NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm tired of people criticising Bush. A COPMPLETE IDIOT can easlily find something HE did wrong. So, now your in for the hard stuff, say something NICE about Bush, something he right, or complement him otherwise.

Okay, I'll start first: I think Bush's policies on fighting terrorism are comendable.

Remember, no saying something bad about Bush, we don't need to hear it, a retard could find a thousand things wrong about the guy, so get to niceness! :p

Okay, I'll start first: I think Bush's policies on fighting terrorism are comendable.

No they're obviously not, he's made the USA close to the Nazi state, with the police as the Gestapo and Homeland Security as the SD, without anything seemingly being done.

But anyway, urmm... he did stop drinking for a bit, I suppose.

George Bush is.... No, I can't say it... Waitsec... No, sorry can't.

I'm sorry, It's just too hard.

Uhm, I believe there is already a very similar thread...

He won't live forever.

That's a fact and a neutral statement.

He likes baseball, mountain biking, and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.
I like baseball, mountain biking, and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

That's about the extent of it really.

His offspring are bangable.

IMS one or both of his daughters is teh hawtness.

George Bush is.... No, I can't say it... Waitsec... No, sorry can't.
Oh, come on, I said something nice about Clinton!:eek:

<snip>
Okay, I'll start first: I think Bush's policies on fighting terrorism are comendable.

! :p
No, they're actually pretty lousy and ineffectual. Sometimes even counterproductive.

On the plus side, he can't run for president again.

Oh, come on, I said something nice about Clinton!:eek:
He has good hair.

What are you, 12 years old?

OK lets see, who do you think is cuter, Ashton Kutcher or Bush?? Neee hee hee hee hee heee :rolleyes: I like Bush, hes got such a cute ass Heee heeee!

No they're obviously not, he's made the USA close to the Nazi state, with the police as the Gestapo and Homeland Security as the SD, without anything seemingly being done.

But anyway, urmm... he did stop drinking for a bit, I suppose.


There have been no more terrorist attacks on US soil, thats an accomplishment we can be sure that Bill Clinton didn't do, and neither Kerry nor Gore could have done. Oh wiat yes we can bet they would have done it, by surrendering and proclaiming Osama to be the Caliph of the United States.

There have been no more terrorist attacks on US soil, thats an accomplishment we can be sure that Bill Clinton didn't do, and neither Kerry nor Gore could have done. Oh wiat yes we can bet they would have done it, by surrendering and proclaiming Osama to be the Caliph of the United States.

Why does Al Quaeda need to attack the US again when it's already won by creating an atmosphere of fear and paranoia in the 'States that has yet to dissipate, that the govt is working on and most Americans have yet to object to?

At least Bush hasn't started a nuclear war yet.

There have been no more terrorist attacks on US soil, thats an accomplishment we can be sure that Bill Clinton didn't do, and neither Kerry nor Gore could have done. Oh wiat yes we can bet they would have done it, by surrendering and proclaiming Osama to be the Caliph of the United States.
What the fuck? Clinton actually took advice from Richard Clarke, the top counterterrorism guy in the first Bush's whitehouse and under Clinton. Bush ignored him despite the fact that he was warning the administration to take Al Qaeda seriously. Clinton bombed Afghan Al Qaeda camps and would have gone further if the Republicans and the media didn't hamstring his efforts by claiming he was "wagging the dog" (using military actions to distract the nation from domestic issues). Get your facts straight. Clinton was the most agressive anti-terrorist president we've ever had. Bush is a blundering moron when it comes to counterterrorism.

There have been no more terrorist attacks on US soil, thats an accomplishment we can be sure that Bill Clinton didn't do, and neither Kerry nor Gore could have done. Oh wiat yes we can bet they would have done it, by surrendering and proclaiming Osama to be the Caliph of the United States.

Prove that more attacks would have happened were it not for your Orwellian "prevention measures".

Oh, come on, I said something nice about Clinton!:eek:

Oh well then. Fine...

George Bush's various Bushisms give me a chuckle.

He has done more than any other US President to discredit America.

Depending on your politics, that is a nice thing.

There have been no more terrorist attacks on US soil, thats an accomplishment we can be sure that Bill Clinton didn't do, and neither Kerry nor Gore could have done. Oh wiat yes we can bet they would have done it, by surrendering and proclaiming Osama to be the Caliph of the United States.
Because I'm sure you have sound, concrete evidence that makes this point totally accurate. You know, like the pro-caliphate plank from the 2004 Democratic platform? It was totally there on their website.

There have been no more terrorist attacks on US soil, thats an accomplishment we can be sure that Bill Clinton didn't do
That reminds me of Lisa Simpson telling her father that the rock she is holding scares off bears, because there aren't any around. :rolleyes:

It only takes one bit of Breaking News, and what you wrote instantly becomes crap.

That reminds me of Lisa Simpson telling her father that the rock she is holding scares off bears, because there aren't any around. :rolleyes:

It only takes one bit of Breaking News, and what you wrote instantly becomes crap.
And never mind the fact that we were utterly incapable of helping our British and Spanish allies dodge that bullet.

Umm, he's a very amusing president? Knows how to bring a smile to the voters faces

No they're obviously not, he's made the USA close to the Nazi state, with the police as the Gestapo and Homeland Security as the SD, without anything seemingly being done.

But anyway, urmm... he did stop drinking for a bit, I suppose.

Wow, I don't support Bush that much, but hell, you're an idiot for making that comparison.

He's a good source of material for comedians.

He's a good topic to discuss

Hey, where did Droskianishk go?

Hey, where did Droskianishk go?
Funny. I was just wondering the same thing.

He attempted suicide by 'choking' on a satly pretzel.

Ahm? He knows were to find good pubs?

Hey, where did Droskianishk go?

Clinton got him.

Clinton got him.
And is currently explaining to him why he should vote for Osama as Caliph in 2008. :p

And is currently explaining to him why he should vote for Osama as Caliph in 2008. :p
While violating him with a cigar and forcing him to perform fellatio, no doubt.

Ok...well...Dick Cheney is next in line for the presidency, followed by Ted Stevens, I think....so, the fact that Dubya looks healthy enough to finish his term is definitely a good thing.

something nice about President Bush...

He's a nice guy. He's not used to the lying and spin doctoring other Presidents were so good at doing before they took office.

if bush wasn't here, we'd only argue about creationism all the time

Wow, I don't support Bush that much, but hell, you're an idiot for making that comparison.

A far better comparison than most people saying "Oh yeah Chavez = Hitler."

Bush has cracked down on dissenters and put them in secret prisons, where they're tortured horribly. He's invaded many places 'pre-emptively'. He's given the police sweeping powers. It's all a bit Hitler-esque.

Well, he's not a psychotic dictator like Hitler or Stalin. He could have instituted a theocracy already but has abstained from doing so (actually, I'm not so sure about that). Uh, and he's not a pædophile.

He's folksy.

There have been no more terrorist attacks on US soil, thats an accomplishment we can be sure that Bill Clinton didn't do, and neither Kerry nor Gore could have done. Oh wait yes we can bet they would have done it, by surrendering and proclaiming Osama to be the Caliph of the United States.
I have a magic anti-tiger attack rock to sell you. When you carry it, I guarantee you won't be attacked by tigers. I have never been attacked by a tiger - proof surely that it works.
If it doesn't for some reason and you are attacked by tigers I'll refund you your money.


btw, I see like pretty much every bush apologist out there, you're conveniently overlooking the fact that the Afghanistan invasion was sanctioned, approved and supported by the international community - and still is. So your bs that Gore wouldn't have done anything is just that: Total Bullshit.
Pretty much the entire world was with America when it invaded Afghanistan. It was only when it started to make up shit to go after the "man who tried to kill my daddy" did the rest of us throw our hands in the air, give up and walk away thankful that we don't have a simple-minded idiot at the controls.

Here's a question for you:
Why would Gore have gone against popular public opinion - opinion not just in the states, but world-wide? Why would he, having witnesed the attacks (and at the time no doubt have been reading something a bit heavier than "The hungry goat") seen the devestation and the suffering, seen the Osama tapes gloating about it, felt the overwhemingly national and international support for invasion to bring these terrorists to justice. Why, having felt all that, would he have, as you put it "surrendered and proclaim Osama caliph"? because he's "a liberal"? Is that your answer? I expect it is.

Man, what a bitter twisted little mind, to hate anyone even slightly left of Bush so much that you live in such a state of dissonance and denial. It's just kinda weird and sad, really.

His offspring are bangable.
And if they take after their father (and by all accounts they do) are easily coerced into drunkeness.

Speaking of offspring, I suppose another good thing about Bush is that he's probably too old to father any more children.

Speaking of offspring, I suppose another good thing about Bush is that he's probably too old to father any more children.

And if not, I'd gladly kick him in the knackers so hard that he wouldn't hold a chance of it ever happening.

He's good for a laugh? :p

Well, he did manage to prove that anybody can grow up to be president.

1. Bush hasn't yet been caught cheating on his wife (but he's so dumb he would be discovered right away if he did)
2. He's made the news more interesting to watch with Iraq in chaos
3. He's mortal
4. He doesn't concern himself with petty grammar

I have a magic anti-tiger attack rock to sell you. When you carry it, I guarantee you won't be attacked by tigers. I have never been attacked by a tiger - proof surely that it works.
If it doesn't for some reason and you are attacked by tigers I'll refund you your money.


btw, I see like pretty much every bush apologist out there, you're conveniently overlooking the fact that the Afghanistan invasion was sanctioned, approved and supported by the international community - and still is. So your bs that Gore wouldn't have done anything is just that: Total Bullshit.
Pretty much the entire world was with America when it invaded Afghanistan. It was only when it started to make up shit to go after the "man who tried to kill my daddy" did the rest of us throw our hands in the air, give up and walk away thankful that we don't have a simple-minded idiot at the controls.

Here's a question for you:
Why would Gore have gone against popular public opinion - opinion not just in the states, but world-wide? Why would he, having witnesed the attacks (and at the time no doubt have been reading something a bit heavier than "The hungry goat") seen the devestation and the suffering, seen the Osama tapes gloating about it, felt the overwhemingly national and international support for invasion to bring these terrorists to justice. Why, having felt all that, would he have, as you put it "surrendered and proclaim Osama caliph"? because he's "a liberal"? Is that your answer? I expect it is.

Man, what a bitter twisted little mind, to hate anyone even slightly left of Bush so much that you live in such a state of dissonance and denial. It's just kinda weird and sad, really.
WRONG!!! THIS IS A "SAY SOMETHING NICE ABOUT BUSH" THREAD! STOP POSTING THIS!!

WRONG!!! THIS IS A "SAY SOMETHING NICE ABOUT BUSH" THREAD! STOP POSTING THIS!!
Maybe you should resign yourself to the fact that there really isn't anything nice to be said about Bush.

say something NICE about Bush

No.

He got rid of the Taliban. And according to an ABC news poll of Afghans ...
http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1363276
... the Afghan people are happy.

He got rid of the Taliban. And according to an ABC news poll of Afghans ...
http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1363276
... the Afghan people are happy.
No, he moved the taliban to Northern Pakistan and they come back every spring and summer to conduct terrorism against the Afghan people and government. If he'd concentrated on Afghanistan, instead of his foolish adventure in Iraq, by sending more troops and more money to rebuild the Afghan economy he might have destroyed the Taliban. As it stands, he's just moved them to Pakistan.

WRONG!!! THIS IS A "SAY SOMETHING NICE ABOUT BUSH" THREAD! STOP POSTING THIS!!
calm down Parkus. some people just cannot see any good in anyone unless it is blatently obvious.

No, he moved the taliban to Northern Pakistan and they come back every spring and summer to conduct terrorism against the Afghan people and government. If he'd concentrated on Afghanistan, instead of his foolish adventure in Iraq, by sending more troops and more money to rebuild the Afghan economy he might have destroyed the Taliban. As it stands, he's just moved them to Pakistan.
so you're saying he should've invaded Pakistan instead of Iraq?

when we scaled back in Afghanistan, the job was practially done. all that was needed was for the people to go the "Longest Yard" to their own government. that was so that thier Government was formed by them and not by "The Americans."

so you're saying he should've invaded Pakistan instead of Iraq?

when we scaled back in Afghanistan, the job was practially done. all that was needed was for the people to go the "Longest Yard" to their own government. that was so that thier Government was formed by them and not by "The Americans."
No, I'm saying that if he'd put more troops into Afghanistan to be able to seal the border region and prevent the Taliban and Al Qaeda from escaping so they could be massacred. Instead Bush let them escape through the mountain passes into a sovereign country armed with nuclear weapons and a leadership with a history of playing two sides against each other to get what they want.

No, I'm saying that if he'd put more troops into Afghanistan to be able to seal the border region and prevent the Taliban and Al Qaeda from escaping so they could be massacred. Instead Bush let them escape through the mountain passes into a sovereign country armed with nuclear weapons and a leadership with a history of playing two sides against each other to get what they want.
logistically speaking, we could've put every troop we had there and they still could've escaped. the problem is that the US doesn't know the territory and the Taliban did (with the help of local warlords.) It would've been impossible to seal off every pass.

logistically speaking, we could've put every troop we had there and they still could've escaped. the problem is that the US doesn't know the territory and the Taliban did (with the help of local warlords.) It would've been impossible to seal off every pass.
Fine, but you don't have to seal off every pass. The more passes you seal off, the more taliban and Al Qaeda you're likely to kill. Also the Taliban and Al Qaeda couldn't escape across every border. They'd be destroyed by the Uzbeks if they crossed that border. Iran's Shiite government might have an issue with Salafiyya Sunnis crossing into their border. The Turkmen and Tajiks would probably not shelter Taliban the way their Pashtu brothers in Pakistan do.

A little brains and more brawn would have severely crippled the Taliban and Al Qaeda's efforts to launch attacks into Afghanistan. Now we're dealing with the consequences of Bush's foolish actions. There have been battles raging around Kandahar recently. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are back with the spring.

Fine, but you don't have to seal off every pass. The more passes you seal off, the more taliban and Al Qaeda you're likely to kill. Also the Taliban and Al Qaeda couldn't escape across every border. They'd be destroyed by the Uzbeks if they crossed that border. Iran's Shiite government might have an issue with Salafiyya Sunnis crossing into their border. The Turkmen and Tajiks would probably not shelter Taliban the way their Pashtu brothers in Pakistan do.

A little brains and more brawn would have severely crippled the Taliban and Al Qaeda's efforts to launch attacks into Afghanistan. Now we're dealing with the consequences of Bush's foolish actions. There have been battles raging around Kandahar recently. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are back with the spring.
once they reached Pakistan (and they did so with the help of their allies within Afghanistan) the US could not hunt them down without invading Pakistan.

so the taliban would still be launching attacks into Afghanistan but instead of the locals and the US forces working together, the Local Afghan people would be pissed at the US because we would be bringing more soldiers in to do the job of the Afghan security forces (military et. al.)

once they reached Pakistan (and they did so with the help of their allies within Afghanistan) the US could not hunt them down without invading Pakistan.

so the taliban would still be launching attacks into Afghanistan but instead of the locals and the US forces working together, the Local Afghan people would be pissed at the US because we would be bringing more soldiers in to do the job of the Afghan security forces (military et. al.)
Would the same number of Taliban and Al Qaeda have reached safety in Pakistan? No. It would be a greatly reduced and weakened force. Do you think Taliban allies in Pakistan are working hand in hand with the US now? No. Those Afghans are our enemy just as much as the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Fact is Bush and company dropped the ball. They're weak on terrorism but what's worse, they're stupid on terrorism. Stupid solutions make the problem worse.

I'm tired of people criticising Bush. A COPMPLETE IDIOT can easlily find something HE did wrong. So, now your in for the hard stuff, say something NICE about Bush, something he right, or complement him otherwise.

Okay, I'll start first: I think Bush's policies on fighting terrorism are comendable.

Remember, no saying something bad about Bush, we don't need to hear it, a retard could find a thousand things wrong about the guy, so get to niceness! :p
I suspect none of you earn enough money to appreciate this, except maybe in abstract, but the tax cuts were essential to ending the Clinton recession.

I suspect none of you earn enough money to appreciate this, except maybe in abstract, but the tax cuts were essential to ending the Clinton recession.
How did Clinton cause the recession?

Why is he pushing to make the tax cuts permanent even though he's spending so much money?

Wouldn't putting money into repairing and building our national communications and highway infrastructure also have stimulated the economy too? Wouldn't that have been a better way to stimulate the economy because the effects would be long lasting and guaranteed to trickle down in the form of jobs?

These are honest questions, by the way. I just don't see why tax cuts are the only way to stimulate the economy.

How did Clinton cause the recession?

Why is he pushing to make the tax cuts permanent even though he's spending so much money?
Caused? Maybe not, but the stock market certainly was in decline in March of 2000.

Tax cuts generate revenue. Bush's budget-busting certainly needs all the revenue that can be generated. Tax hikes constrict the economy. Every thinking President has figured that one out. You can too.

Increasing the size of the government, as in a public works program is far more artificial than growing the private sector economy. The private sector earns it's own money, the government doesn't.

Bush wants to put the National Guard on the border to cut down on the number of illegal aliens entering the country.

Bush wants to put the National Guard on the border to cut down on the number of illegal aliens entering the country.
I'd say he has been forced to put the Guard on the border. I don't believe for a second that he _wants_ to do it. But parts is parts, if it gets done and slows down the invasion, I'm for it.

George Bush hasn't spontaneously combusted, due to massive internal pressure. I don't know if that's nice really, but it's true.:D

Caused? Maybe not, but the stock market certainly was in decline in March of 2000.

Tax cuts generate revenue. Bush's budget-busting certainly needs all the revenue that can be generated. Tax hikes constrict the economy. Every thinking President has figured that one out. You can too.
Revenue for government or for big tax payers?

Now I'll grant that tax cuts can stimulate the economy, but do they actually stimulate the economy better than simply leaving the tax rate alone and using some of that tax revenue to hire private corporations to do repair, maintainance and construction work on public buildings, roads, and such?

It seems to me that the money saved by a major company through tax cuts isn't necessarily going to be spent or invested in the USA, so it may not trickle down. Now government contracts to build and repair stuff have to trickle down to the American working man. Lucent isn't going to hire a crew of Indonesians to string fiber optic cable in Iowa, it's going to hire Americans who will spend that money on goods and services available in their community.

George Bush hasn't spontaneously combusted, due to massive internal pressure. I don't know if that's nice really, but it's true.:D
He has made the supermarket tabloid front pages. That's usually an honor that is reserved for such cases. Either that or the latest Hollywood bimbo "marriage" break-up.

No they're obviously not, he's made the USA close to the Nazi state, with the police as the Gestapo and Homeland Security as the SD, without anything seemingly being done.

But anyway, urmm... he did stop drinking for a bit, I suppose.

i wish there was time travel. because then we could send people who think we are living in a nazi government back to Nazi germany. then bring them back after a year and see if they still think this is a nazi government

How did Clinton cause the recession.

He didn't, but the recession had its beginnings during the last years of his term.

The economy was starting to slow unquestionably by May of 2000 and was negative in some places by October. However there was nothing he could have done to prevent it because the underpinnings of the recession had started as far back as 1997 during the Asian financial crisis; the situation was further worsened by the crash in oil and commodity prices in 1998.

The bursting of the tech bubble and the overtightening by the Fed in 2000 just expanded the worsening economy to the United States and provided the final push in to a world recession rather than a localized one. Unless Clinton could have magically predicted and averted the financial crisis, the dot-com bubble, and $10 oil there was no way no earth he could have prevented the 2001 recession.

He has made the supermarket tabloid front pages. That's usually an honor that is reserved for such cases. Either that or the latest Hollywood bimbo "marriage" break-up.
Huh? Why the quote?

I suppose he let himself get made fun of when he had that double of himself on stage with him that time. I suppose that was nice.

Revenue for government or for big tax payers?


Mainly government, actually. The wealthiest Americans' share of the total tax revenue is at its highest level since 1999, when the government made billions off of the stock market boom and the newly made stock market millionaires. In other words, it is taxation of the wealthy and their rapidly growing wealth that is helping to reduce the defict.

The bursting of the tech bubble and the overtightening by the Fed in 2000 just expanded the worsening economy to the United States and provided the final push in to a world recession rather than a localized one. Unless Clinton could have magically predicted and averted the financial crisis, the dot-com bubble, and $10 oil there was no way no earth he could have prevented the 2001 recession.

I think tax cuts, rather than government spending, were the best option to deal with the recession. And the recession of 2001 proved to be the mildest in US history (I don't attribute this entirely to tax cuts). The problem with the Bush income tax cut is the long-term nature of it: 2001 - 2010. There was no reason to make them so long term, and then include a sunset provision that sends tax rates back to 2000 levels in 2011.

Revenue for government or for big tax payers?

Now I'll grant that tax cuts can stimulate the economy, but do they actually stimulate the economy better than simply leaving the tax rate alone and using some of that tax revenue to hire private corporations to do repair, maintainance and construction work on public buildings, roads, and such?

It seems to me that the money saved by a major company through tax cuts isn't necessarily going to be spent or invested in the USA, so it may not trickle down. Now government contracts to build and repair stuff have to trickle down to the American working man. Lucent isn't going to hire a crew of Indonesians to string fiber optic cable in Iowa, it's going to hire Americans who will spend that money on goods and services available in their community.
Actually both. Look at it this way. A corporation has to figure its taxes into the price of a product. That's all part of the gross margin that we so often mistake for net profit. When the corporation doesn't have a huge tax bill, it can reprice its products and generate more sales. Because you and I have a lower tax bill, less is withheld from our pay, and we buy more. Maybe a new car, maybe a new boat. Maybe just a new 'fridge. But it all adds up.

So now what happens? I hope GE puts more folks to work on the line to build new refrigerators. More people work, more people pay taxes, maybe fewer people collect government benefits.

This even benefits me. When the government can spend more money because it's revenue has increased, I get to sell more antenna systems to the Army and Air Force. But the nice thing is that I get to sell them to Direct TV and DigitalGlobe, too, because more people are watching satellite TV and looking at Google maps.

Tax cuts just fix everything.

But what happens when we rely on deficit spending to create a few new jobs laying F/O cable? Maybe a hundred people get additional work. Maybe not. My company isn't going to hire a bunch of new laborers to do the work, we'll just keep it as backlog and do it when we can. It's a temporary fix at best.

Huh? Why the quote?
'Cause it reminded me of stories in the National Enquirer. What about it?

Mainly government, actually. The wealthiest Americans' share of the total tax revenue is at its highest level since 1999, when the government made billions off of the stock market boom and the newly made stock market millionaires. In other words, it is taxation of the wealthy and their rapidly growing wealth that is helping to reduce the defict.
Thanks for that info.

Wouldn't they benefit more though if they are given government contracts to improve the roads, railroads and communications infrastructure in the US? Not only is it more money flowing into the business' coffers, but afterward they're left with better infrastructure to move goods and to conduct business via internet. Couldn't such programs stimulate the economy more than simple tax cuts?

I think tax cuts, rather than government spending, were the best option to deal with the recession. And the recession of 2001 proved to be the mildest in US history (I don't attribute this entirely to tax cuts). The problem with the Bush income tax cut is the long-term nature of it: 2001 - 2010. There was no reason to make them so long term, and then include a sunset provision that sends tax rates back to 2000 levels in 2011.

The recession of 2001 was so mild that the unemployment rate, participation rate and homeownership rate were all stronger than they were during the mid 1980's expansion. The only difference was that GDP was negative and inflation was much lower. Of course, that is really part of a trend; each recession has gotten progressively milder since the end of WWII and unemployment has risen by much less.

It's very possible that recessions will no longer occur in the future in textbook terms...intermittent soft patches of slower growth and rising unemployment may be more realistic, and GDP growth might not ever turn negative in these periods.

I'd have to agree that 2010 is too long for the tax cuts. We run the risk more and more with each year of deficits that inflation will be worsened rather than growth strengthened, especially with 4.7% unemployment which is very close to full employment. They should have expired in 2007 and be gradually phased out over the 2008-2011 period at a rate dependent on the health of the economy during that period.

Actually both. Look at it this way. A corporation has to figure its taxes into the price of a product. That's all part of the gross margin that we so often mistake for net profit. When the corporation doesn't have a huge tax bill, it can reprice its products and generate more sales. Because you and I have a lower tax bill, less is withheld from our pay, and we buy more. Maybe a new car, maybe a new boat. Maybe just a new 'fridge. But it all adds up.

So now what happens? I hope GE puts more folks to work on the line to build new refrigerators. More people work, more people pay taxes, maybe fewer people collect government benefits.

This even benefits me. When the government can spend more money because it's revenue has increased, I get to sell more antenna systems to the Army and Air Force. But the nice thing is that I get to sell them to Direct TV and DigitalGlobe, too, because more people are watching satellite TV and looking at Google maps.

Tax cuts just fix everything.

But what happens when we rely on deficit spending to create a few new jobs laying F/O cable? Maybe a hundred people get additional work. Maybe not. My company isn't going to hire a bunch of new laborers to do the work, we'll just keep it as backlog and do it when we can. It's a temporary fix at best.
My tax bill doesn't drop enough to allow me to buy more.

Globalization has created a situation where many of the goods we buy are made elsewhere. For example an American car made by GM might be the product of Mexican factories. That means if GM puts more workers on the assembly line they won't necessarily be American workers.

Maybe neither system is perfect to stimulate the economy, but it seems to me that if you always rely on cutting taxes as your stimulus you will eventually reach a point of diminishing returns where government will start to lose revenue and the revenue left with the companies will go towards creating jobs overseas.

I'd have to agree that 2010 is too long for the tax cuts. We run the risk more and more with each year of deficits that inflation will be worsened rather than growth strengthened, especially with 4.7% unemployment which is very close to full employment. They should have expired in 2007 and be gradually phased out over the 2008-2011 period at a rate dependent on the health of the economy during that period.
The end of those tax cuts is going to trigger another recession. When I see my tax bill jump, the last thing I'm going to do is run out and buy a new car.

But, we could run the IRS out of town and implement the Fair Tax by then. Then you'd really have some GDP growth to watch.

George Bush is a great president.

He had a comedian who hates him speak. The comedian made political jokes against him for all the nation to hear. It was funny. So, Bush brought smiles to people's faces.

Bush wants to put the National Guard on the border to cut down on the number of illegal aliens entering the country.

Ya know.... I think that's the only thing I've agreed with bush.

Oh, apparently he likes bald people.

My tax bill doesn't drop enough to allow me to buy more.

Globalization has created a situation where many of the goods we buy are made elsewhere. For example an American car made by GM might be the product of Mexican factories. That means if GM puts more workers on the assembly line they won't necessarily be American workers.

Maybe neither system is perfect to stimulate the economy, but it seems to me that if you always rely on cutting taxes as your stimulus you will eventually reach a point of diminishing returns where government will start to lose revenue and the revenue left with the companies will go towards creating jobs overseas.
And my answer is posted above this. Abolish income tax. Then watch the economy grow. The United States will become the biggest tax haven in the world for international business. We won't make cars in Mexico anymore


If the NAFTA treaty has sent so many jobs to Mexico, why are the Mexicans still flocking to the United States for work?

Wouldn't they benefit more though if they are given government contracts to improve the roads, railroads and communications infrastructure in the US? Not only is it more money flowing into the business' coffers, but afterward they're left with better infrastructure to move goods and to conduct business via internet. Couldn't such programs stimulate the economy more than simple tax cuts?

Well, yes. Infrastructure is the backbone of growth, so investing in it does increase the efficiency and profitability of businesses.

However, the most effective way to do that is to both cut taxes and spend more through the use of deficits; disposable income rises resulting in more consumption which means more profits, and the money supply is expanded making it easier for companies to borrow for new projects and consumers for new purchases. Then, since the government can finance its debt it can still afford to pay for infrastructure improvements and government contracts. You get the benefits of both tax cuts and higher spending, along with the benefits of deficit spending.

There is a caveat to that, however. When the economy is at full employment, the deficits no longer help growth and start to crowd out private investment which results in higher inflation and ultimately a slowdown in growth. Also, excessive debt financing for the government results in a weaker currency and inflation in the price of imports and commodities resulting in more inflation and reduced profits.

He had a comedian who hates him speak. The comedian made political jokes against him for all the nation to hear. It was funny. So, Bush brought smiles to people's faces.
He cut taxes which made me happy :)

And my answer is posted above this. Abolish income tax. Then watch the economy grow. The United States will become the biggest tax haven in the world for international business. We won't make cars in Mexico anymore
You mentioned the Fair Tax. A good friend of mine is a big advocate of that scheme. I should really look into it more. From what he tells me it seems like a pretty good idea.


If the NAFTA treaty has sent so many jobs to Mexico, why are the Mexicans still flocking to the United States for work?
I don't know. Does a job on a Mexican GM assembly line pay as much as a landscaping job in San Diego?

The end of those tax cuts is going to trigger another recession. When I see my tax bill jump, the last thing I'm going to do is run out and buy a new car.

Well, then ideally the tax cuts would be reintroduced to help reinvigorate the economy. Hopefully, real disposable income will continue to grow fast enough that a rise in taxes will not seriously affect consumption...that's the big "what if" regarding any rise in taxes.

But, we could run the IRS out of town and implement the Fair Tax by then. Then you'd really have some GDP growth to watch.

Growth would really take off...but that won't happen due to the incessant footdragging in Congress that makes it impossible to undertake any sweeping changes.

He cut taxes which made me happy :)

Wow. You must have a lot of money considering in order to get this great big tax cut you must be in the top 1% of the American population who have most of the world's economic wealth already.

I don't know. Does a job on a Mexican GM assembly line pay as much as a landscaping job in San Diego?

I think the main problem is that there aren't enough jobs on the assembly line to absorb the surplus workers. Plus, Mexico has to compete directly with China, India, and South America for manufacturing plants.

He doesnt have terrible teeth.

Wow. You must have a lot of money considering in order to get this great big tax cut you must be in the top 1% of the American population who have most of the world's economic wealth.
Of course ;)

Of course ;)

Oh well. You sure showed me.:p

one good thing huh? ...

how about the fact that hes not my president? hahahaha *is canadian*

Well, he isn't my leader. But then we've got his bloody puppet as PM instead, so we can't really tell the difference.

He takes care of his dog. Which btw is a Scottish terrier and is the most important pet on this planet, flying in Airforce one and everything.

Oh well. You sure showed me.:p
I'm never serious, don't worry :)

You mentioned the Fair Tax. A good friend of mine is a big advocate of that scheme. I should really look into it more. From what he tells me it seems like a pretty good idea.
I don't know. Does a job on a Mexican GM assembly line pay as much as a landscaping job in San Diego?
www.fairtax.org. There's a rally in Georgia on Wednesday. Hopefully it will be so well covered that the idea will catch fire.

I don't know the what the relative wages are. I suspect that assembly line workers do okay. My old company moved a lot of assembly to Juarez and had trouble finding workers. Maybe the problem is that not enough industry has left the United States to cause an equilibrium in migration.

He takes care of his dog. Which btw is a Scottish terrier and is the most important pet on this planet, flying in Airforce one and everything.
I was watching CNN one day and bush was getting out of a helicopter, the dog poped out and took a shit, live, just for CNN :D

No. After all I must continue to appear to be a humourless liberal.

I'm with a lot of other people on this, the one and only thing I love about him is that his Bushisms make me smile. My goodness, what an "intelligous" man.

"If the Iranians were to have a nuclear weapon they could proliferate." —George W. Bush, Washington D.C., March 21, 2006
Come on, you've got to love that.

I'd say he has been forced to put the Guard on the border. I don't believe for a second that he _wants_ to do it. But parts is parts, if it gets done and slows down the invasion, I'm for it.

Well, this is a thread about "Say something nice," and although I am a conservative, it is increasingly difficult to find something nice to say about him.
Where the hell is the 3rd party when you need them?

I like his ears.

Other than that, I'm stumped.

He doesn't have a (biological) twin.

Something good about bush... I think it's hot. Women, don't shave!