NationStates Jolt Archive

I know it's a little early for all the "what will happen next year...?" threads, but I'm bored, and this thread got quite a bit of discussion going on another forum, so I thought I'd give it a shot.

Basically, Bush is reviled, by some, as one of the worst presidents in history. Equally, he's taken by some to be the best thing since Sliced Bread (Rep). I suppose, though, the question is mainly based at the former group: what could he do to change your estimations of him? Obviously, he can't undo the invasion of Iraq, or change what he's said on record: but he still has a good deal of his presidency left, and could still make some major policy decisions. Given that, realistically, he's not going to overturn Roe v. Wade like that, get caught sucking off John Bolton, or nuke France, what do you think he is likely to do, or at least could conceivably do, that would either tarnish what's thus far been a fine record, or win him back a degree of admiration?

I know it's a little early for all the "what will happen next year...?" threads, but I'm bored, and this thread got quite a bit of discussion going on another forum, so I thought I'd give it a shot.

Basically, Bush is reviled, by some, as one of the worst presidents in history. Equally, he's taken by some to be the best thing since Sliced Bread (Rep). I suppose, though, the question is mainly based at the former group: what could he do to change your estimations of him? Obviously, he can't undo the invasion of Iraq, or change what he's said on record: but he still has a good deal of his presidency left, and could still make some major policy decisions. Given that, realistically, he's not going to overturn Roe v. Wade like that, get caught sucking off John Bolton, or nuke France, what do you think he is likely to do, or at least could conceivably do, that would either tarnish what's thus far been a fine record, or win him back a degree of admiration?

Absolutely nothing. He's a lame duck.

Well, by appointing Ben Bernanke he's already made one good decision for this timeframe. If he can cut the deficit and liberalize trade some more, and top it off with a tax cut on capital gains, he'll have a great economic record. Given the sheer amount of crap thrown at the economy over the past years, his performance has been incredible in that regard.

I know it's a little early for all the "what will happen next year...?" threads, but I'm bored, and this thread got quite a bit of discussion going on another forum, so I thought I'd give it a shot.

Basically, Bush is reviled, by some, as one of the worst presidents in history. Equally, he's taken by some to be the best thing since Sliced Bread (Rep). I suppose, though, the question is mainly based at the former group: what could he do to change your estimations of him? Obviously, he can't undo the invasion of Iraq, or change what he's said on record: but he still has a good deal of his presidency left, and could still make some major policy decisions. Given that, realistically, he's not going to overturn Roe v. Wade like that, get caught sucking off John Bolton, or nuke France, what do you think he is likely to do, or at least could conceivably do, that would either tarnish what's thus far been a fine record, or win him back a degree of admiration?

It's too late for Bush - the _best_ he can hope for in his lame duck years is not to preside over any more screw ups, and perhaps start the long drawn-out process of restoring America's image overseas; he can't _finish_ it, obviously, not enough time, but he could potentially kickstart the process.

So much depends on the 2006 congressional elections. If the Democrats get a house of Congress back--either House; they don't need both--then you'll see a slew of resignations from Bush's cabinet and a bunch of hostile investigations and Bush will be irrelevant as far as any real decisions are concerned.

If the Democrats pick up seats but don't get control of either House, you'll probably see a little moderation out of Congress and Bush will still be a lame duck, seeing as there will be at least a half dozen Republican Senators who will be jockeying for the presidential nomination. The Democrats will be jockeying as well, but if they're not in power, it has less of an effect.

If the Dems lose seats, then who knows what will happen--it'll just be fucked up, whatever it is.

If the Dems lose seats, then who knows what will happen--it'll just be fucked up, whatever it is.
You sure don't have much respect for the vote of the majority, do you?

All this "lame duck" talk is gonna stop once the Alito hearings begin.. :D We'll see who's impotent..

All this "lame duck" talk is gonna stop once the Alito hearings begin.. :D We'll see who's impotent..

You mean the guy that even Arlen Specter has expressed SERIOUS doubts about? The guy who was part of a club at Princton that was against the idea of female students? The guy who, when working for the Reagan admin, penned many documents to the supreme court on how to "mitigate Roe v. Wade"? The only reason I can see that this guy has a snowball's chance in hell of getting confirmed is is because not EVERYTHING has come out... yet.

(Sc)Alito won't stand a chance. Not a single dem will vote for him, and if he gets confirmed on repo votes that will just engender even more resentment from an already disgusted American public.

Here's another interesting bit of news in the Washinton Post about the hijinks in the shrub's "home" state. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/01/AR2005120101927_pf.html)

Even the justice department isn't safe anymore.

You mean the guy that even Arlen Specter has expressed SERIOUS doubts about? The guy who was part of a club at Princton that was against the idea of female students? The guy who, when working for the Reagan admin, penned many documents to the supreme court on how to "mitigate Roe v. Wade"? The only reason I can see that this guy has a snowball's chance in hell of getting confirmed is is because not EVERYTHING has come out... yet.

(Sc)Alito won't stand a chance. Not a single dem will vote for him, and if he gets confirmed on repo votes that will just engender even more resentment from an already disgusted American public.

Whether or not he gets confirmed isn't relevant here.. he will, but that's another argument.. I was just having a laugh at people who like to call President Bush a lame duck so soon, while he's still making progress.. like I said, we'll see who the lame duck is next month when Alito is confirmed.. :)

So what progress is he making?

You sure don't have much respect for the vote of the majority, do you?
Respect, or hope, for their preference?

So what progress is he making?

For one, replacing Sandra Day O'Connor with a solid conservative nominee next month. Lame duck? I'd say not. That's a minimum 30-year term given average life expectancy.. let's hope Mr. Alito enjoys excellent health. We're making progress in other areas too, but SCOTUS appointments are reason enough to laugh at people who, after election day '04, said "well, he's a lame duck now, he can't do much." :p

Whether or not he gets confirmed isn't relevant here.. he will, but that's another argument.. I was just having a laugh at people who like to call President Bush a lame duck so soon, while he's still making progress.. like I said, we'll see who the lame duck is next month when Alito is confirmed.. :)

LOL. Dream on. That kool-ade is really going to your head. Like I said, no dem is going to vote to confirm, and if he's confirmed on only repo votes it will just show that the repos are no longer in touch with the people, and need to go.

Absolutely nothing. He's a lame duck.
A lame duck only a year into his second term? A bit of a stretch, methinks.

It woudl be nice if he stopped being a dick about softwood lumber.

LOL. Dream on. That kool-ade is really going to your head. Like I said, no dem is going to vote to confirm, and if he's confirmed on only repo votes it will just show that the repos are no longer in touch with the people, and need to go.

I'm willing to wager an entire e-nickel here.. Any takers? :D

A lame duck only a year into his second term? A bit of a stretch, methinks.
Social Security, Indictments, Supreme Court Nominees rejected, being constantly forced to debate Iraq and his own party turning against him. I'd say that the lame duck tag is apt.

Well, by appointing Ben Bernanke he's already made one good decision for this timeframe. If he can cut the deficit and liberalize trade some more, and top it off with a tax cut on capital gains, he'll have a great economic record. Given the sheer amount of crap thrown at the economy over the past years, his performance has been incredible in that regard.

exactly

though with a war to fight and the welfare state to fund for Democrats and with the unions hating all things free-trade (not to mention all the general pork that slithers its way onto most bills), those things won't be easy to accomplish.

Social Security, Indictments, Supreme Court Nominees rejected, being constantly forced to debate Iraq and his own party turning against him. I'd say that the lame duck tag is apt.

which supreme court nominee was rejected?

or are you talking about the one who withdrew her nomination?

the only ones constantly forcing the Iraq debate (there really is no logical debate -- we must win, we're there for a great reason, etc.) are the pinko-commie hippies who don't think freedom is worth anything.

hehe

If you need more proof of the "lame-duck" title", just look at the governator. He recently appointed a dem as his chief of staff, and is even ducking the republican governors association meeting in his own state. There's also several republican candidates for congress telling him in no uncertain terms to stay away from their campaigns. He's becoming more radioactive than U236.

Can you say "lame-duck" children, I knew you could.

which supreme court nominee was rejected?

or are you talking about the one who withdrew her nomination?

Yes, Miers.

the only ones constantly forcing the Iraq debate (there really is no logical debate -- we must win, we're there for a great reason, etc.) are the pinko-commie hippies who don't think freedom is worth anything.

Oh there is a logical reason. The longer he debates it, the further his poll numbers drop. Those pinko-commie hippies aren't stupid.

... what do you think he is likely to do, or at least could conceivably do, that would either tarnish what's thus far been a fine record, or win him back a degree of admiration?

He has already done it. The economy is doing well, housing starts are up, we are winning the war in Iraq, Saddam is being brought to trial, there will be elections in Iraq this month, Israel pulled out of the Gaza Strip, democracy is spreading throughout the mid-East, there have been limited elections in Saudi Arabia and will be in the UAE, Syria has pulled out of Lebanon and there have been elections there, Bush is starting to turn around on illegal immigration, so what more do you want?

You sure don't have much respect for the vote of the majority, do you?

Most liberals only respect the majority when it is a majority of liberals. :(

So, in keeping with the original nature of this thread, here is what the shrub could do to give me at least SOME respect for him.

1. be like Lincoln. That means he has to stop surrounding himself with only people who agree with him/tell him what to do or say. Lincoln listened to the advice of his detractors, and even appointed former opponents to his cabinet. Without even hearing what the opposition has to say one can't make sound leadership descisions. Continuing to shut out democrats only makes him look like a strongarming bully.

2. Roll back the wasteful tax cuts, and allow the government to pay for itself again. He doesn't even have to roll them back very far in order to meet budget shortfalls. Alan Greenspan is even getting tense over the hole we're in, not good...

3. Knock off this idiotic "stay the course" mentality, and start looking at reality. Realizing that things need to change, and admiting it would be a HUGE step toward showing the kind of character that a leader needs. Continuing to act like a petulant child is getting things nowhere. We need real plans and not publicity stunts.

what could he do to change your estimations of him?

Admitting his mistakes and learn from them. Still wouldn't like his ideals and morals, but would respect him for it.

LOL. Dream on. That kool-ade is really going to your head. Like I said, no dem is going to vote to confirm,...

I'll bet you five cookies Alito will get more than five democratic votes. I like peanut butter cookies. :D

2. Roll back the wasteful tax cuts, and allow the government to pay for itself again. He doesn't even have to roll them back very far in order to meet budget shortfalls. Alan Greenspan is even getting tense over the hole we're in, not good....

No, roll back the wasteful spending. If we wern't blowing billions of dollars on pork like the highway bill, we'd have a much smaller deficit. We also need to reinstitute the paygo system to help rein in spending and the tax cuts at the same time. Rolling them back would hurt the economy much more than it would help, and would just encourage Congress to waste more money while doing nothing to improve the deficit. If we don't control spending, raising taxes doesn't do anything.

I'll bet you five cookies Alito will get more than five democratic votes. I like peanut butter cookies. :D

Are you sure about that. That would make six you'd owe me, and that's a lot of cookies. And I thought you said you liked chocolate chip a while ago... Flip-flopper.

You sure don't have much respect for the vote of the majority, do you?
That's not it at all--I'm making a statement about the current state of the country under Republican leadership and what I feel the future will hold if there are no changes made in that leadership.

No, roll back the wasteful spending. If we wern't blowing billions of dollars on pork like the highway bill, we'd have a much smaller deficit. We also need to reinstitute the paygo system to help rein in spending and the tax cuts at the same time. Rolling them back would hurt the economy much more than it would help, and would just encourage Congress to waste more money while doing nothing to improve the deficit. If we don't control spending, raising taxes doesn't do anything.
Get real--if you want to balance the budget with spending cuts, there are only three places to go--Social Security, National Defense and Medicare. Everything else is pissing in the wind.

2. Roll back the wasteful tax cuts, and allow the government to pay for itself again. He doesn't even have to roll them back very far in order to meet budget shortfalls. Alan Greenspan is even getting tense over the hole we're in, not good...

Tax cuts are not wasteful; you must remember that taxes are money that is paid by the people. He could and should veto bills that contain wasteful spending. If we did that, we could meet the budget shortfalls without taking more money out of the taxpayer’s pockets.

Get real--if you want to balance the budget with spending cuts, there are only three places to go--Social Security, National Defense and Medicare. Everything else is pissing in the wind.

Not when we're spending 286.3 billion on the highway bill; that's costing us 57billion per year or about 20% of the deficit. This megapork spending is so large that scaling it back would cut out a big chunk of the deficit.

Of course, scaling back Iraq spending would also reduce it considerably, but it's impossible to do at present politically speaking.

Tax cuts are not wasteful; you must remember that taxes are money that is paid by the people. He could and should veto bills that contain wasteful spending. If we did that, we could meet the budget shortfalls without taking more money out of the taxpayer’s pockets.
No you can't, and I guarantee you that without dipping into the three above-mentioned programs, you can't come close to balancing the budget.

Tax cuts are not wasteful; you must remember that taxes are money that is paid by the people. He could and should veto bills that contain wasteful spending. If we did that, we could meet the budget shortfalls without taking more money out of the taxpayer’s pockets.

You say the "taxpayers" like the burden of the current tax system isn't already on the average joe middle to lower class americans. The "wasteful" part of the shrub tax plan is the huge boon it gives to the people who need it least. That's not a tax cut, it's a hand out to the wealthy, you know, the people the shrub calls "my base". Trim that, and you don't have to change anything for the rest of us that make less than 30k.

Not when we're spending 286.3 billion on the highway bill; that's costing us 57billion per year or about 20% of the deficit. This megapork spending is so large that scaling it back would cut out a big chunk of the deficit.

Of course, scaling back Iraq spending would also reduce it considerably, but it's impossible to do at present politically speaking.
How much of that bill is pork? Not all of it--some of it is for needed projects. Sure, it could be smaller, but you can't dump it all. Secondly, that's 20%--where's the other 80% going to come from?

Are you sure about that. That would make six you'd owe me, and that's a lot of cookies. And I thought you said you liked chocolate chip a while ago... Flip-flopper.

Chocolate chip for the other bets, peanut butter for this one. Varity is the spice of cookies. J A lot of cookies, yes but I’m sure you’ll be able to afford them when the Republicans make the tax cuts permanent. :eek: I'll have to buy a lot of milk for the feast I'm going to have. :D

Chocolate chip for the other bets, peanut butter for this one. Varity is the spice of cookies. J A lot of cookies, yes but I’m sure you’ll be able to afford them when the Republicans make the tax cuts permanent. :eek: I'll have to buy a lot of milk for the feast I'm going to have. :D

Calling arrogance "confidence" will only get you so far ;)

What's the next "confident" bet? That the shrub will be the first president to land on the moon?

Get real--if you want to balance the budget with spending cuts, there are only three places to go--Social Security, National Defense and Medicare. Everything else is pissing in the wind.

What about the wasteful spending in transportation the transportation bill and foreign aid? Do we really need to spend $1 million for a bus stop in Alaska? Gee, do we really need to spend so much for the UN? There is a lot of pork and un-necessary spending in the federal budget.

No you can't, and I guarantee you that without dipping into the three above-mentioned programs, you can't come close to balancing the budget.


Bullachoo.

What about the wasteful spending in transportation the transportation bill and foreign aid? Do we really need to spend $1 million for a bus stop in Alaska? Gee, do we really need to spend so much for the UN? There is a lot of pork and un-necessary spending in the federal budget.
Again--the deficit this year is going to be somewhere between $400 and $500 billion. Find that much in wasteful spending--find even two-thirds of that and then we can talk.

What about the wasteful spending in transportation the transportation bill...? Do we really need to spend $1 million for a bus stop in Alaska?

Republican Ted Stevens thinks so. He even threatened to resign over it. This was a republican sponsored and backed bill, and it passed on the backs of republican votes. If you want to blame someone for it, look no further than the GOP.

How much of that bill is pork? Not all of it--some of it is for needed projects. Sure, it could be smaller, but you can't dump it all. Secondly, that's 20%--where's the other 80% going to come from?

About 24 billion is "special projects", or undeniable pork.

However, the bill is also 33% larger than the 1998 bill (adjusted for inflation), but without the paygo system there is no provision for tax hikes or spending cuts to pay for it. As a result, this bill does considerably more damage to the budget than its predecessor.

Revenue growth could account for some of the deficit reduction; for 2005 revenue rose 14 percent while expenditures rose 7.9%; if growth continued at these rates the deficit would narrow to 226 billion, and if spending were slowed to 6% or 7% the deficit would shrink another 26 billion to around $200bln. Targeted tax hikes would close the gap even further, but these should be avoided unless it is certain they would have no or little adverse economic effect.

However, this doesn't take in to account the possibility of revenue growth slowing down due to macroeconomic factors, but it could be even stronger depending on the performance of the stock market and inflation next year.

Again--the deficit this year is going to be somewhere between $400 and $500 billion. Find that much in wasteful spending--find even two-thirds of that and then we can talk.

It could if we spend that 200 billion on rebuilding NO; if anything, we should redivert money to that region rather than deficit spend because that would likely worsen the economic situation rather than improve it.

Again--the deficit this year is going to be somewhere between $400 and $500 billion. Find that much in wasteful spending--find even two-thirds of that and then we can talk.

And to think the man started out in office with a budget _surplus_, I think? If so, give ole W a big hand! Not everyone can waste that sort of legacy so flagrently. Best of luck to whoever's next in office, heaven knows they'll need it...

...the shrub...

:confused: Also, please tell me something Democratic politician has ever done. Please, in $$ amounts, define "middle class." What is the minimum and maximum income bracket for a "middle class" single person, "middle class" couple, and "middle class" family of four?

Republican Ted Stevens thinks so. He even threatened to resign over it. This was a republican sponsored and backed bill, and it passed on the backs of republican votes. If you want to blame someone for it, look no further than the GOP.

I don't disagree with you one bit. Senator Dr. Tom Coburn (R. OK.) tried and failed to cut some of the pork from the bill but failed. Bush could have vetoed the bill and sent it back to have some of the pork cut, but he didn't. Who cares if Stevens resigned over it, the amount for the bus stop and bridge in Alaska is excessive and not all Americans should be expected to pay for it.

Elgesh']And to think the man started out in office with a budget _surplus_, I think? If so, give ole W a big hand! Not everyone can waste that sort of legacy so flagrently. Best of luck to whoever's next in office, heaven knows they'll need it...

Yes, he may have started with a budget surplus, but he also started without a war. How many wars has this country fought without a deficit?

Yes, he may have started with a budget surplus, but he also started without a war. How many wars has this country fought without a deficit?

The funny thing is, that surplus didn't really exist beyond 2001. In order for those surpluses to occur, the NASDAQ would have to be in the 25,000 range right now because they based them on dotcom bubble rates of equity/income growth.

Now, this doesn't in any way exonerate him for wasteful spending, but there was little he could have done to avert a decline in expected revenue.

Yes, he may have started with a budget surplus, but he also started without a war. How many wars has this country fought without a deficit?
How many wars have we fought without a tax increase--hell, how many wars have we fought while cutting taxes? This one, as far as I kow. Those tax cuts were irresponsible and continue to be irresponsible, especially since we're talking about a completely voluntary war--in Iraq, just to be specific.

Did anyone see the employment report for November? It was pretty good, especially for manufacturing.

How many wars have we fought without a tax increase--hell, how many wars have we fought while cutting taxes? This one, as far as I kow. Those tax cuts were irresponsible and continue to be irresponsible, especially since we're talking about a completely voluntary war--in Iraq, just to be specific.

Every war we have entered has been a "voluntary" war. Oh, I know in WW II we were attacked, but we rightfully decided to do something about it. The only other war that I know the US was involved in where we were attacked was the War of 1812, but the British did not attack us at the outset of the war.

Also, the tax cuts resulted in increased tax revenue, not decreased tax revenue so they actually allowed Congress a choice of reducing in the deficit or increased spending.

:confused:

You seem to have that happen a lot, are you off your thorazine again?

Also, please tell me something Democratic politician has ever done.

Well, first, there's more than one. Second, since you did say EVER, I'll start a few decades back. A democrat ended the great depression by initiating a program that created jobs across the country, and creating a progressive tax system where people who reap the most benefit from the country pay back the most for it (you know, "punishing the successful" as the repos inapproriately call it). Then there's that pesky civil rights act that went a long way toward helping minorities gain economic status. Two majors, but there are more.

Please, in $$ amounts, define "middle class." What is the minimum and maximum income bracket for a "middle class" single person,

Between 30 and 60k

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/class/index.html?excamp=GGGNmiddleclass) has a great source for this information, though I'm sure you couldn't be bothered to find it yourself

Well, first, there's more than one. Second, since you did say EVER, I'll start a few decades back. A democrat ended the great depression by initiating a program that created jobs across the country.

No, WWII ended the Depression. The New Deal did have benefits, but ending the Depression was not one of them. After all, there was a recession in 1937 four years after the New Deal was implemented. This program improved infrastructure and cushioned the worst effects of the Depression, for which FDR deserves credit. He did not, however, "end" it.

Also, the tax cuts resulted in increased tax revenue, not decreased tax revenue so they actually allowed Congress a choice of reducing in the deficit or increased spending.
Have they? I'm not so sure about that. (http://www.cbpp.org/7-12-05bud.htm)
* The recent revenue rebound has not made up for the large revenue shortfalls that have developed since 2000. The recent increase in revenues follows three consecutive years (2001-2003) in which revenues declined in nominal terms, an extremely rare occurrence, and a year (2004) in which revenues were lower as a share of the economy than in any year since 1959. Even with the recent increase, revenues in 2005 will remain well below the levels at which they were projected to be when the 2001 tax cut was enacted.

* Many of the factors behind the increase in revenues in 2005 are temporary. The expiration of a business tax cut at the end of 2004 is leading to an increase in tax collections of about $50 billion this year, according to past estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation. In this case, the increase in revenue stems from the termination of a tax cut, not from a tax cut’s effect in spurring the economy. The recent revenue increase also apparently reflects a rise in the stock market in 2004 that resulted in increased capital gains tax payments when tax returns for 2004 were filed earlier this year. This increase in the market, however, has not continued in 2005. Additionally, the corporate tax legislation enacted last October contained a provision (relating to profits that U.S. companies have earned abroad and kept overseas) that was designed to produce a one-time gain in revenues this year. The one-time gain will be followed by revenue losses in subsequent years. Another contributing factor is higher-than-expected inflation, which generates higher revenues. To the extent that 2005 and future revenues are higher because of higher inflation, this growth would be largely offset in later years by higher expenditures, most of which also respond to inflation. In fact, CBO’s new report projects faster growth of Social Security and other entitlement programs over the next ten years because it now expects faster inflation than it did in January.
The old saw that tax cuts increase revenue is a myth--they can jumpstart a struggling economy if they're targeted and temporary, but they do not increase revenue. The notion that you can grow your way out of deficits without eventually raising taxes has been disproven time and again. That doesn't stop people like Limbaugh from parroting the line over and over, and from people with no background in economics from believing it.

You seem to have that happen a lot, are you off your thorazine again?

No, but at my age it could be the start of dementia or Alzheimer’s. :eek:

The old saw that tax cuts increase revenue is a myth--they can jumpstart a struggling economy if they're targeted and temporary, but they do not increase revenue. The notion that you can grow your way out of deficits without eventually raising taxes has been disproven time and again. That doesn't stop people like Limbaugh from parroting the line over and over, and from people with no background in economics from believing it.

That's correct; the tax cuts do not recover lost revenue with the exception of one, the capital gains tax. Cutting that does increase revenue beyond the original amount, but the capital gains tax doesn't really bring in enough revenue to have a large effect on the deficit. It's good to cut if the budget is in good shape because of the economic benefits.

Between 30 and 60k

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/national/class/index.html?excamp=GGGNmiddleclass) has a great source for this information, though I'm sure you couldn't be bothered to find it yourself

Boy, am I glad to find out that I'm in the middle class. For a wihile I thought I might have to give back the tax cut the Republicans gave me.

There is no need to become surley. I have heard many Democratic politicians refer to "the middle class" but never have I ever heard one define the "middle class." Thank you for the link.

Originally Posted by Celtlund
Also, please tell me something Democratic politician has ever done.

Could you please show me where I said this? Please provide the link as I don't think I said it and am not suffering from Alzheimer’s or dementia, but I could be wrong.

Could you please show me where I said this? Please provide the link as I don't think I said it and am not suffering from Alzheimer’s or dementia, but I could be wrong.
Here you go. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10025619&postcount=46)

Could you please show me where I said this? Please provide the link as I don't think I said it and am not suffering from Alzheimer’s or dementia, but I could be wrong.

If you insist...

Here it is (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10025619&postcount=46)

Now go take your ginko.

Here you go. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10025619&postcount=46)

...gets coat...looks for keys...calls cab...goes to liquor store...asks clerk for blood test...says, "Yes sir," to policewoman...

Boy, am I embarrassed that I said that. I know some Democrats like Truman and Lieberman have done good things. Why did I ever say anything like that?

If he didn't have a war, he'd still be on vacation.

Unless he can secure a victory for the Republicans in Congress next year (and they must be loyal to him), his domestic agenda is dead, though I expect a pernament extension of his tax cuts to happen. However, he still has much power in foreign policy. Remember what Clinton did when his second term came?

...gets coat...looks for keys...calls cab...goes to liquor store...asks clerk for blood test...says, "Yes sir," to policewoman...

Boy, am I embarrassed that I said that. I know some Democrats like Truman and Lieberman have done good things. Why did I ever say anything like that?
:D It happens. I got busted in a thread a few days back by Deep Kimchi--not identical circumstances, but close enough.

though with a war to fight and the welfare state to fund for Democrats
Bush chose that war, he's not fighting it for the Denocrats. Too many supported it. but it wasn't their agenda. And goverment spending and deficit has skyrockted durring his time in office, but not because of huge increases in welfare payments, medicaid, or the like. 4 Billion dollar tax cuts for the oil industy last august, right before record setting profits for the quarter is one example of how Bush is loosing revenue. And its getting spent faster than it was in '96. For supporters of "smaller goverment", the republican congress has been very willing to spend taxpayers money on corperate wellfare and pork projects. The "welfare state" that Bush took over in 2000 was in less debt than we are now. :headbang:

Lets stop working to enrich the top 1%. Bush's tax cuts are enriching megacorps and the ultra rich. Working retail, I'd rather have my '96 taxes, tution rates, and public healthcare options.

Most liberals only respect the majority when it is a majority of liberals. :(

Equally, most republicans only respect the majority when it is conservatives.

Hell, the largest single block is those too apathatic to vote. Of course neither side respects the "silent" majority.