Bush





Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Discus: College Confidential Café: 2004 Archive: Bush
By Waffle (Waffle) on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 08:49 pm: Edit

Are you for GW Bush or against him and why?

I'm against him because of how he is corrupting government. He, the cabinet, and congress are hiding what they're doing. Does anyone even know what kinds of bills are being passed anymore? The government doesn't tell anyone what they're doing anymore now that Bush is here. They just tack on stupid bills to "necessary" war bills. They want to reinstate the draft!

By Babybird87 (Babybird87) on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 09:32 pm: Edit

oh God...this is going to end up like the "if the election was held today" thread in High School Life...

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 11:59 pm: Edit

Spend your time reading the 320 posts on this in the precollege life board.

By Mominterrupted (Mominterrupted) on Friday, June 25, 2004 - 11:58 pm: Edit

President Bush is not from Texas-he's from Connecticut. This cowboy facade is a joke. He & daddy have bought their way thru politics, and not legally. He is deceitful & in league with powerful crooked people- hiding his tarnished past from the American public. Spent all of the padding that Clinton admin left and put us in a deficit so huge our children's children's children will pay dearly. $120 billion+ Iraq debacle and rising. Our infrastructure crumbling, schools are a mess, states are broke, we're #37 in the world in healthcare quality. Incidentally because of his pillaging our nation's $, your college tuitions are soaring, health care deductibles and premiums are tripling, and the cost of eating is rising faster than mom & dad's annual 2% raise (if they are lucky to get one). PS- The draft is coming. And did you know they just passed a bill that you will only be allowed to finish one semester? And, we signed a treaty with Canada that they will not harbor conscientious objectors. The draft is coming as surely as the snow will in January. What happened to everyone's backbone. I wish I were young again! Wake up young people. Time to take your country back.

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 12:01 am: Edit

I would like you to know that the Democrats, not the Republicans, are the ones in Congress attempting to reinstate the draft.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 01:01 am: Edit

they are only doing it as a scare tatic in opposition to bush

but basically there will be no draft

By Gottagetout (Gottagetout) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 02:55 am: Edit

>President Bush is not from Texas-he's from
>Connecticut. This cowboy facade is a joke.
Good opinion. Venom much?

>He & [sic] daddy have bought their way thru [sic]
>politics, and not legally. He is deceitful &
>[sic] in league with powerful crooked people-
>hiding his tarnished past from the American
>public.
Such as...? Did you hate Clinton, too? If not, then hypocrisy.

>Spent all of the padding that Clinton admin left >and put us in a deficit so huge our children's >children's children will pay dearly. $120
>billion+ Iraq debacle and rising.
Padding from... projected budgets? There was very little surplus -- the rest was projected -- a projected surplus that didn't take into account the tech bubble, 9/11, or the Afghan/Iraqi wars. Also, the last half of Clinton's presidency was presided over by a Republican congress...

>Our infrastructure crumbling,
By infrastructure you mean...? Surely not telephone, water, sewage, electrical, mass transit. Are you referring to interstate highways? Hmmm... there is a bill in the works but as it stands, it is quite bloated -- something that you advocate against.

>schools are a mess,
Schools are not federal business, Bush has little to do with this. He did pass the "No Child Left Behind Act" but that alone hasn't made America's schools "a mess".

>states are broke,
And... we're just coming out of an economic downturn before which states spent wildly and without reason. They need to cut bloat. This, again, has little to do with Bush.

>we're #37 in the world in
>healthcare quality.
Which is pretty damn high for a nation that's not socialist. Also, where do you get this number/by what metric? Is Canada higher? I would speculate it is. Why is it then that Canadians flock over our border to get procedures done? Oh, right, socialized healthcare isn't all it's cracked up to be.

>Incidentally because of his
>pillaging our nation's $ [sic],
This implies that Bush is taking money from the federal treasury and putting it into his private accounts. Something that is definitely not happening.

>your college tuitions
>are soaring,
Economy.

>health care deductibles and premiums
>are tripling,
Economy.

>and the cost of eating [sic] is rising [sic]
>faster than mom [sic] & [sic] dad's annual 2% raise (if they
>are lucky to get one).
The cost of food is increasing due to the state of the world economy, increased energy prices, and inflation. Bush is tenuously related through the Iraq war.

>PS- The draft is coming. And did you know they
>just passed a bill that you will only be allowed
>to finish one semester?
This "feature" is in the proposed draft legislation which has NOT been passed but rather stagnated in committee since winter.

>And, we signed a treaty with Canada that they
>will not harbor conscientious objectors. The
>draft is coming as surely as the snow will in
>January.
The Canada treaty was passed in 2002. It was an extradition treaty amendment -- not specifically for the draft. The most ominous thing the treaty established was temporary surrender of prisoners. I read the treaty, personally. There is nothing about specific crimes. See http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/BillBrowse.cgi?dbname=107_cong_documents&wrapperTemplate=DocsBrowse_wrapper.html&type=tdoc if you don't believe me. It's Treaty 107-11. Furthermore, Canada is one of 44 countries with extradition treaties with the US. So darn, if you want to dodge the draft and refuse to serve for your country, you might just have to go to Cuba. In addition, no one wants a draft. Remember the '60s and '70s? No one wants riots. We don't need traditional military. The legislature hates the idea. Bush and Kerry both oppose the draft.

>What happened to everyone's backbone. I wish I
>were young again! Wake up young people. Time to
>take your country back.
What happened to your commonsense and logic? From your profile, you appear to be of the hippie generation.

Overall, the post was ill informed, vitriolic, illogical, and overly filled with fear, uncertainty and doubt. If you must bash, do not so as to not make a fool of yourself.

By Ares15 (Ares15) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 03:17 am: Edit

">He & [sic] daddy have bought their way thru [sic]
>politics, and not legally. He is deceitful &
>[sic] in league with powerful crooked people-
>hiding his tarnished past from the American
>public.
Such as...? Did you hate Clinton, too? If not, then hypocrisy."

Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, Bush used his legacy and old money to sneak into Yale where he graduated with primarily C's on his transcript.

"a projected surplus that didn't take into account the tech bubble, 9/11, or the Afghan/Iraqi wars."

You mean a surplus that didn't take into account a ridiculous intelligence failure and the launching of a costly war against a soverign nation that didn't provoke us?

"Our infrastructure crumbling,
By infrastructure you mean...? Surely not telephone, water, sewage, electrical, mass transit."

Perhaps she meant power? Like the time when the largest power outage in the history of the country (world?) happened.

By Gottagetout (Gottagetout) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 05:27 am: Edit

"Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, Bush used his legacy and old money to sneak into Yale where he graduated with primarily C's on his transcript."

This is true but somehow I have difficulty reconciling going to Yale and getting C's through "connections" and perjury, sexual assault, Watergate, insider trading (Hillary), Vince Foster, Gennifer Flowers, draft dodging, marijuana, etc. Lots of scandals. These also qualify as deceitful, in league with powerful crooked people and hiding his tarnished past from the American public.

"You mean a surplus that didn't take into account a ridiculous intelligence failure and the launching of a costly war against a soverign nation that didn't provoke us?"

That is only one of three major components I mentioned. Furthermore, our national intelligence capabilities have waned since the early nineties. Bush may have been able to do something, but largely the problem was lower down and not realized before 9/11. The point about preemptive war against a sovereign nation is quite valid and I, too, question the validity of it. Bush, however, thought for whatever reason (I give him the benefit of the doubt and think it was UN resolutions) that war was needed. I wonder why we couldn't have used some kind of special ops strike force? Or infiltrated with spies and then special ops strike force? :-/

"Perhaps she meant power? Like the time when the largest power outage in the history of the country (world?) happened."

Perhaps. I'm not certain what this has to do with Bush and so I assumed she meant highways. You could argue that he was indirectly responsible for the huge outage but environmental protections, poor planning and engineering and inadequate precautions were closer to the incident than Bush.

I would like to thank you, Area15, for bringing up good points and defending them well. I hope you and yours are well.

Cheers,
GottaGetOut

By Ares15 (Ares15) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 05:43 am: Edit

Bush is the first president in the history of this nation to be elected with a criminal record. He did coke, was an alcoholic, got a DUI and misled the country so that he could to to war with Iraq and have hundreds of Americans die. In my opinion, these things outweigh a sex scandal and smoking weed.


"Bush, however, thought for whatever reason (I give him the benefit of the doubt and think it was UN resolutions) that war was needed."

I don't buy it. It's pretty clear he had an underlying agenda. Perhaps it could be because Sadaam tried to assasinate his dad. Let's be brutally honest; Bush is an assh*le. He sent in U.N. inspectors, as a formality, to find those nonexistent WMDs, which he "knew" Sadaam had. After enough pressure, Sadaam eventually said what the hay, let the inspectors do their thing, completely giving into Bush's demands. Bush then went on national television and said Sadaam you can no longer have your country because I say so. Shortly thereafter we invaded his country and now look at the mess we're in. Digusting.

By Jaug1 (Jaug1) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 12:40 pm: Edit

*Cheers from the large stadium listening to Ares15*

Although Ares15 admitted he is more Conservative, he realizes what is wrong with the President and I thank him for his honesty and intelligence. He is well educated and understands that political leanings can only go so far when making an argument.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 12:44 pm: Edit

"This is true but somehow I have difficulty reconciling going to Yale and getting C's through "connections" and perjury, sexual assault, Watergate, insider trading (Hillary), Vince Foster, Gennifer Flowers, draft dodging, marijuana, etc. Lots of scandals. These also qualify as deceitful, in league with powerful crooked people and hiding his tarnished past from the American public. "

Is that all about clinton?
Watergate was Nixon for starters.

Hillary has never been convicted nor charged with insider trading.

Vince Foster committed suicide. There is no goverment conspiracy. You have a better chance convincing me Tupac is still alive.

The President's sex life is his own business...but where the hell does sexual assault come from? Do you even know what that means?

Draft dodging is another interesting topic you bring up. I forgot Bush was a four star general...

And the most ironic point in your whole post "marijuana". Please Please Please do not try to defend Bush by saying Clinton experiemented with marijuana. He tried it once when he was 13 years old. Wait here comes the ironic part: Mr. Bush received a DUI (not quite your purple heart) is an admitted alcoholic of the past and yes yes even a cocaine user. Good stuff.

By Babybird87 (Babybird87) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 01:54 pm: Edit

No, I don't believe at all that Bush was a cocaine user. Until I hear that from his own mouth or his dealer, I won't believe it either.
It's just like saying Clinton raped someone. I won't believe it until I have proof. Those are felonies that you can't simply throw around and hope one sticks on a politician you don't like.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 02:51 pm: Edit

first off bush was arrested for dui ... "The Republican candidate for president acknowledged for the first time on Thursday that he was arrested for driving under the influence on Labor Day weekend in 1976, near his family home in Kennebunkport, Maine. "

as to the cocanie allegation, it is true. To assimilate it with a "clinton-rape" analogy is pointless because the latter has no grounding at all. Bush may have actually been arressted for it in 1972, however the record was expunged due to his father's influence.

http://www.progress.org/archive/drc12.htm
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine/

By Babybird87 (Babybird87) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 03:28 pm: Edit

"George W. Bush Jr. has a cocaine problem."

The first link proves absolutely nothing. It just states and restates that sentence and makes weird allegations that supposedly are hard line "proof".

The second link is a disreputable source. No one has confirmed any of this. It's all speculation.

Most of his critics are not even touching this subject because it is just that, speculation, and dabbling in it is very petty.

The Clinton-rape analogy has no grounding at all?
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/10/2/43829

It all comes down to who you believe. Do you believe Mr. Hatfield, from salon.com? Or do you believe Mr. Bush?

Do you believe Juanita Broderick, who says she was brutally raped? Or do you believe Mr. Clinton?

By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 03:39 pm: Edit

Bush committed a crime (DUI) years ago. Clinton committed a crime or two (perjury, sexual harassment) while in office and while a governor. His home state disbarred him.

"Sex scandal" does not adequately show how damaging his actions were. Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Gennifer Flowers probably ruined their lives in speaking out about what happened. Clinton repeatedly used his power to coerce women sexually. Monica Lewinsky, regardless of how willing she was, was not in any position of power to say "no" after a while. Her partner was the President of the United States; she was a 21-year-old without connections or power of her own. That situation is very intimidating.

Watergate, anyone? Ah, the Clintons were at it again.

The economy... my my. The President has little, if anything, to do with it. Almost any economic policy which is passed takes about 3-5 years to affect the country. Also, economic cycles are entirely normal - the economy goes up, corrects itself, there is a recession, then it goes up again. Not like any President(or any individual, for that matter) has control over that!

How on earth does the power outage have anything to do with GW? If you believe that it does, you're up there (or long surpassed) those who believe that Vince Foster was murdered.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 03:52 pm: Edit

"It all comes down to who you believe. Do you believe Mr. Hatfield, from salon.com? Or do you believe Mr. Bush? "

The probelm is that Mr. Bush has never denied it. He has only made very conflicting and ambiguous statements about how he had a wild childhood and the past is the past

By Babybird87 (Babybird87) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 04:04 pm: Edit

if Bush ever denied it, would that make you any more likely to believe him? No. Lindsay Lohan denying that she had breast implants doesn't make anyone believe her.

Bush is better off not responding to reporters low enough to debase themselves by asking questions about his supposed cocaine habit.

By Mac87 (Mac87) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 11:44 pm: Edit

i wonder if he was drinking Busch beer?

anyway, it's stupid to use something that happened almost 30 years ago as a reason to personally attack someone, which happens way to often

By Topper (Topper) on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 05:55 pm: Edit

My Gosh. So Bush committed a crime. So did Clinton. To be honest, I don't think either of these issues should have anything to do with what kind of president either of them were/are. I'm a little conservative, but even with this mindset, I don't believe that Clinton's privacy should have been invaded like it was throughout that entire situation. The same goes for Bush. I would hope that we can look at both of these men's policies instead of focusing on the petty issues.

On an entirely different note, here's a video that attacks politics in general. Take a look: http://www.jibjab.com/thisland.html

By Thinkingoutloud (Thinkingoutloud) on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 10:20 pm: Edit

Hats off to Gottagetout. You may be one of the few who can out wonk TheDad. (see TheDad's posts, if you won't understand.)

By Stephenpmi (Stephenpmi) on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 10:46 pm: Edit

Why I'm voting for Bush:

1. National security: This is absolutely indisputible...following 9/11, the United States has experienced no significant terrorist attack. I like proactivity as it relates to foreign policy. I feel confident with Bush in the Oval Office--not only to prevent future attacks, but also to deal with those which occur.
2. Kerry's unspectacular voting record: Kerry consistently votes to raise taxes. He is in favor of taxing the rich more. What an incentive for them to continue making money and building our economy!
3. The economy: Our economy is definitely picking up...definitely not as fast as our President said it would, but it is still starting to come back. It is obvious that W has made mistakes as related to our economy, but we are now starting to see some of the positive results of his plans. Why stop them now?
4. Iraq: Regardless of whether this war was justified, it is indisputible that the United States has made Iraq a better place. You can point out as many small exceptions as you want, but by and large, Iraq is free from tyranny.
5. Social issues: Bush's views on social issues align closely to mine.

Areas where I feel we could use improvement:
Education
Environment

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 10:57 pm: Edit

>>>>>>>>>>>>1. National security: This is absolutely indisputible...following 9/11, the United States has experienced no significant terrorist attack. I like proactivity as it relates to foreign policy. I feel confident with Bush in the Oval Office--not only to prevent future attacks, but also to deal with those which occur.

yea, great point. he should definitely prevent the attacks, but no biggie if they occur. he's just going to deal with them, right?

>>>>>>>>2. Kerry's unspectacular voting record: Kerry consistently votes to raise taxes. He is in favor of taxing the rich more. What an incentive for them to continue making money and building our economy!

that's horrible. you mean he's trying to prevent the rich from getting richer? how can someone be so bold as to try to lessen the economic gap between the rich and the poor? psh, outrageous..

>>>>>>>>>>3. The economy: Our economy is definitely picking up...definitely not as fast as our President said it would, but it is still starting to come back. It is obvious that W has made mistakes as related to our economy, but we are now starting to see some of the positive results of his plans. Why stop them now?

president? w? mistakes? naww...

>>>>>>>4. Iraq: Regardless of whether this war was justified, it is indisputible that the United States has made Iraq a better place. You can point out as many small exceptions as you want, but by and large, Iraq is free from tyranny.

yup, just like the terrorist attacks made america a better place...except for all those "small exceptions" such as thousands of deaths and the fact that we didn't want them.

>>>>5. Social issues: Bush's views on social issues align closely to mine.

wow, that is definitely a plus.

By Stephenpmi (Stephenpmi) on Saturday, July 17, 2004 - 11:13 pm: Edit

1.

yea, great point. he should definitely prevent the attacks, but no biggie if they occur. he's just going to deal with them, right?

>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, what I said was that Bush's antiterrorism plans have worked...and IF an attack were to happen, I have much more confidence that he would handle the situation better than Kerry.


2.
that's horrible. you mean he's trying to prevent the rich from getting richer? how can someone be so bold as to try to lessen the economic gap between the rich and the poor? psh, outrageous..

>>>>>>>>>>Do you not get it? It doesn't make sense to make those who have (generally) worked harder and smarter pay a higher tax percentage. It is fundamentally unfair.

4.

yup, just like the terrorist attacks made america a better place...except for all those "small exceptions" such as thousands of deaths and the fact that we didn't want them.

>>>>>>>> Comparing the Iraq war to 9/11? That's twisted.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 12:29 am: Edit

>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, what I said was that Bush's antiterrorism plans have worked...and IF an attack were to happen, I have much more confidence that he would handle the situation better than Kerry.

and IF an attack were to happen, bush's antiterrorism plan would have failed...right?

>>>>>>>>>>Do you not get it? It doesn't make sense to make those who have (generally) worked harder and smarter pay a higher tax percentage. It is fundamentally unfair.

and life is just so, so fair for the people born in slums who can't get out of their situations because of the taxes they have to pay.

>>>>>>>> Comparing the Iraq war to 9/11? That's twisted.

nobody likes my comparisons. i'm just saying that 9/11 was the creation of a whack job, killed thousands of people, and was unasked for. the whack job in question was doing it to fulfill his personal agenda and convinced the people actually carrying out the attacks that it was best for the world.
the war in iraq is also the creation of a whack job, has killed thousands of people, and was unasked for. the whack job in question was doing it to fulfill his personal agenda and he convinced the people who were actually carrying out the attacks that it was best for the world.

is it just me, or are there some parallels there?

By Simba (Simba) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 12:45 am: Edit

No LisaSimpson, it's not just you. Majority of people think that way too.

By Fenix_Three (Fenix_Three) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 01:02 am: Edit

Yeah okay, Bush and Kerry of them weren't perfect citizens. As for the war in Iraq and homeland security they are both planning to continue with the current plan of keeping US safe... I don't entirely agree, but since I have no choice I see no reason to debate this matter.

As for taxing the rich, Stephenpmi, if you know anything about the economy you should know that things such as taking more money from the rich and giving it back to the poor (oh, Robinhood) actually stimluate the economy by increasing spending among the lower income people and decreasing saving % among the rich. Which would of course raise demand thereby lowering unemployment. And since one can only alleviate unemployment or inflation at a time, I'd say that this seems like a pretty good idea.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 01:07 am: Edit

you're absolutely right. wow, i can't believe people are actually on my side. i'm used to debating on this board solo.

thanks guys!!

By Smhop (Smhop) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 01:25 am: Edit

QUOTE "Sex scandal" does not adequately show how damaging his actions were. Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Gennifer Flowers probably ruined their lives in speaking out about what happened. Clinton repeatedly used his power to coerce women sexually. Monica Lewinsky, regardless of how willing she was, was not in any position of power to say "no" after a while. Her partner was the President of the United States; she was a 21-year-old without connections or power of her own. That situation is very intimidating."


this is not pro/con presidents, but just comment on what you said:

That cracks me up. 1) these women did not ruin thier lives, instead they became instant celebrities, household names, and are making money through talk shows, books, lecture circut etc. 2) For Lewinski, folling around with Mr. President was NOT intimidating, it was empowering-- she surely acted out this for her own benefit, like any proper courtesan throughout history, its usually the woman who has power over the man.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 01:34 am: Edit

http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/index.asp

check that out! Funny & non partisan.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 01:37 am: Edit

hah, some of those are hilarious. non partisan, though? i don't know about that.

By Smhop (Smhop) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 02:27 am: Edit

Well some are make fun of one group, and a few make fun of other groups... so i think its got a little something for everyone, regardless of party affiliation. =)

By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 02:49 am: Edit

In my opinion Bush is the Chairmen of this great nation we call the United States. His stringth isnt in him, but it is in the people he delegates power to. The true stringth of a president shouldnt lie in him it should lie in his choices for the members of his cabnet. This is a true democracy. In my opinion if a president ever tried to consolidate power in himseilf the united states would be on the road to a dictatorship.

I am a moderate republican and personally i think bush is flawed in some areas where religon surpasses logic as a decision, but most of all the bush administration has looked to history to solve the problems of today. ex (hitler- sadam) (reanomics- bushinomics {if there is a thing})
As far as taxation goes I believe in the gospal of wealth it is the wealthy's responsibility to give back to the world which has given them so much. I believe the definition of wealth these days, in my opinion the rich are people with more millions then years. doctors are not rich they work hard and earn and usualy deserve what they get paid. I may have been rambiling around with this but i will make one final hypothesis 9/11 would have happened to any president that took office unless they started to prepare for terrorism the minuit they took office, but the easyiest way to solve terrorism is braver americans.

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 01:19 pm: Edit

"The true stringth of a president shouldnt lie in him it should lie in his choices for the members of his cabnet. This is a true democracy"

Allow me a minute to reflect on the irony and sheer stupidity of that statement.

de·moc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Not sure what your skewed definition of a democracy is but I felt it necessary to consult the dictionary. WE DONT ELECT CABINET MEMBERS. So somehow you feel giving them all the power makes a true democracy? Hypocrisy of Democracy yes, true democracy no.

BTW, you can elect John Smith as President of the United States and he would have enough foresight to surround himself with intelligent cabinet members. That in no way is a positive attribute of Bush...he would be dumber than I thought if he could not adequately surround himself with competent people. If that is what you base your vote on than I am worried.

"but the easyiest way to solve terrorism is braver americans."

uhhhh whatever you say

By Stephenpmi (Stephenpmi) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 01:23 pm: Edit

As for taxing the rich, Stephenpmi, if you know anything about the economy you should know that things such as taking more money from the rich and giving it back to the poor (oh, Robinhood) actually stimluate the economy by increasing spending among the lower income people and decreasing saving % among the rich. Which would of course raise demand thereby lowering unemployment. And since one can only alleviate unemployment or inflation at a time, I'd say that this seems like a pretty good idea.

>>>>> Can you cite an example where this has worked?

The President realizes that it doesn't make sense for 10% of the people to pay 90% of the taxes. I simply cannot understand why it makes sense for Americans to give more of their money to the government...which is what will happen if we elect Kerry.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 01:25 pm: Edit

>>>>In my opinion Bush is the Chairmen of this great nation we call the United States.

for real? and all this time i've beeen thinking he was the president

>>>>>>but most of all the bush administration has looked to history to solve the problems of today.

i agree he's looking at history, but probably more along the lines of 12 years ago to see what daddy did and finishing what daddy wanted to do if americans would have been stupid enough to elect him for a second term.

i can ony hope that americans know they made the right decision back then, and that history will repeat itself.

By Skiowad (Skiowad) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 01:28 pm: Edit

I wouldn't say that Bush's antiterrorism tactics have worked. Al-Qaida isn't looking for small attacks. They want large scaled attacks and attacks that will affect our country as a whole (WTC, Pentagon, possibly the WH). If al-Qaida wanted to, they could easily hit our malls/homes/etc. but the damage wouldn't be as significant. If nothing happens within the next few months, then you can say that his tactics have worked. We'll see.

How would Americans acting braver win the war on terror? I don't understand that. Explain please.

By Stephenpmi (Stephenpmi) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 01:36 pm: Edit

I wouldn't say that Bush's antiterrorism tactics have worked.

>>> There have been numerous examples of the administration foiling potential terrorist attacks. There have been no attacks on United States soil since 9/11. Can't you just concede one point?

By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 01:44 pm: Edit

Stephenpmi, 9/11 took somehting like 6 years of planning before the attack was executed. There is no way to know if more attacks are to come or not. One thing you can be fairly certain about, not enough time has elapsed for Al-Qaida to execute another 9/11 type attack. Therefore it is impossible to judge Bush's antiterrorism tactics. What exactly are his tactics btw? Invade any and all countries that he feels are "harboring terrorists" based on faulty intelligence?

As to your economy question, there are tons of examples of fenix stated. It is basic economics. Read up on it yourself as it seems you need to

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 03:08 pm: Edit

No, I don't support Bush. My biggest concern, though, is not the White House. I'm hoping the Democrats can take over the Senate this year. We need some balance in Washington.

By Jlq3d3 (Jlq3d3) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 03:19 pm: Edit

I am really hoping Bush will win, but it wont be the worst thing if he doesnt, because most likly the senate and house will remain republican, and we will have glorious gridlock like we had under Clinton, who had to act like a moderate because there was a strong republican congress. But I still hope Bush wins and focuses on cutting spending this coming term. His liberal spending (while not as liberal as kerry would be) and stem cell research are the only major gripes I have with him.
Anyway, all this political arguing this past month is starting to bore me. None of us will change our votes.

By Stephenpmi (Stephenpmi) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 05:22 pm: Edit

As to your economy question, there are tons of examples of fenix stated. It is basic economics. Read up on it yourself as it seems you need to

>>> I still haven't seen any models with concrete proof. And, I can assure you, for every instance where this has worked, there is an exception.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 05:39 pm: Edit

>>> I still haven't seen any models with concrete proof. And, I can assure you, for every instance where this has worked, there is an exception.

umm, i'm pretty sure that means you want examples? just think about it logically. if the poor don't have money to spend, they don't buy things. when they don't buy things, businesses go bankrupt, which causes more unemployment, which causes poor people to have even less money, and it's like a cycle. if the poor don't extra money to spend, they're going to save up what little they do have instead of using it to buy things, which would stimulate the economy. when you tax the rich more heavily and then give the money to the poor, the poor people can go to the store and buy things, which causes more demand for products, and new businesses can start, which reduces unemployment. and so on.

i'm not sure if that's completely right, since i don't know anything about the economy and haven't taken that course yet in school. it seems to make sense, though. now please tell me how there could be an exception to that. give me "models with concrete proof", if you will

By Annakat (Annakat) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 05:40 pm: Edit

bush cutting spending?!?! are you on crack? 87 billion recently for a failed policy in iraq? what about no child left behind? he promised it, passed it, then refused to fund it. is that the kind of spending you want him to cut? if you study your history, you'll see that republican administrations and republican-controlled congresses actually spend more money than democrat-controlled ones do.

regarding W's strong position on the war on terror and national security--it seems pretty clear that bin laden and the meat of al quaeda are in the mountains between afghanistan and pakistan, yet there are less than 30,000 US troops in afghanistan while about 150,000 are in iraq. links between iraq and al quaeda? only dick cheney, that foul-mouth (and proud of it), is still trying to perpetuate this lie. the war in iraq created and continues to create more terrorists. extremists from all over the middle east are flocking to the country--energized to fight against us. but then so are many US corporations, particularly halliburton and their sub-contractors, energized to make millions. john kerry believes in creating a real coalition of countries, by allowing them to participate in the rebuilding of the country that W's policies destroyed--to clean up W's and rummy's mess essentially. yes, it's great that saddam is out of power, but we went about it the wrong way, and we're going to be paying for it with our taxes and a more dangerous world.

oh, and the economy is so not improving as much as republicans would like you to believe.

two numbers to watch in the run up to the election:
-the body count,
-the job numbers.

everyone check out this site: www.electoral-vote.com.

By Stephenpmi (Stephenpmi) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 06:02 pm: Edit

>>>> You can tax everyone evenly without giving free handouts. The Bush system still provides very minimal taxation for those with lower incomes. Also, this system fails to recognize that 'the rich' spend money as well. Redistribution of wealth is awfully socialist if you ask me.

The Bush system is a working example of somewhat-equal taxation. Now, I still feel the (good) effects are coming, as we've seen with employment numbers going up, but we won't see the true effects of his plan for a few years. Also, Reaganomics could be used in some regards as a model.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 06:54 pm: Edit

>>>>>>>The Bush system is a working example of somewhat-equal taxation. Now, I still feel the (good) effects are coming, as we've seen with employment numbers going up, but we won't see the true effects of his plan for a few years. Also, Reaganomics could be used in some regards as a model

how would equal-taxation result in increased employment?

By Stephenpmi (Stephenpmi) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 07:04 pm: Edit

His economic plan as a whole is working...if the economy improves (because there is more money in it), more jobs are available.

Equal taxation (not really equal, just more fair) is starting to prove effective in stimulating the economy.

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 07:17 pm: Edit

what do you mean by "more fair" taxation?

By Stephenpmi (Stephenpmi) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 07:30 pm: Edit

I mean that there still isn't a flat tax rate of, oh, say 10% (and there probably shouldn't be). The very poor pay virtually no taxes (I'm talking 20k and under) and the percentage rises from there. I'm saying that the tax percentage between middle class American and wealthy America is becoming more consistent. I'll get actual numbers later.

By Hayden (Hayden) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 09:42 pm: Edit

I don't have much of a handle on economics, but what I don't understand is how we compare tax rates. It seems like everyone talks about adjusted gross income, not about gross income. So if you have a guy who makes 50K a year, with no deductions, he pays tax on 50K.

but if you have a kagillionaire, with money in all sorts of shielded financial instruments, the guy could be receiving $5mm a month, but he still could only be paying tax on the adjusted amount, which could be 50K a year.

When we look at what tax people pay, why don't we look at the gross amount?

By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 11:13 pm: Edit

uhh...because...it's gross!!! ew!!

By Riflesforwatie (Riflesforwatie) on Sunday, July 18, 2004 - 11:23 pm: Edit

www.electoral-vote.com is good, but his (or her) methodology is flawed. He? only uses the most recent poll for a state and declares it for that candidate without analyzing the results or average multiple data points. Try www.swingstateproject.com for a Democratic-slanted projection, or home.comcast.net/~gerrydal/ for a Republican-slanted projection.


Report an offensive message on this page    E-mail this page to a friend
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page