judge him according to priorities and preoccupations of their own age which are impossible for us to predict. And junior's term isn't over yet. I fear we may see two more years of bitter infighting and recriminations, prosecutions and paralysis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
My best guestimate would be that Geore W. Bush will go down in history as bad because he misread all the waysigns at the start of the 21st century. He failed to tackle the increasing social and economic polarisation of American society which resulted in parts of the country and population living in Third World conditions. Externally he waged a fake war on terrorism which alienated both old and new allies and lost the U.S. any sympathy it might have built on to save its Middle East interests and policies. Above all else, however, I believe this President will be written off as bad because through six of his eight years in office, and probably more, he 'forgot China'. That will be the real black mark next to his name.
Mediocre. Failed foreign policy the main reason, but also the rather outdated view on society with religion and moral as guidelines makes him mediocre.
Thumbs up for Afghanistan and Iraq.
Thumbs down for having his nose too far up his bible to see he is screwing over the country.
I would have to say No Biscuit.
Where is the option for brain dead monkey?
Rate Bush? Not my business!
Has anybody an idea who will be the next president?
This is actually interesting for an 'outsider' such as myself. 20 out of the 24 people who voted as of yet put him as mediocre or worse!
I don't really care either way if he is good or bad. He doesn't affect me nearly as much as he does others. So I, as a non-American, abstain from voting.
I do have to mention, though, that I have never seen a head of state that has managed to turn the whole world against him after (s)he had most of it for him. I find that quite an achievement all in itself. Am also not so sure if he will go down in history at all worldwide as anything other than just a US president. He doesn't have the charisma or anything else, for that matter, about him that others have had before him. Just my two cents...
Quid
Mediocre,
his political achievements are of very low quality, but he is a good rhetoric. Perhaps not what he says, but the fact that he manages to keep a facial expression of self-confidence no matter what happens is a quality which can grant him a rating as good as the mediocre rating. However we shouldn't be too harsh on the guy, as he's mostly acting on decisions made by his party and his advisors, and much of the problems with Iraq were caused by his father (and other presidents), who handled the entire Iraq question in a disastrously bad manner (the by secret weapons trades balancing Iran and Iraq to maximize casualties for both sides in the Iraq-Iran war, the withdrawn of the promised air support for both shia and curdic rebels against Saddam Hussein after the rebels had launched their operations and thus made the formerly secret plans public - without air support which was a major part of the plan, they were slaughtered and easy for Saddam to kill with the terrible usage of chemical gas weapons). With the logic used previously in history, where those who lose ground are scapegoats for all bad that happens, Bush will go to history as one of the worst presidents, but the truth is that his predecessors carry most of the responsibility for his faults. That he then happens to lack genius to compensate the difficult situation he was put in, is of course unfortunate for the USA, but he isn't truly the main scapegoat in the situation.
In order to successfully solve the problems caused by predecessors, the best strategy would have been to start out with "I'm not like my incompetent predecessors, I despise what they've done, and I'm here to do a better job and repair the damage they've done". But seeing as one of the main predecessors responsible for the problems were papa Bush it was wrong in the first place to have a son Bush in command to do this. Few would call their father incompetent and admit his failures.
I hope the next president manages to restore American honor, prestige and rumour as keepers of promises, and manages to solve problems with drugs and poverty among the American lower classes while maintaining the American economy strong. If this could be achieved then there's a chance America can economically survive the rise of China and the third world without fighting a losing unethical battle to achieve that. Solving those problems would perhaps also give room for environmental reforms to stop global warming and similar. Such reforms are impossible to pass unless all countries do it, because whoever does it alone will get an economical disadvantage.
you missed out avarage,
Mediocre is a nother way for saying hes a Joke,
Good is the closest option to avarage,
No Biscuit for his own good!
He may choke on it like a Pretzel ~;)
You should see John Kerry's record in Congress - he votes completely different then my beliefs. Most times you are voting the least of the two evils present by the parties, which is what the 2000 election was. Or in this last election the devil you know verus the devil you don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince
Or Al Gore - what a liar that one was. But he did invite the Internet. LOL ~:rolleyes:
I used mediocre to mean slightly below average - which is my understanding of the word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
I agree, our presidential choices have not been very good (understatement) for several terms now. Hopefully we will see that change in the next few elections.~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Anyhow, I voted mediocre because that is the closest to average to me. He has done some things I have liked and some I haven’t. I like the way he has stuck with something rather than flipping every time a poll says he should but I am disappointed with how nancy he has been, he is the President of the United Fricking States of America for crying out laud, he should be walking like he has 10 pound balls but he tiptoes around, I don’t get that.
Yes indeedy, the activities of Bill Clinton's cock were the most important issue facing 90's America. Its obviously much more important to keep your johnson in your trousers than it is to balance the budget.Quote:
he has never had his knob polished by some fat intern.
I voted worst ever, but then I remembered Carter, so possibly that was slightly harsh. On the other hand Carter didn't seem to leave any messes that took to long to clean up, so...
Clinton didnt balance the budget singlehandedly and its never just 1 person with the economy (although we are all smart enough to know that) Clinton disraced his position by doing what he did. As for American polotics we are usually stuck with the same 2 choices. The guy who licks his finger and lets the wind take hime regradless of conviction or the diehard who is unwilling to change even when it needs to be done. To many Anericans dont give a shit they are the typical fat dumb and happy american. this is bad becuase one day we will wake and realized we just pissed away the greatest thing we ever had
Bush did some good things economically, having the courage to use tax cuts to pull out of a recession was a smart move.
From a historical perspective we really can't say cuz it will depend on how Iraq and Afghanistan pan out. If the neo-con theory that terrorism and authoritarianism in the middle-east can be defeated by forcibly removing despots and building democracies, which will then spread to other mid-east nations, a positive domino effect, then Bush will be remembered 50 years from now as a great president based on those accomplisments. If the whole project collapses, Iraq plunges into civil war and afghanistan is carved up by warlords and the talaban again, Bush won't be regarded so well (well that depends on what progress he makes in the remainder of his term, and whether or not it's him or his successor that bungles it).
He will be definitely remembered based on this though, and his presidency will be significant, good or bad depending on the eventual outcome. 50 years ago really nobody is going to give a crap (or even remember who they are) about what John Kerry, Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Al Franklin, etc. think of him or that John Stuart made fun of his speech impediment. Can anyone here tell me how popular Truman and Eisenhower were back in the day? Orname some prominant opposition and their criticisms to them? Doubt it
Recriminations, prosecutions, and paralysis is the best we can hope for while he is still in office. His agenda (and his party's) have wrecked international relations, our energy policy, social policy, and our budget. As a nation all we can really hope for with these clowns in power is to reduce/contain the damage. Paralysis is preferable to anything I've seen him/them suggest.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Clinton did what was best at the time, besides the whole lying under oath thing, depending on what you call sex. With our economy taking a dive, I would be disappointed if Bush, or Congress, tried to balance the budget. Of course that said, Bush's military spending has been more than needed, imo, which is not going to help the economy much and will leave a large debt.
Courage? It was handing out candy to get elected. That's not courage, it is irresponsible and not sustainable. If you look at the details of how it was justified it is all smoke and mirrors, short term thinking versus long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beelzebub
We have never really pulled out of this recession. Look at the combined market cap of companies today, vs. when the recession began. You will notice a few trillion few dollars of market cap missing today. Find the new economic driver to replace what was failed as a result of the last recession. There isn't one.
How can you say that when the facts speak for themselves? 3.5% growth, highest in the western world, and record employment rates.. Lowering taxes is the most productive way economically a govt can spend money, doesn't matter if in the short term debt is run up, cuz a few years from now a much stronger, economy can pay them back easily.
There was a recession when the market was overvalued and was deflated, no duh market cap won't be as high.
How do you suggest getting out of recession? Hiking taxes surely won't do the trick, and leaving them stay won't either. The point is to encourage business ventures. And the stock market doesn't always reflect the economy's health well.
You have a purely artificial stimulus, one that has added several trillion in debt and not grown the economy faster than normal. Yet market cap is several trillion below what it was. Think about that for a second. Now you've got about 4 trillion dollars to explain away from the two combined.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beelzebub
Now, think about this: where are those new jobs? What real growth are we seeing? What sectors do we have that show promise for leadership going forward?
We've seen our high tech industry nose dive and not recover. It is stagnant and transitioning to maturity. Our industrial manufacturing base never came out of recession. We have nothing new on the horizon. We don't do R&D the way we need to support new growth. You want to improve the economy. Focus on major research initiatives in fields that will be need by the *world* in coming decades. Want to do something for the long haul? Enourage research and development, and in a big way.
Lowering taxes when they were already too low to pay for expenditures was dishonest short-sighted stupidity. You can't pay back this deficit in a few years and you aren't going to grow your way out of it because the deficit's rate of growth has far outstripped tax revenue growth. What was done was to cover up the deficit in non-Social security expenditures by further dipping into the Social security "surplus." Even if you believe in the tax cut philosophy, any examination of expenditures quickly reveal that Soc. Sec. taxes would have been the ones to cut to get rid of "surplus", not income tax which is heavily in deficit for what it is supposed to pay for.
Doing a true stimulus package is one thing. This was all smoke an mirrors, and most folks fell for it. They still don't understand how this has all worked, or what the long term consequences are.
you really need to stop reading noam chomsky/peter galbraith
that whole statism thing isn't working out so well for europe buddy
Iraqi war, Kyoto, Space Vision(crappy vision reincarnating old stuff. Bleh)...
I say bad.
Alot of funny things has happened to him though, like when crashed a bicycle, giving award to that boxing guy(name?),hurting his arm while throwing ball etc..
I would have picked great or outstanding president, but that was'nt a choice so I had to go with the best, even though in reality that would to be for Teddy Roosevelt or Regan.
In honesty I can not get why so many people have such a (usally baseless) hate of Bush. I don't know if it's that so many of you believe what media or anyone tells you, or your just ignorant and naive, but come give a half way educated and intellgent anwser or say nothing.
Foreign Policy and Iraq: Please some one explain to me what Bush has done so wrong with Iraq. And what really gets, me is that it was fine for Clinton to Bomb Iraq in 1998, but for Bush to Carry out a war in Iraq is wrong. Clintons reasons to attack Iraq ( and this is in his own words) "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." Appearently as the UN found and Clinton knew, Hussen had used chemical and biological and was developing a neucular weapons program and Clinton Took action ( possible the one redeeming thing he did in his carreer, but that can be discussed on another thread). And yet when the Bush administration took action to disarm Iraq ( and we again found that Hussen had the Capabilities) it wrong and the only thing Bush wants is oil. A little bit of stand from you Bush haters, don't you think.
Not sure who you are talking to. I'm not reading those you mention. I've actually found it more beneficial to work through the numbers myself. Much better than relying on somebody else's politicized interpretation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beelzebub
What I find humorous is how many folks believe the pile of crap/lies that was the tax package, and have no knowledge of the particulars and what happens at the end of the period. I'm still trying to understand parts of it, and the more I learn of the "gotcha's" in coming years, the more dismayed I am.
The whole basis of the cuts producing *more* revenue is a fallacy based on erroneous extrapolation. The taxation rate wasn't so high as to be a significant inhibitor to growth. We weren't in a high tax regime. While the theory does hold true in certain conditions, it is at much higher tax rates.
Again, it is more interesting if you plug through the numbers yourself, look at growth in prior years, the post tax cut growth, and revenue. Then look for this "bonanza" of stimulus. Good luck finding it. It is very educational.
One must also keep in mind that this stimulus is in fact coming from borrowed money. With two trillion dollars of stimulus, we've gotten about two trillion dollars worth of GDP growth (and that doesn't even discount what "normal" growth would have been, or inflation.) Consider that for a minute. How long will it take to "catch up" with that sort of payback? (Answer: Never, because tax revenue can't catch up, particularly with an increasing interest payment each year.)
Well saidQuote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
However it seems that the tax cuts have stimulated some growth - enough to off-set the deficiet spending in the future - will have to be seen. The Reagan Tax Cuts worked well for what its intended purpose was - Bush was trying to follow that examble. The issue is not so much the tax cuts - but the unneccessary spending done by the President and the Congress.Quote:
What I find humorous is how many folks believe the pile of crap/lies that was the tax package, and have no knowledge of the particulars and what happens at the end of the period. I'm still trying to understand parts of it, and the more I learn of the "gotcha's" in coming years, the more dismayed I am.
Did you notice how the balance budget debates went in Congress?
Not sure where you going with this paragraph - the beginning sentence and the last sentence seem to contradict each other.Quote:
The whole basis of the cuts producing *more* revenue is a fallacy based on erroneous extrapolation. The taxation rate wasn't so high as to be a significant inhibitor to growth. We weren't in a high tax regime. While the theory does hold true in certain conditions, it is at much higher tax rates.
I found it (as discussed in a previous thread on just this issue) - however it is not the figure that President Bush's administration would like to see to justify its tax cut and its spending policies.Quote:
Again, it is more interesting if you plug through the numbers yourself, look at growth in prior years, the post tax cut growth, and revenue. Then look for this "bonanza" of stimulus. Good luck finding it. It is very educational.
The stimulus is in fact coming from multiple sources - the stimulus from the tax cuts is there - just not at the numbers needed to justify the spending done by the Federal Government.Quote:
One must also keep in mind that this stimulus is in fact coming from borrowed money. With two trillion dollars of stimulus, we've gotten about two trillion dollars worth of GDP growth (and that doesn't even discount what "normal" growth would have been, or inflation.) Consider that for a minute. How long will it take to "catch up" with that sort of payback? (Answer: Never, because tax revenue can't catch up, particularly with an increasing interest payment each year.)
A tax increase is coming - I expect a minor one to happen after the 2006 congressional elections. It will be hidden by the failure to extend one of the current tax cuts due to expire this year if its not renewed. (haven't seen if it has or has not been renewed yet.)
All one has to do is begin looking at the measures in congress right now - several things are upcoming concerning the budget.
Edit: Forgot an article mentioning many of the tax bills being watched in the finicial markets
Quote:
WASHINGTON (AFX) - Amid uncertainty over the fate of congressional efforts to extend a pair of investment tax cuts due to expire in 2008, Treasury Secretary John Snow argued Wednesday that action now would encourage economic growth.
"We should not raise the cost of investing here at home when we expect American companies to compete in the global economy," Snow said, in remarks prepared for delivery to the Tax Foundation.
Under the tax-cut package signed into law by President Bush in 2003, taxes on most capital gains were cut from a rate of 20% to 15%. The individual tax rate on corporate dividends was set at the same level. Dividends were previously at personal income rates as high as 35%.
A House package that would cut taxes by more than $55 billion over five years includes provisions to extend the tax breaks until 2010. In the Senate, Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, dropped a proposal to extend the break one year in order for his $59.6 billion, five-year tax plan to gain the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Me., a key swing vote on the panel.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he would ensure that the extension of the investor tax breaks is included in any final bill that emerges from a House-Senate conference.
Wall Street firms and some business groups have lobbied heavily to extend the provision now. They argue that investors will be spooked by uncertainty if lawmakers postpone action until closer to the expiration date.
Democrats contend the provision hasn't done much for most middle-class Americans, while some fiscally conservative Republicans, such as Snowe, contend that it's more important to tackle more pressing tax issues.
The Senate is expected to vote this evening on the package, but first must handle a number of amendments, including a proposal sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. to impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies.
The measure would put a 50% excise tax on major oil companies' "windfall" profits. The amendment defines a windfall as the profits earned on sales of oil at more than $40 a barrel.
Republican lawmakers contend the measure is likely to fail amid solid opposition by GOP leaders in both the House and Senate.
An amendment offered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, would revoke an existing tax break that allows energy companies to write off exploration and development costs.
The Senate earlier Thursday rejected 44-55 a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., that would have extended only tax cuts due to expire in 2005, while expanding protection against the alternative minimum tax. Conrad's measure would have offset tax breaks by cracking down on a range of tax shelters and other loopholes.
This story was supplied by MarketWatch. For further information see www.marketwatch.com.
No, they mesh, but I'll try to clarify here since it isn't transparent. The theory that was used would be correct, IF taxes were very high (that is where it comes from.) Instead, the basis for the cuts was using the beneficial effect of tax cuts at *very high* (far north of 50% marginal) tax rates, and extrapolating it down to low rates. At very high rates, cutting taxes has a strong impact on economic growth. The extrapolation to another regime is fundamentally unsound.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
What they did was analogous to doing pressure drop calculations using laminar flow equations to justify something, while the actual system was in the turbulent regime and should have used the turbulent flow equations.
Did anyone watch Fahrenheit 9/11? (hope it's good spell)
That seems to state to me that if the tax bracket is not above 50% of income then tax cuts are not warranted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Reason I ask - is because I know we have different thoughts on taxes - but before I respond - I am trying to figure out exactly where you are coming from.
I rather talk in sheets of paper through a press based upon humidity levels - its a better anology for me.Quote:
What they did was analogous to doing pressure drop calculations using laminar flow equations to justify something, while the actual system was in the turbulent regime and should have used the turbulent flow equations.
For examble - if the humidity level is 35-40% my efficiency for running paper through my presses increases to 85-90%. If its too high - we are inefficient - if its to low we are inefficient.
Now given a choice I rather have the building at 35% because it provided the balance between human confort and machine efficiency. If I go to 40-45% percent the machine run better but the people are uncomfortable. If I run below 35% the people are comfortable but the machinary doesn't work so well.
Now I view the tax cuts in a similiar fashion - a lower level makes for happy taxpayers - but for a government that doesn't work as well. One must find the balance that insures the people are happy but that the government functions at an efficient rate. This is where I think we agree - with the tax cut - the president failed to address the issues to insure that the government was still able to function within its expectations - the efficiency being how much deficiet was being created.
The issue is using a reasonable factor that corresponds with the range in which taxes are. I'm not saying taxes shouldn't be cut until X or Y level. Rather I'm saying don't assume you will get the X stimulus factor, when your taxes are actually in the Y range.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Cutting taxes is fine if you've got things balanced and debt paid down. It would have been possible in a very few years, simply by pulling down the national debt. We were headed in the right direction. Spending was in control, the debt was coming down. Then we went flipping nuts! Massive spending spree, massive debt.
I'm not for taxing for taxes sake, nor do I want to see most wealth redistributed, etc. I do believe that use of taxes for infrastructure, research, and growth inenctives in strategic economic areas can provide a huge economic benefit to the country. And I believe that some social programs are both necessary and beneficial to the whole of a nation. The best ones are incentives for people to raise themselves up. That's why the cuts to college grants/loans that were proposed were so friggin' insane and backwards--simply self destructive.
That is close enough using efficiency, with one substantial difference. It wasn't so much a question of efficiency, as using the wrong press efficiency factor and applying it to the 35% case because it is what people want. You aren't going to do that at work, and if you did, it would only give you headaches because the machines would not be doing what you had projected.Quote:
I rather talk in sheets of paper through a press based upon humidity levels - its a better anology for me.
For examble - if the humidity level is 35-40% my efficiency for running paper through my presses increases to 85-90%. If its too high - we are inefficient - if its to low we are inefficient.
Now given a choice I rather have the building at 35% because it provided the balance between human confort and machine efficiency. If I go to 40-45% percent the machine run better but the people are uncomfortable. If I run below 35% the people are comfortable but the machinary doesn't work so well.
Now I view the tax cuts in a similiar fashion - a lower level makes for happy taxpayers - but for a government that doesn't work as well. One must find the balance that insures the people are happy but that the government functions at an efficient rate. This is where I think we agree - with the tax cut - the president failed to address the issues to insure that the government was still able to function within its expectations - the efficiency being how much deficiet was being created.
As you say there is some optimum point for taxation. Obviously, we disagree on approach to what are "necessary" expenditures for both a healthy nation, and a healthy economy. That's okay, as there are few absolutes in that regard and each side should have to make a case for spending money.
Indeedy, those equipped with one may find that the brain kicks in, and that's when the pain starts. Don't go there!Quote:
Originally Posted by Beelzebub
ArcticSonata, while I can admit that I've never liked Bush, 5 years of him has never even given the sight of any redeeming policies or traits. That's highly unusual for me, many politicians I dislike does atleast show some competence. Admittably I don't hear all about Bush, but can you give examples on what good stuff he has done? I can give planty of examples of bad stuff if I want to, with the start of spending 5 years of budgets on 4 years.
About Iraq, for me it haven't been about WMD, but the honesty of the Bush-administration but about their honesty. From the beginning it has felt that they wanted war, and asked themself the question: "How can we convince the American population about going to war with Iraq?"
What's scary is that, the more information that shows up, the more it seems that that assmumtion was correct.
And that the auctual occupation after the war was very poorly planned (and that is the most important part, not the actual war), and is put in some kind of "light" mode doesn't make the issue any better.
I actually have not seen it. I'm not a big Michael Moore fan, although I think he does publicize some things that are worth attention. At least he provided some counterbalance to the extreme right's use of 9/11 as a propaganda tool. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight Templar
Mediocre. He did afew things right though. but the huge debt, weak border policy, and the weird strategy of tying the hands of the army in iraq make him mediocre at best.
Did the adminstration oversell the impact of the tax cuts on how it would provide stimulus onto the economy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
I would answer that question with a slightly. The immediate effects of the tax cut did provide some stimulus to the economy in boosting the moral and pysical money into the tax payer's pocket. This had an impact on the middleclass which was needed. Could the tax cuts been better structured to provide releive to those who actually needed the tax cuts - but maintained the Y tax range for those who didn't? I thing the answer to this question is that the tax cuts could of been thought out better - along with a better management of the budget by Congress.
I blame Congress more then the President - for every worthwhile and needed expenditure in the plan - there is an Z factore of pork spending or necessary cuts in the federal spendign package maintained.Quote:
Cutting taxes is fine if you've got things balanced and debt paid down. It would have been possible in a very few years, simply by pulling down the national debt. We were headed in the right direction. Spending was in control, the debt was coming down. Then we went flipping nuts! Massive spending spree, massive debt.
AgreedQuote:
I'm not for taxing for taxes sake, nor do I want to see most wealth redistributed, etc. I do believe that use of taxes for infrastructure, research, and growth inenctives in strategic economic areas can provide a huge economic benefit to the country. And I believe that some social programs are both necessary and beneficial to the whole of a nation. The best ones are incentives for people to raise themselves up. That's why the cuts to college grants/loans that were proposed were so friggin' insane and backwards--simply self destructive.
I would answer it as highly oversold. The economy has come nowhere near hitting the projections. When you consider how oversold it was, you have to also subtract out the extra expenditures that were not part of the plan. These were additional stimuli (that also happen to add to the debt.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
There is a lot more to it than just the growth aspect. It is the way the cuts are structured and require elimination to acheive their targets. People are howling over the AMT, but that was *intentional* by the Administration, it wasn't a "tax and spend" liberal sneak atack. It was a GOP "wink and nod" knowing that people would complain because it was being abused *as part of the plan.* The idea was to force another tax cut, by not doing what was required by the plan, thereby busting the basis of the original plan anyway. The same folks that supported the plan so vehemently, also support making the rollbacks permanent, even though it destroys the basis of the plan. Therefore, the plan was never an honest one from the start. The wrong factors were used, and the later parts of the plan were never to be enforced. It was all smokescreen.
The extra spending by the govt. for military, etc. is actually a fairly strong stimulus itself as it does add jobs--and the one most often ignored when supply siders look at Reagan or Bush plans. On the flip side that is the problem with doing govt. spending cuts during a recession, it hurts employment. Choosing to run a deficit during the time to drive some economic incentives is not of itself bad, but don't oversell it assuming you are going to get several times what is reasonable. And reducing revenue too much (as was done) only makes the consequences dire in the long term.
About capital gains: I've long favored doing an inflation adjustment on capital gains. I do feel it is proper to tax capital gains, just as it is proper to tax any other income. However, they should be indexed for the time involved, using standard inflation factors from each quarter. This represents the real cost of investing. Same should apply for interest--although that can be a lot more complicated to calculate.
Bestest President Ever!!!
I mean hey, if he was otherwise, nobody would have called him Amir al Mu'mineen*. ~;)
*Prince of the Faithful
Long live sheik bush ~:cheers:
Nice to see that someone gets it. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beelzebub
I agree. Our economy is doing great- it's a victim of bad PR if anything.Quote:
How can you say that when the facts speak for themselves? 3.5% growth, highest in the western world, and record employment rates..
Do you realize that the US has some of the highest corporate tax rates of the developed world?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
So, you're saying the proper response to a recession is even tighter spending and possibly higher taxes?Quote:
Cutting taxes is fine if you've got things balanced and debt paid down. It would have been possible in a very few years, simply by pulling down the national debt. We were headed in the right direction. Spending was in control, the debt was coming down. Then we went flipping nuts! Massive spending spree, massive debt.
Considering how little is actually taxed and the double set of books used for tax accounting. I say bullshit to that. However, your statement is off in left field anyway, since it has diddly squat to do with what was being discussed in what you quoted. Nice try at diversion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
No, that is not at all what I said. Learn to read and take your strawman somewhere else. ~:rolleyes:Quote:
So, you're saying the proper response to a recession is even tighter spending and possibly higher taxes?
Right, cuz you were saying we werent in a high tax regime- my point that we do have high corporate tax rates has no bearing...... riiiight. ~:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Well ok professor, what do we do in that situation? Since I, apparently, misunderstood your position, go ahead and lay it out for us all to see. Im very curious. You said we were on the right track with spending 'in control' afterall.Quote:
No, that is not at all what I said. Learn to read and take your strawman somewhere else. ~:rolleyes:
Believe it or not, I didn't choose "the worst"; I chose "bad".
Considering what portion of revenue is taxed for corporate (not to mention the actual true earnings that are taxed) no, it isn't a high tax regime. Even if one naively swallowed the marginal rate, it would still be far outside the zone at which the benefit is large.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
It's already available in this and other threads. It's a pity that rather than trying to actually think it through, you go right for the sort of interpretation you *want* me to have for your strawman. What I clearly did not say is, "So, you're saying the proper response to a recession is even tighter spending and possibly higher taxes?" That was your fabrication...or perhaps it would be more accurate to call it an "extrapolation" as used by Whitehouse to support a bogus budget plan.Quote:
Well ok professor, what do we do in that situation? Since I, apparently, misunderstood your position, go ahead and lay it out for us all to see. Im very curious. You said we were on the right track with spending 'in control' afterall.
I'll break down my philosophy on it. It is long range, versus short sighted, so I doubt you will understand or appreciate it--considering our differing time horizons. (Hmmm, I like the idea of christening this the "Now" decade.)
Part 1: Leave the overall tax rate alone until the economy had recovered fully. Not a tax increase, not a decrease. We could see we were going into recession and tax revenue would fall--either eliminating the surplus or producing a deficit. (Pretty natural after long expansion.) For proper accounting, clearly the non-Social Security portion of expenditures were not in any sort of long term surplus, and were still in deficit, despite the Admin smokescreen. At any rate, not adding several hundred billion dollars a year in deficit would produce additional additional gains in each subsequent year (it's called "interest.") Reducing govt. borrowing would be a long term stimulus as well.
Part 2: Work on an actual R&D, targeted investment, and infrastructure based stimulus plan. (Again, long term, rather than "quick fix".) Do relief as necessary for segments of business/employees hammered by the recession. Focus on positioning the economy for the type of structure it will need later on. Use the stimulus to encourage investment in the targeted areas. Let the free market make use of the incentives. Get your economic growth where it will do the most long term good for the country.
Part 3: Serious reform of corporate governance, accounting, and regulation. Improved transparency and shareholder power would lead to more efficient use of capital, as well as encouraging investment by reluctant investors. (Instead, you have many of us still sitting on the sidelines with large cash positions, watching the market move sideways.) The big dive in the market came from *inefficient* use of capital. Too much money chasing dubious returns supported by fraudulent accounting, etc.
Recession is not of itself a horrible thing, rather a short term problem, not a catastrophe. Weak competitors get swept out when this happens. What matters is how does the economy right itself and how do we react. Does the recession help work out the fundamental problems for the next expansion? Or does the economy end up with more structural problems? Everything I see now suggests our structural problems have increased, rather than decreased. Part of that is failure to address the fundamental areas needed for long term growth. Part is poor fiscal management. Part is poor regulation and transparency. It is not the sort of enviroment that I want to make any long term investment in.
Is that even a complete sentence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
Mature as always. ~:handball:Quote:
It is long range, versus short sighted, so I doubt you will understand or appreciate it
Ok, let's examine your plan:
So, part 1 of your stimulus plan is... 'do nothing'. Interesting. As a side note, it'd be amusing to hear you explain how reducing borrowing- which implies spending cuts- would be a stimulus.Quote:
Part 1: Leave the overall tax rate alone until the economy had recovered fully. Not a tax increase, not a decrease. We could see we were going into recession and tax revenue would fall--either eliminating the surplus or producing a deficit. (Pretty natural after long expansion.) For proper accounting, clearly the non-Social Security portion of expenditures were not in any sort of long term surplus, and were still in deficit, despite the Admin smokescreen. At any rate, not adding several hundred billion dollars a year in deficit would produce additional additional gains in each subsequent year (it's called "interest.") Reducing govt. borrowing would be a long term stimulus as well.
On to part 2:Ok, you want government to fund private R&D and then suggest expanding corporate and personal welfare for companies affected by the recession. Clearly, this is part of your "controlled spending" plan. ~:confused:Quote:
Part 2: Work on an actual R&D, targeted investment, and infrastructure based stimulus plan. (Again, long term, rather than "quick fix".) Do relief as necessary for segments of business/employees hammered by the recession. Focus on positioning the economy for the type of structure it will need later on. Use the stimulus to encourage investment in the targeted areas. Let the free market make use of the incentives. Get your economic growth where it will do the most long term good for the country.
How much spending would you advocate for infrastructure? Is $286 billion enough or do you want to spend more while you're controlling spending?
Next...Now you're attempting to explain how what businesses really need to take off is.... more regulation and red tape. Makes sense- I guess. ~:confused:Quote:
Part 3: Serious reform of corporate governance, accounting, and regulation. Improved transparency and shareholder power would lead to more efficient use of capital, as well as encouraging investment by reluctant investors. (Instead, you have many of us still sitting on the sidelines with large cash positions, watching the market move sideways.) The big dive in the market came from *inefficient* use of capital. Too much money chasing dubious returns supported by fraudulent accounting, etc.
Recession is not of itself a horrible thing, rather a short term problem, not a catastrophe. Weak competitors get swept out when this happens. What matters is how does the economy right itself and how do we react. Does the recession help work out the fundamental problems for the next expansion? Or does the economy end up with more structural problems? Everything I see now suggests our structural problems have increased, rather than decreased. Part of that is failure to address the fundamental areas needed for long term growth. Part is poor fiscal management. Part is poor regulation and transparency. It is not the sort of enviroment that I want to make any long term investment in.
Next, you go on to say how a recession "sweeps away" weak competitors, yet in 'part 2' you were claiming that the most affected companies would get help from the government. I'm sorry, but I think your economic plan is incoherent. It reminds me of John Kerry's- You want to control spending, reduce the deficit and at the same time increase R&D and infrastructure spending. "A chicken in every pot" is a decent campaign platform, but it's poor in practice.
Ok, Where Do I Start....
Brief Summary:
History: No real history of any actual management skill. Got into Yale cuz' of daddy, hell, got everything else because of his father. Snorted cocaine. Dodged the draft.
Personality: Rich boy pretending to be a cowboy. And get rid of that speech impediment.
Foreign Policy: Squandered foreign goodwill, made enemies out of everyone except for Britain (our lapdogs) and some small nations too terrified to protest.
Economy: It's growing, but we're still getting sodomized by the trade deficit with China and by the growing value of the Euro, not to mention that oil prices are going through the roof thanks to us.
War: Ok, Bush has to be the most pathetic military "leader" ever to take a U.S military force into battle. Totally mishandled Iraq, and Rummy seems to be too obsessed with the WoT to fund decent programs, you know just in case we actually get into a real war again.
Corruption: Hmm... cronie-ism, leaks, severe mishandling of contractors, inability to do anything about DeLay and Frist (they're in his party...), using our surplus to give his rich buddies kickbacks.... and the list goes on.
Intelligence: 9/11/01, enough said. Bush should be prosecuted for 2,752 murders , not to mention the fact that he hasn't grabbed Osama yet.
Yes, it is missing one comma.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Like I figured, you wouldn't understand it. The approach to taxes was "first, do no harm."Quote:
Ok, let's examine your plan:
So, part 1 of your stimulus plan is... 'do nothing'. Interesting. As a side note, it'd be amusing to hear you explain how reducing borrowing- which implies spending cuts- would be a stimulus.
Reducing borrowing is not a "spending cut." ~:shock: Instead, like paying off your credit card balance or a loan, it reduces future expenses. Some of us actually pay off our loans ASAP, and we don't run a balance on our credit cards. ~:eek: Why? Because we don't like losing a portion of our income to interest payments.
Having the govt. compete for investment dollars is usually considered a negative on the economy...but this "new Dubya economics" craze seems to have forgotten that. I remember hearing that "deficits were good" coming from his camp.
Just because the GOP took a free money approach to everything doesn't mean I support the same. The corporate/personal welfare approach would better characterize *your/GOP* problem, not mine.Quote:
On to part 2:Ok, you want government to fund private R&D and then suggest expanding corporate and personal welfare for companies affected by the recession. Clearly, this is part of your "controlled spending" plan. ~:confused:
How much spending would you advocate for infrastructure? Is $286 billion enough or do you want to spend more while you're controlling spending?
However, infrastructure spending is a stimulus. Beats the heck out of tax breaks for upper income types. By the way, building things or investing in R&D by definition is not welfare. Is this another "compassionate conservative, tax & spend liberal, or socialized medicine" mischaracterization the GOP is planning to use? The masters of spin are at it again.
No, I would have been more interested in major initiatives in things like energy efficiency, etc. One doesn't have to fund private R&D directly, but structure incentives so that companies are encouraged to start thinking/investing long term rather than short (I know, "long term" is counter to your approach to business.) Selecting a few developing areas to actually take the lead would be a good start.
Rather than trying to send $100+ billion to the moon, try spending it on a Manhattan project for fusion research at home. You want the tech lead? That is how you get it. You set a high goal, with lots of technical hurdles, and you start working on it in earnest. You don't get or keep the lead by trying to run business as a cash cow with little reinvestment or research. That is the path to obsolescence.
I fail to see how more transparency and accountability would harm business. Nor do I see how it could cost us several trillion dollars or so like the bust did. Building bubbles like that because of poor transparency and accountability is downright harmful and destructive. Following your counter logic, we should abolish all rules and regulations. That would be an unmitigated disaster.Quote:
Next...Now you're attempting to explain how what businesses really need to take off is.... more regulation and red tape. Makes sense- I guess. ~:confused:
One would think one wouldn't have to make such rules...but then one looks at people like Cheney, who was using fraudulent accounting methods at Haliburton and got away with it. After that one realizes that reforms are necessary.
Either that or you can watch investment money sit on the sidelines or move to foreign markets. Neither are real boons to the U.S. economy. Fair rules don't hurt good companies.
So you don't believe in a free market that the strong survive? I said "where necessary." For you, I should know that I will have to spell out every little detail or you will spin some falsehoods around the missing parts. My focus would be on transition of industry sectors, rather than the standard GOP money giveway to companies. I would be more interested in retraining and such. It is going to be tough to make any blanket statements, because I believe more in industry-by-industry evaluation. Blanket giveways are inefficient.Quote:
Next, you go on to say how a recession "sweeps away" weak competitors, yet in 'part 2' you were claiming that the most affected companies would get help from the government. I'm sorry, but I think your economic plan is incoherent.
Funny, the first two at least were Clinton's approach, and were working.Quote:
It reminds me of John Kerry's- You want to control spending, reduce the deficit and at the same time increase R&D and infrastructure spending. "A chicken in every pot" is a decent campaign platform, but it's poor in practice.
Better than Dubya's "Magic Beanstalk" plan... Talk about poor in practice. The beanstalk never grew. Don't know much about Kerry's plan myself, sure wouldn't put any stake in your GOP characterization of it.
And what useful plan have you had? You buy into one of the most destructive economic plans in U.S. history.
I'm shocked there aren't more "Good" votes. Did all of the American super-conservatives run off to their secret treehouse BBS and stop voting here? Or are they becoming disillusioned with El Presidente?
i hear they're mostly posting elswhere.
Yes, we all heard about the private treehouse, as I said. (You must know the secret handshake ...)
A super-conservative would know that Bush is not a great conservative president -Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurmania
Kind of like Clinton was not a great liberial president.
Attempts at generalizations are just that.
Voted mediocre. But I cannot help liking him because he is such a horrible politician, most politicians are as slippery as a greased eel, cannot say that of Dubya. I find him sympathatic, but he is a bit lightweight given his position.
Bingo. I'm not wild about Bush either. I think had been doing well enough in foreign policy and the tax cuts are always good, but his non-defense spending has been pretty much out of control. Also, he's done a poor job in PR terms like explaining the progress in Iraq and staying on top of the intelligence "lies". Instead, he has let his critics define them unopposed. He's not great, but I'm still convinced he's better than John Kerry would have been- not that it says much. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
However, I agree with Beelzebub in that, historically, Bush will be judged almost entirely on Iraq. If it turns out well in the end he will be hailed- if not, he'll be scorned.
I think the evidence speaks for itself. I would have liked to seen significantly less wasteful entitlement spending and pork- but regardless, our economy is currently very strong with very low unemployment and the tax cuts played a significant role. You may call a growing economy "destructive" but I dont.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
That is from Claymore Securities, a prominent financial advising/economic research firm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Claymore Securities, Inc.
Oh get real. That is the most biased twisted use of data I think I've ever seen. Congratulations. Posting something like that pretty much eliminates any intelligent conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
You can however look at the total market cap now...which is still not what it was before Dubya's election...and draw an entirely different conclusion. Some of the comparisons would be just as silly as theirs. One that would not is that the growth rate has not really exceeded normal recovery growth rate. Looking at rise after the events that led to the drop in the market is pretty amusing--gives them zero stars for credibility.
We could add that a the time in question the NASDAQ was at about 40% of its peak...and that the DOW was still not looking great. It is also funny that they ignore the larger recesssion. Of course what would one expect from a securities firm? They were part of the bubble hype.
EDIT: Wish I had time to really rip into this. I would love to show you the comparisons with the previous recession, the Clinton years etc. Man, what a ripe, juicy target. What I would actually prefer is some people having enough judgement and common sense to read through the sort of drivel that Claymore wrote, and recognize what they are omitting, etc. without requiring detailed hours of proof. I hate wasting my time proving what is obvious to anyone who has actually waded through these numbers. Then again...I think longer term. If you don't try to analyze these sorts of programs with a longer time horizon, then you get erroneous results: also knowns as Dubyanomics.
Hint: if you want to understand this, look at GDP growth for the previous recession (and timing), look at GDP growth for this last rececession, also look at GDP growth during the Clinton term. Then try to see this phenomenal growth as a result of the cut. It isn't there. Put things into their perspective. Look at what happened to the market indices too...look at them before the bubble popped, and today. I've been through this before here. Yet you keep trucking out the same type of snippets, completely ignoring the full time frame.
Why can't people use their brains and actually weigh these things themselves, rather than accepting them because it "supports" their arguments? Whether or not you agree with something you should want to cross check it and test it before you adopt it.
The gap here between the long term view and the short is obvious...particularly trying to do a single year comparison. Xiahou, you only continue to reinforce that point.
Yes, I know how it upsets you to use actual data in your arguments. Rather than cite anything concrete use just spout jargon in a sad attempt to give yourself credibility. Afterall, if you can talk the talk, you might be right? Nevermind, the fact that you never reference anything outside of your own opinions to back up your claims. ~:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
You're funny, you criticize them for being part of the "bubble hype", which implicity shows you believe the market was previously over-valued (or in a bubble) and then use the fact that it hasnt returned to "bubble" levels as proof positive that things arent as good as they were before the recession. Just keep setting up your own arguments and knocking them down.... ~:handball:Quote:
You can however look at the total market cap now...which is still not what it was before Dubya's election...and draw an entirely different conclusion. Some of the comparisons would be just as silly as theirs. One that would not is that the growth rate has not really exceeded normal recovery growth rate. Looking at rise after the events that led to the drop in the market is pretty amusing--gives them zero stars for credibility.
We could add that a the time in question the NASDAQ was at about 40% of its peak...and that the DOW was still not looking great. It is also funny that they ignore the larger recesssion. Of course what would one expect from a securities firm? They were part of the bubble hype.
That is 100% Xiahou bullshit and you know it. I do more to actually put up real numbers than anyone else I can think of at the moment. I don't just quote some clowns numbers and say, "see this proves it." I spell out the basis. Too many others (like you) quote some damned blog as if it was gospel without even understanding where the numbers come from or trying to cross check them. I have backed up my stuff with figures, I don't always have time to wade through everything to respond to the farcical garbage that some of you like to post as "fact."Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Why should I have to spend hours digging through info that I've worked through in the past? All to prove what I've already proven before. It's like Ground Hog Day for you...except you haven't learned anything from the previous iteration. I'm supposed to dig up all the numbers and do all this work, because you can't be bothered to. Then you can try to pick away at them. I despise that intellectually lazy approach you take. If you want to challenge me on interpretation of numbers, you are going to do a hell of a lot better than you have ever done in the past.
Considering they are for profit and the securities firms love the ideas of capital gains tax cuts, their motivation is quite clear. And yes they were part of the bubble. They also want to prevent regulation that favors the shareholder.Quote:
You're funny, you criticize them for being part of the "bubble hype", which implicity shows you believe the market was previously over-valued (or in a bubble) and then use the fact that it hasnt returned to "bubble" levels as proof positive that things arent as good as they were before the recession. Just keep setting up your own arguments and knocking them down.... ~:handball:
It's funny, you take pot shots at the periphery. There you are: twisting and turning, intentionally misstating what I have said (claiming the counter to it, which is really funny.) Why? Because you fear the truth when it sneaks out and doesn't match your artificial reality. "Quick, grab the shovel, bury it in manure again."
I'm not going to have much time for disputing all of this junk for awhile, so have fun.
so i take it you 2 vote mediocre and then say no more right?
WHY?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dailymirror.jpg
Hellenes
Not in this thread- and not in many others I can think of in recent memory. Honestly, it's really tiresome... Most of the time your arguments amount to "Im right and don't have to prove it because 'I've worked it out before' and if you don't agree with me you either have an agenda, are stupid or lying." You put yourself in a convenient position to argue when your wisdom is already a forgone conclusion and above reproach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
And why should I provide information for things I've worked out countless times before? Oh, I forgot- it's because Im stupid and you're smart. Some really interesting debate we'd all have here if everyone just stated an opinion and said they're not going to substantiate it because they've "worked it out before". If its too much work for you to support your assertions Id suggest you keep them to yourself, as they dont contribute to productive debate.Quote:
Why should I have to spend hours digging through info that I've worked through in the past? All to prove what I've already proven before. It's like Ground Hog Day for you...except you haven't learned anything from the previous iteration.
Considering how you hate Bush and virtually everything he does, your motivations are clear. Therefore, let's dismiss everything you've said. :bow:Quote:
Considering they are for profit and the securities firms love the ideas of capital gains tax cuts, their motivation is quite clear. And yes they were part of the bubble. They also want to prevent regulation that favors the shareholder.
No, that's what your do- with the exception of your pot shots being blatant personal attacks.Quote:
It's funny, you take pot shots at the periphery. There you are: twisting and turning, intentionally misstating what I have said (claiming the counter to it, which is really funny.) Why? Because you fear the truth when it sneaks out and doesn't match your artificial reality. "Quick, grab the shovel, bury it in manure again."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
You're right about yourself, but I'll try anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest, in an ironically appropriate sentence.
The funny thing is you probably think that the economy was worse in 2004 than it was in 1996.Quote:
You can however look at the total market cap now...which is still not what it was before Dubya's election...and draw an entirely different conclusion. Blah, blah, blah...
As for Bush, I voted Good, only because he had the guts to do something about terrorism, though his 1) immigration 2) spending and 3) position on the AWB leave something to be desired. I think it would be more appropriate if there was another choice between 'good' and 'bestest', so 'good' wouldn't seem so good. If it weren't for the war, I'd label him mediocre, but he's not handled it well enough to be called 'very good', let alone 'bestest'.
Crazed Rabbit
Worst... President... Ever.
There are so many horrors out of this administration that it blows any other president out of contention. We've had bad presidents before, but they usually have some redeeming aspects. With Bush, there are none.
Terrorism: Came into office unconcerned about terrorism, but spent his first few NSC meetings discussing how to invade Iraq. Never had a cabinet meeting on terrorist threat before 9/11 despite pleading from counter-terrorism adviser and PDB's with titles like: "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US". Still hasn't caught Osama bin Ladin despite four years of "war on terror" and early "dead or alive" pronouncements. Due to failed Iraq policy, international experts agree terrorist recruitment way up. Terrorism expected to worsen as skills learned in Iraq are taken back home and used against regional governments.
Iraq: Managed to launch a preventive war on Iraq supposedly justified by the threat from Saddam's non-existent WMD stockpiles and programs. His administration put together a case for war by using stories from Iraqi exiles who were discredited and disbelieved by US intelligence. Continued to publicly use stories about uranium sales, Prague meetings, and aluminum tubes to sell the war... despite knowing that those stories had been discredited by US intelligence and experts. Decided to invade Iraq very early, possibly before his election, and then the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".
Occupation: Managed to invade Iraq without any discernible plan for the occupation. Ignored five separate studies done by State Dept., CIA, and War College that layed out what needed to be done and accurately predicted the dangers. Instead thought that Iraqis would greet us with flowers, and that Ahmed Chalabi (a con-man who was last in Iraq in the 1950's) would have the political clout to put together a Jeffersonian Democracy overnight. Disbanded the Iraqi army and instituted a de-Baathification policy that guaranteed that Iraq would simultaneously be filled with angry armed Sunnis, and without anyone with technical governing experience. Didn't allocate enough forces to the mission to guard the borders, secure weapons depots, or maintain order. Turned Iraqi reconstruction over to private companies with no-bid contracts. Originally told American public that reconstruction would cost US a couple of billion dollars and that the rest would be paid for by Iraqi oil revenue. Basically completely wrong on everything involving occupation.
Tyranny: Has directly attacked the constitutional right of Habeas Corpus by asserting the president's right to detain US citizens (and non-citizens) as "enemy combatants" without charge or trial on the basis of the president's role as commander-in-chief during "wartime". Re-defined torture as pain equivalent to organ failure or death, thereby definning everything short of that as not-torture. Has actually lobbied for the CIA to be exempted from anti-torture statutes. Oversees a worldwide system of secret prisons. Violates international law by keeping prisoners from Red Cross oversight. Waterboarding. Gulags. Horrible blow to US image, prestige, and soul. Patriot Act. Now deputizing military to do domestic spying on US citizens.
Secrecy: Whenever possible has worked to lessen transparency in American government and to deny the American public the right to review documents that it is legally entitled to see.
Debt: Has embraced the Republican mantra of "Borrow and Spend", irresponsibly cutting upper-income taxes during wartime, and creating the conditions for a huge fiscal crisis in the coming years.
Climate Change: Despite massive evidence, scientific agreement, and worldwide concern, has chosen to completely ignore the climate change issue. Has planned for global climate change in the same way he planned for the occupation of Iraq: "What, me worry?"
New Orleans: Cronyism. Incompetence. Now forgetfulness and neglect.
Plague: We're currently the least prepared industrialized nation in case of a major flu pandemic. The geniuses in charge want to cut funding to the Centers for Disease Control.
Of course, there are many, many, other things that could be added to the list.
Hello,
It is inappropriate to judge the historical perspective of an individual whose Presidency has just completed or is still in process. Bush will be judged ultimately according to the choices made and their impact. To judge impact requires distance. Summery judgments are typically creatures of passion rather than prudence.