Bush: foreign policy nitwit, economic wizard

[Wyldgusechaz]

He gets an F by me for the war in Iraq.

However there is no way to argue with his brilliance at economic policy. On April 24th the US Treasury/IRS had the single highest tax revenue take in history and tax revenues are running $190 billion ahead of the previous highest level.

He reduced taxes and revenues climbed by record numbers.
Supply side econ works!!!! There is no arguing with numbers.

Bump him to a D -

Goes hand in hand with my treatise on taxes=bad (in general)

 

[Lex]

For a straight guy you sure do give Bush a lot of verbal fellatio.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

For a straight guy you sure do give Bush a lot of verbal fellatio.

I guess this would rank under the phrase *any blow job is a good blow job.*

The guy has the tax rolls humming and the economy humming. Its the truth. However wasting American lives is an unforgivable sin. I guess gay progressives think a D minus is a good grade. No wonder you guys seem to never *get it*

 

[Jimbopete1]

Ok, well think of what will happen if we pull out. You are a fucking idiot if you think that the terrorists won't take the opportunity to strike us, not to mention every other organization which wishes to see the U.S. go down. Bush isn't "wasting American lives" he's doing something that you wouldn't have the balls to do--fight for a cause which is right.

 

[Matthew]

You are a fucking idiot

It's OK, I talk to the mirror too.

Ok, well think of what will happen if we pull out. You are a fucking idiot if you think that the terrorists won't take the opportunity to strike us, not to mention every other organization which wishes to see the U.S. go down. Bush isn't "wasting American lives" he's doing something that you wouldn't have the balls to do--fight for a cause which is right.

"What will happen if we pull out" will look pretty much exactly like what is happening right now -- except our soldiers won't be in the crossfire, and Halliburton won't be able to manipulate Iraq's oil supply.

And if you think the war in Iraq is keeping terrorists from striking us, YOU'RE THE IDIOT. Furthermore, a unilateral, first-strike war with trumped-up justification can never, never be right. If you disagree, YOU'RE THE TERRORIST too.

As far as who's got the balls to do what, you are far too green to judge that here, n00b. But hey - thanks for alerting us so quickly to your excellent qualifications for ignore list candidacy. Thanks for playing and have a super life.

 

[Onslow]

He gets an F by me for the war in Iraq.

However there is no way to argue with his brilliance at economic policy. On April 24th the US Treasury/IRS had the single highest tax revenue take in history and tax revenues are running $190 billion ahead of the previous highest level.

He reduced taxes and revenues climbed by record numbers.
Supply side econ works!!!! There is no arguing with numbers.

Bump him to a D -

Goes hand in hand with my treatise on taxes=bad (in general)

Ok, well think of what will happen if we pull out. You are a fucking idiot if you think that the terrorists won't take the opportunity to strike us, not to mention every other organization which wishes to see the U.S. go down. Bush isn't "wasting American lives" he's doing something that you wouldn't have the balls to do--fight for a cause which is right.

Sadly both of you are in trouble if you think you will find any major amount of support for your views here in LaDiDa Liberal Land where the only good Republican is one who is out of office and Hillary and her band of Demogreedics are all to be hailed and praised. This in a nutshell (insert the insides of any liberal's head) is why I do not get involved in most politically themed matters here. It is one sided and even if you hand the facts to the Cloudsitters they will deny it and blame Junior and his crew. Increased revenues or anything good? Why that obviously all goes back to Bubba Clinton and his incredible foresight.

 

[Shelby]

The levels of despair around here are going to be amazing after Fred Thompson whups Hillary.

 

[Ethyl]

He gets an F by me for the war in Iraq.

However there is no way to argue with his brilliance at economic policy. On April 24th the US Treasury/IRS had the single highest tax revenue take in history and tax revenues are running $190 billion ahead of the previous highest level.

He reduced taxes and revenues climbed by record numbers.
Supply side econ works!!!! There is no arguing with numbers.

Bump him to a D -

Goes hand in hand with my treatise on taxes=bad (in general)

I must be missing something. If you're happy about taxes being reduced, why are you bitching (in your other thread) about how much you're paying?

 

[Principessa]

For a straight guy you sure do give Bush a lot of verbal fellatio. :tongue: :biggrin1: ROTFLMAO

I guess this would rank under the phrase *any blow job is a good blow job.* evidently so.

The guy has the tax rolls humming and the economy humming. Its the truth. Really and having the tax rolls humming is good because . . . However wasting American lives is an unforgivable sin. I guess gay progressives think a D minus is a good grade. No wonder you guys seem to never *get it* You Guys?

Ok, well think of what will happen if we pull out. You are a fucking idiot if you think that the terrorists won't take the opportunity to strike us, not to mention every other organization which wishes to see the U.S. go down. Bush isn't "wasting American lives" he's doing something that you wouldn't have the balls to do--fight for a cause which is right.
Remind me again, what the cause is and why he is right.

 

[madame_zora]

However there is no way to argue with his brilliance at economic policy. On April 24th the US Treasury/IRS had the single highest tax revenue take in history and tax revenues are running $190 billion ahead of the previous highest level.

He reduced taxes and revenues climbed by record numbers.
Supply side econ works!!!! There is no arguing with numbers.

Actually, that's not completely true. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, the way to make numbers lie is to present the facts without all the information as to how they are collected and assesed. Take his "figures" on unemployment, they look low. But then you realise that anyone unemployed for longer than (two months, I believe) simply falls off the scale. They don't cease to BE unemployed of course, they just cease to be reported. Then you realise that the buffoon is including the military in the "employed", and that seems fair enough, until you understand that when/if the war ever ends, we have the number of men and women who are fortunate enough to return looking for work in a tight economy- people who will be needing increased healthcare from their injuries.

Supply side economics doesn't work, it never has long term. You can dick around the figures enough to make it appear advantageous in the short term, but it's a nonsense concept that we've tried to impose over and over to no avail. bush is no economic wizard, he just knows that a good ol' war is healthy for a certain segment of the economy- the wealthy. For the less-than-wealthy, it means a larger separation between the classes and a big serving of death.

Wizard? Hardly, just a soulless bastard getting rich.

 

[D_Herin_Ghan]

While Bush is an absolute horror case in terms of free speech, lack of censorship and foreign policy (as a Libertarian, it's why I hate his guts), he actually has done some really good things for the economy. A lot of people forget just how many people were laid off, and lost jobs after 9/11. Things have improved on a huge scale since then.

While others will probably flame me for this, it's certainly true. Everyone needs to realize that this guy has fucked us over in new and inventive ways in terms of foreign policy, he's done some smart things for our own economy at home.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

I must be missing something. If you're happy about taxes being reduced, why are you bitching (in your other thread) about how much you're paying?

I want everyone's taxes reduced, not just mine. I use myself in first person to engender discussion. I like the lightning rod effect.

Actually having thought about it a bit, I want the threshold for zero income tax, which is now about $40K for a family of 4, raised to $50 or 60K.

I really don't want my taxes reduced. I am really happy with the way things are now. I sure don't want them raised. My gut tells me if a family of 4 had less tax and more money to spend, the economy would be even stronger.

I want things to be better for YOU. I am fine. The knee jerk response tho is to say we need more taxes, thats what Hilary is saying along with Pelosi. Do we tho? The numbers say no.

I want MercurialBliss ( and anyone for that matter) to be able to set up her own design house and not pay a cent till she makes at least $60K You being able to set up and create your own future is my goal. I think taxes suppress that.

What do you think, MB?

PS did you see Valk's rant on Scandanavian health care?

 

[madame_zora]

While Bush is an absolute horror case in terms of free speech, lack of censorship and foreign policy (as a Libertarian, it's why I hate his guts), he actually has done some really good things for the economy. A lot of people forget just how many people were laid off, and lost jobs after 9/11. Things have improved on a huge scale since then.

While others will probably flame me for this, it's certainly true. Everyone needs to realize that this guy has fucked us over in new and inventive ways in terms of foreign policy, he's done some smart things for our own economy at home.

Yeah, especially like keeping the war going the whole fucking time he's in office! This way, by the time the soldiers come home and the economy tanks, it'll look like someone else's fault, preferably a democrat!

I'm not flaming you, just disagreeing vehemently.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

Actually, that's not completely true. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, the way to make numbers lie is to present the facts without all the information as to how they are collected and assesed. Take his "figures" on unemployment, they look low. But then you realise that anyone unemployed for longer than (two months, I believe) simply falls off the scale. They don't cease to BE unemployed of course, they just cease to be reported. Then you realise that the buffoon is including the military in the "employed", and that seems fair enough, until you understand that when/if the war ever ends, we have the number of men and women who are fortunate enough to return looking for work in a tight economy- people who will be needing increased healthcare from their injuries.

Supply side economics doesn't work, it never has long term. You can dick around the figures enough to make it appear advantageous in the short term, but it's a nonsense concept that we've tried to impose over and over to no avail. bush is no economic wizard, he just knows that a good ol' war is healthy for a certain segment of the economy- the wealthy. For the less-than-wealthy, it means a larger separation between the classes and a big serving of death.

Wizard? Hardly, just a soulless bastard getting rich.

My numbers come from the Treasury/IRS. I would not trust any politicians numbers. I also thought supply side was not possible. But the numbers do not lie. I don't argue with 2+2=4. Believe in the facts and then act accordingly. What is true in Iraq is also true in economics.

 

[Onslow]

Yeah, especially like keeping the war going the whole fucking time he's in office! This way, by the time the soldiers come home and the economy tanks, it'll look like someone else's fault, preferably a democrat!

You are failing to see the bright side here. Now, whereas the entire Iraq thing may seem incredibly bad and all a blunder on Junior's part, keep in mind that by keeping that chaotic mess going, Junior is actually helping to keep the economy on an upward trend. Weapons need to be manufactured, military vehicles and other gear, and of course uniforms. All of this means jobs jobs jobs which means money money money which pumps dollars into the coffers of the tax man and boosts the economy and all of those taxes help to fund the military action which means more weapons will be needed to be manufactured. So you see, Junior is much wiser than you give him credit for being. And yes, when the economy tanks it will be the fault of the Democrats seeing as how they want to end this military action over in Iraq. Doing so will end jobs where weapons are made, end employment for vehicle manufacturers and end jobs for uniform makers. This ending of jobs will mean less tax dollars and less earned dollars to be pumped back into the open air of the economy.


Let us all now show our gratitude to Junior and his brilliance.








STOP LAUGHING

 

[B_big dirigible]

I also thought supply side was not possible.

Curious. Why did you think that? "Supply side" is the only thing which is, in the long term, possible. Anything else relies, basically, on materializing money from air. Economic prosperity comes from successful business activity, not government redistribution. Even if government inefficiencies and thievery could be (magically) eliminated, no program of taxation can generate wealth.

There may, of course, be short-term exceptions.

 

[madame_zora]

My numbers come from the Treasury/IRS. I would not trust any politicians numbers. I also thought supply side was not possible. But the numbers do not lie. I don't argue with 2+2=4. Believe in the facts and then act accordingly. What is true in Iraq is also true in economics.

Well, if you can only absorb 2+2=4, that's fine. You may want to start asking why 2 is 2, what is keeping it at 2, is it stable, what could affect it, causing it to become 3 or 1?

You didn't address the soldiers returning. Well, a republican doesn't have to address that since they have no intention of bringing them back. War without end, amen, amen! What you've really said is that our people dying is great for the economy. We already know that, it's just not a sacrifice worth making. Supply side economics usually gets introduced surrounding wars, no? Crack open a history book and see if you can find me an example of it being successful in peacetime. Merchants of death don't impress me much, I find it revolting and base. Ewww.

F- on economy until I can find ONE example of it surviving a war.
F- on foreign policy
F- on "family values", "homeland security", education, employment, wages,
civil liberties, crime (most of America has far higher murder rates than in 1999, wonder why that is, with all these happily employed people making so much cash?)

C+ on manipulation of information presented to the public. I would say A if it were true, but it's even been sloppy, to add insult to injury. Sadly, what's worse than that is that C+ work is adequate to convince most people. This is why I hate most people.

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

Well, if you can only absorb 2+2=4, that's fine. You may want to start asking why 2 is 2, what is keeping it at 2, is it stable, what could affect it, causing it to become 3 or 1?

You didn't address the soldiers returning. Well, a republican doesn't have to address that since they have no intention of bringing them back. War without end, amen, amen! What you've really said is that our people dying is great for the economy. We already know that, it's just not a sacrifice worth making. Supply side economics usually gets introduced surrounding wars, no? Crack open a history book and see if you can find me an example of it being successful in peacetime. Merchants of death don't impress me much, I find it revolting and base. Ewww.

F- on economy until I can find ONE example of it surviving a war.
F- on foreign policy
F- on "family values", "homeland security", education, employment, wages,
civil liberties, crime (most of America has far higher murder rates than in 1999, wonder why that is, with all these happily employed people making so much cash?)

C+ on manipulation of information presented to the public. I would say A if it were true, but it's even been sloppy, to add insult to injury. Sadly, what's worse than that is that C+ work is adequate to convince most people. This is why I hate most people.

Where, anywhere have I said that? Please be honest, MZ. I said wasting American lives is an unforgivable sin. Its in the OP.

Can't we have a reasonable discussion w/o lying?

 

[Wyldgusechaz]

Curious. Why did you think that? "Supply side" is the only thing which is, in the long term, possible. Anything else relies, basically, on materializing money from air. Economic prosperity comes from successful business activity, not government redistribution. Even if government inefficiencies and thievery could be (magically) eliminated, no program of taxation can generate wealth.

There may, of course, be short-term exceptions.

I did not trust it would work. Voodoo economics? I have read Arther Laffers theories, didn't believe them. I now have to re think my own beliefs in the face of the numbers. I keep an open mind.

 

[madame_zora]

Where, anywhere have I said that? Please be honest, MZ. I said wasting American lives is an unforgivable sin. Its in the OP.

Can't we have a reasonable discussion w/o lying?

Now who's being disingenuous? I typed out TWICE that the economy is showing a false postitive because of the war, and you've avoided it twice. I asked you to show when, ever, our society has thrived from supply-side economics apart from a war, and you've preferred instead to nit-pick sematics. You don't HAVE an answer, I get it, but you can't just pretend that our economy is NOT tied to the war, so you can appear compassionate, but still make your smug observation. Bullshit.