"Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead"

[akarunway 1]

Fuckin morons http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2627805

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[sfc 0]

Quote

Fuckin morons http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2627805

I love this part

Quote

Cheney said that even with pollsters predicting that Democrats would likely make gains in both houses of Congress Tuesday, voter sentiment would not influence Bush's Iraq policy.

You'd hardly know he was an elected representative of the people.

[kallend 1,662]

Quote

Fuckin morons http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2627805

It's a pity he doesn't have "better things to do", like he did when he got his deferments.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

I love this part


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Cheney said that even with pollsters predicting that Democrats would likely make gains in both houses of Congress Tuesday, voter sentiment would not influence Bush's Iraq policy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You'd hardly know he was an elected representative of the people.

I liked this one:

Quote

"It may not be popular with the public — it doesn't matter in the sense that we have to continue the mission and do what we think is right. And that's exactly what we're doing," Cheney said. "We're not running for office. We're doing what we think is right."

The thing is if you recall a few years ago it WAS the popular thing. So we have a President that does not decide policy based on the fickle popularity polls. The polls back then supported going to Iraq.

I would rather have a Leader that does not just follow polls but does what he thinks is correct.

Also:

Quote

When asked why he thinks the president doesn't get enough credit for the economy and the recent news that the nation has a 4.4 percent unemployment rate, Cheney said, "Well, you guys don't help," referring to the media.

The unemployment rate fell unexpectedly to a 5-year low, as new jobs increased and hiring in each of the two prior months was revised up. Wages rose, but productivity was flat.

Is this his fault as well?

Really, you may not like the guy, and you may hate his calls. But, he does do what he thinks is right and not waiver with the flow of public opinion. And if you are going to blame him for all the wrong that happens in office....How about showing some love for the things that went right?

[ryoder 1,404]

Quote

The unemployment rate fell unexpectedly to a 5-year low, as new jobs increased and hiring in each of the two prior months was revised up. Wages rose, but productivity was flat.

Is this his fault as well?

In a free-market economy, the gov't has little or no influence in the economy. But every time the economy goes up, the the current administration tries to take credit, and much of the public is dumb enough to believe it. But that also works the other way; When the economy goes down, that same gullible portion of the public then blames the gov't for something the gov't doesn't control.

The facts are:
- Clinton was not responsible for the economic boom of the '90's.
- Bush was not responsible for the economic downturn 5 years ago.
- Bush is not responsible for the recent economic upturn.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[kallend 1,662]

Quote

Quote

The unemployment rate fell unexpectedly to a 5-year low, as new jobs increased and hiring in each of the two prior months was revised up. Wages rose, but productivity was flat.

Is this his fault as well?

In a free-market economy, the gov't has little or no influence in the economy. But every time the economy goes up, the the current administration tries to take credit, and much of the public is dumb enough to believe it. But that also works the other way; When the economy goes down, that same gullible portion of the public then blames the gov't for something the gov't doesn't control.

The facts are:
- Clinton was not responsible for the economic boom of the '90's.
- Bush was not responsible for the economic downturn 5 years ago.
- Bush is not responsible for the recent economic upturn.

Governments have control of government spending and government borrowing. Both have reached record levels under Bush/Cheney.

It's easy to give the appearance of being well off if you're living on someone else's money.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The thing is if you recall a few years ago it WAS the popular thing. So we have a President that does not decide policy based on the fickle popularity polls. The polls back then supported going to Iraq.

Could you link to a few of those polls? I don't remember a majority ever supporting the Iraq invasion. I could be wrong, as the Bush propaganda at the time also tried to connect Saddam with 9/11, and claimed he had WMD which could be launched on the US within 45 minutes of Saddam's order. I can see how a small majority might have supported the invasion in the face of such lies.

Quote

The unemployment rate fell unexpectedly to a 5-year low, as new jobs increased and hiring in each of the two prior months was revised up. Wages rose, but productivity was flat.

Is this his fault as well?

Really, you may not like the guy, and you may hate his calls. But, he does do what he thinks is right and not waiver with the flow of public opinion. And if you are going to blame him for all the wrong that happens in office....How about showing some love for the things that went right?

I love how in W's world, if things are finally better than when he initially screwed them up, his supporters think he accomplished something great.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I love how in W's world, if things are finally better than when he initially screwed them up, his supporters think he accomplished something great.

Too bad his detractors are so full of blind hate that they can't acknowledge anything the adminsitration has done right...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Too bad his detractors are so full of blind hate that they can't acknowledge anything the adminsitration has done right...

I will be happy to give him credit for doing something right as soon as he is deserving of such praise. Thus far, however, it seems that everything he touches turns to shit.

He has a knack for acting when he shouldn't (such as Iraq) and not acting when he should (such as Katrina).

In fairness, W ha only had two major failures: his foreign policy and his domestic policy.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Like I said....

Bush took an economy that was in recession when he took office and, in spite of a massive terrorist attack that DEEPENED the recession AND the cost of a war, now has an economy that shows less unemployment, a higher proportion of home ownership and better wages paid than when he took the job...as well as showing an accelerated reduction in the deficit than originally planned...and all you can do is bitch that it's not better.

Clinton had the .com bubble to help boost the economy during his Presidency...how did Bush boost the economy (other than letting the taxpayers keep more of their money to SPEND in the economy, that is)?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Like I said....

Bush took an economy that was in recession when he took office. . .

How quickly the right forgets that Clinton's administration had to deal with the recession left by GHW Bush. Somehow, Clinton was able to help the economy strengthen tremendously. W, on the other hand, is just starting to get the economy back to where it was when he got it.

It sure is a good thing he had that great idea about decreasing taxes and increasing spending.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

How quickly the right forgets that Clinton's administration had to deal with the recession left by GHW Bush. Somehow, Clinton was able to help the economy strengthen tremendously. W, on the other hand, is just starting to get the economy back to where it was when he got it.

Yeah... imagine how much better the economy would be doing right now, if 9/11, the deepening in the recession because of it, and the costs of the ongoing war didn't have to be factored into the equation... all preventable.. if Clinton had only acted.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Yeah... imagine how much better the economy would be doing right now, if 9/11, the deepening in the recession because of it, and the costs of the ongoing war didn't have to be factored into the equation... all preventable.. if Clinton had only acted.

Are you saying that none of the defense spending contributed to W's "growing" economy? I don't believe that. War causes economic growth. Unfortunately, the growth is not sustainable unless the war is sustained.

If anything, the attacks on 9/11 have strengthened the economy, since they were used to justify war.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[juanesky 0]

Quote

Quote

I love how in W's world, if things are finally better than when he initially screwed them up, his supporters think he accomplished something great.

Too bad his detractors are so full of blind hate that they can't acknowledge anything the adminsitration has done right...

Careful with your choice of words, it is not hate, it i more along the lines of loathe, disgust, abhorred.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[kallend 1,662]

Quote

Quote

Yeah... imagine how much better the economy would be doing right now, if 9/11, the deepening in the recession because of it, and the costs of the ongoing war didn't have to be factored into the equation... all preventable.. if Clinton had only acted.

Are you saying that none of the defense spending contributed to W's "growing" economy? I don't believe that. War causes economic growth. Unfortunately, the growth is not sustainable unless the war is sustained.

If anything, the attacks on 9/11 have strengthened the economy, since they were used to justify war.

I can grow my household economy if I take on massive debts. The economy grew under Clinton while deficits were being reduced.

The Reagan/Bush method is borrow borrow borrow and leave your successor to clean up the mess. GHWB was forced to raise taxes despite his "read my lips" promise, on account of the deficit mess he inherited from Ronald "I'm sorry I can't recall" Reagan.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yeah... imagine how much better the economy would be doing right now, if 9/11, the deepening in the recession because of it, and the costs of the ongoing war didn't have to be factored into the equation... all preventable.. if Clinton had only acted.

Are you saying that none of the defense spending contributed to W's "growing" economy? I don't believe that. War causes economic growth. Unfortunately, the growth is not sustainable unless the war is sustained.

If anything, the attacks on 9/11 have strengthened the economy, since they were used to justify war.

I can grow my household economy if I take on massive debts. The economy grew under Clinton while deficits were being reduced.

The Reagan/Bush method is borrow borrow borrow and leave your successor to clean up the mess. GHWB was forced to raise taxes despite his "read my lips" promise, on account of the deficit mess he inherited from Ronald "I'm sorry I can't recall" Reagan.

Here's the quick primer - if you let people keep more of their money, they go and spend some of it. Those goods and services are what drives the economy and pays the taxes that Congress leeches off the body politic with.

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Here's the quick primer - if you let people keep more of their money, they go and spend some of it. Those goods and services are what drives the economy and pays the taxes that Congress leeches off the body politic with.

"It's the economy, stupid!"

You are aware that government spending has a greater aggregate benefit to the economy than does private spending, right?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 1,662]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yeah... imagine how much better the economy would be doing right now, if 9/11, the deepening in the recession because of it, and the costs of the ongoing war didn't have to be factored into the equation... all preventable.. if Clinton had only acted.

Are you saying that none of the defense spending contributed to W's "growing" economy? I don't believe that. War causes economic growth. Unfortunately, the growth is not sustainable unless the war is sustained.

If anything, the attacks on 9/11 have strengthened the economy, since they were used to justify war.

I can grow my household economy if I take on massive debts. The economy grew under Clinton while deficits were being reduced.

The Reagan/Bush method is borrow borrow borrow and leave your successor to clean up the mess. GHWB was forced to raise taxes despite his "read my lips" promise, on account of the deficit mess he inherited from Ronald "I'm sorry I can't recall" Reagan.

Here's the quick primer - if you let people keep more of their money, they go and spend some of it. Those goods and services are what drives the economy and pays the taxes that Congress leeches off the body politic with.

"It's the economy, stupid!"

I'm also well aware that spending more than you take in leads to debt. Failure to manage debt does not lead to economic well being, as GHW "Read my lips" Bush found out to his cost.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I'm also well aware that spending more than you take in leads to debt. Failure to manage debt does not lead to economic well being, as GHW "Read my lips" Bush found out to his cost.

Let's see... I can change the tax rate from %13 to 15% and get $2 more per $100 out of this guy every week, OR, he can spend that $2 per hundred, and I can get $13 per hundred out of the guy that gets hired to take care of new customers at the bookstore he spent the money at, AND $13 per $100 for the guy at the grocery store that got laid on as a night stocker because people were able to afford more things... and so on, and so on....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm also well aware that spending more than you take in leads to debt. Failure to manage debt does not lead to economic well being, as GHW "Read my lips" Bush found out to his cost.

Let's see... I can change the tax rate from %13 to 15% and get $2 more per $100 out of this guy every week, OR, he can spend that $2 per hundred, and I can get $13 per hundred out of the guy that gets hired to take care of new customers at the bookstore he spent the money at, AND $13 per $100 for the guy at the grocery store that got laid on as a night stocker because people were able to afford more things... and so on, and so on....

What a great rhetorical explanation. If only it took into consideration the effects of the government spending the $13 or $15 back into the economy.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm also well aware that spending more than you take in leads to debt. Failure to manage debt does not lead to economic well being, as GHW "Read my lips" Bush found out to his cost.

Let's see... I can change the tax rate from %13 to 15% and get $2 more per $100 out of this guy every week, OR, he can spend that $2 per hundred, and I can get $13 per hundred out of the guy that gets hired to take care of new customers at the bookstore he spent the money at, AND $13 per $100 for the guy at the grocery store that got laid on as a night stocker because people were able to afford more things... and so on, and so on....

What a great rhetorical explanation. If only it took into consideration the effects of the government spending the $13 or $15 back into the economy.

Please show how the gov't can make that 2% improve as many lives as the consumer spending that 2%.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm also well aware that spending more than you take in leads to debt. Failure to manage debt does not lead to economic well being, as GHW "Read my lips" Bush found out to his cost.

Let's see... I can change the tax rate from %13 to 15% and get $2 more per $100 out of this guy every week, OR, he can spend that $2 per hundred, and I can get $13 per hundred out of the guy that gets hired to take care of new customers at the bookstore he spent the money at, AND $13 per $100 for the guy at the grocery store that got laid on as a night stocker because people were able to afford more things... and so on, and so on....

What a great rhetorical explanation. If only it took into consideration the effects of the government spending the $13 or $15 back into the economy.

Please show how the gov't can make that 2% improve as many lives as the consumer spending that 2%.

Better yet, explain the logic that suggests the consumer spending the money will contribute more to the economy than the government spending the same amount of money?

And, as I previously stated, government spending has a greater aggregate benefit to the economy than does private spending.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

And, as I previously stated, government spending has a greater aggregate benefit to the economy than does private spending.

I know you did - I'm asking you to prove it.

How is the consumer, spending that 2% in the local economy and creating jobs for other people (that the gov't can then tax) doing a worse job than the gov't could with whatever is left of the 2% after overhead?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I know you did - I'm asking you to prove it.

The info came from a Macro-economics book (with an extreme libertarian bias) which I no longer own.

Quote

How is the consumer, spending that 2% in the local economy and creating jobs for other people (that the gov't can then tax) doing a worse job than the gov't could with whatever is left of the 2% after overhead?

The government puts the money back into the economy, also. But, if the consumer keeps the money, some will be saved, often in bank savings accounts. When banks receive deposits, they are required by law to keep a certain percentage of the funds on hand. The money that is kept on hand due to these reserve requirements is NOT put back into the economy.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Expect a lot of blood to be spilled around the world within the next two years. GWB, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the clowns are not done yet with what they originally set out to do and it's obvious that they don't care what the American public thinks any more.

I hope you Americans who support GWB are happy in knowing that your man is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people (including thousands of dead Americans) and that these deaths are NOT going to stop any time soon. The world is a much more dangerous place ever since the American people gave GWB the freedom to spread his form of terrorism around the planet.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over