Alright, you asked for it. I’ll try to keep my wits about me, though the emotional base upon which this argument is built is quite tumultuous.
Why would I say that I “hate” George W. Bush? Isn’t that a little strong? Isn’t he just your average politician? Isn’t this just some natural extension of your overall left-leaning political views?
No, not really.
[…]
…the final mark of disrespect… the gut-level intuition that leads me to label him an EVIL man, rather than a merely despicable one is his casual contempt for human life. There aren’t words to describe the horror I feel when I see Bush look into the nation’s television cameras with that sadistic little smirk and tell us euphemistically, as if half-choking on a stifled snort that our enemies… “let’s put it this way: they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies.”
[…]
When I look at George W. Bush, I don’t see a patriot. I see a lying, psychopathic narcissist. And it pains me, it grieves me, it WOUNDS me to realize that this puts me not only in the minority… but in the “whacko fringe.”
— ‘Geoff’, Why I hate George W. Bush (via Len)
here here
I hate George Bush too, and I think your site is excellent.
He’s a liar and a murderer. Sending young men and women to Iraq knowing that they face certain death; and for what reason? He has sat in front of the television camera and lied to the American public. How can he be trusted?
And he’s such a good Christian
I hate (also detest, loath, deplore, revile and despise) George W. Bush because his persona is the smiling, vacuous and innocuous symbol of a movement rooted in mendacity, short-sightedness, venality and macho oppression. He stands for the new fascism, where reason, compassion, social justice and empathy are things to be sneered at, as the nation prostrates itself before the new altar of expediency. In the neo-con world it is truly dog eat dog, and people either fuck or get fucked. Anyone who would have it otherwise, or merely argue that laws and governments are intended to make it otherwise, is jeered as weak (i.e. a fuckee, not a fucker like the “alpha male” neo-cons, the self appointed fuckers of the world) and simple-minded. Ad hominem attack is their form of debate. They appeal to the basest motives of their audience (impoverish your neighbor before he gets yours) while blinding them to their own oppression. They indulge in lies piled on lies on lies. Cynical, classist manipulators with nothing but contempt for the people whose trust they fraudulently solicit and then betray, they have mastered the art of dressing up divisive appeals to selfishness and greed in nobler looking clothing. Naturally, like all scoundrels, they are fond of using lecturing other people over what to do in their bedrooms, or in their homes – while ignoring the most basic commands of religion regarding social responsibility. My God, I hate all of them, each and every one of the cynical lying bastards who put, and keep, Bush where he is, and drag us all down, betraying what I once believed in as the noble american experiment.
I hate him too, fucking hate him, and I don’t even live in the same country! I hate from a distance, projecting it over thousands of miles into his black, black, evil little chimp-man heart. I can’t believe that such a retard has been allowed to take control of the most powerful nation in the world. Everything he’s touched he’s broken in his whole life, he should’ve been drowned at birth, the shit.
He’s fucking retarded, the fucking fuck.
Nice to see some intelligent comments (sarcasm intended)
i agree whole heartedly. we need to get more people voting, so we can vote against him.
I really see no grounded arguements here. This is just liberals ripping on Bush for doing the inevitable. War, unfortunately, has been around for as long as humans have, for it is a part of human nature. To know and hate human nature is a better target of your rage; what you do is hate a single human for the consequences of a collective human nature. Don’t hate the player hate the game.
Grounded argument?? So Your a bushie eh?
Takes one to know one. You freeking PUKE. You are G.W. Bush !!
no grounded arugments is right.
the earlier comments should check some broadcasts from larry king either in early 2003 or late 2002 when he had Bill Clinton on. he gave Clinton an open shot at Bush about the Iraq thing, and instead of blasting him, he said “when we left office we knew he had WMD” “we couldn’t find them”. it was the one time I had respect for him. He was an effective president, but he conducted himself poorly with bad decisions concerning his private activites. You spend your whole life to get the ultimate job of running the country and you waste it on petty affairs. So instead of being remembered for the job you did, you are MORE remembered for the sex scandals etc….
but I digress…
Clinton said, “we had the same intelligence that every president has had before and after”
“it is not an easy job”
I would start to think that most of you probably agree with professor Dewdney on his theory than to believe that this threat should have been handled before.
consider this,
Clinton KNEW about al queda. HOW? remember the USS Cole? or how about 1993 attempted bombing of the WTC? They failed to act then and as a result we got 9/11. Boy, think how many lives could have been spared had Clinton and Gore decided to start a campaign to get osama bin laden? They kept tabs on him then too. That is neither here nor there and is certainly in the past.
Maybe the best thing Bush could’ve done was wait until he got osama, THEN iraq. But Saddam definately needed to go. When he goes on trial, he must face is accusers. Those whom he murdered and there surviving relatives.
I could eat my words “if” O’niell is NOT a disgruntled ex-employee with an ax to grind with his accusations about Bush from day one want to go after saddam.
but for now it is just heresay and the best way to boost sales on a book and make money.
DATED FACT: the plot to dive planes into the WTC was uncovered in 1995 or 1996, purely by accident when two al-queda members started a fire in their hotel room while making loads of bombs with timers etc… was on CNN this past sunday- Aaron Brown ” Seeds of Terror”
check it out before you go flying off the handle….
And remember, Bad officials are elected by the good citizens who do not vote!
FACT:
difference between Democrats and Republicans is this-
Democrats will always vote PARTY no matter what!
Republicans will support their party, but will not vote party if they feel that their “guy” is not a good choice!
We get the best government when we change it every four years, that goes for state, federal and local!! That way the corruption can’t set in!!!CAPICE?
Actually, RobSix, if you take a look at O’Neil’s new book that’s out, it’s suggested that the Hawks like Wolfowitz have been planning since the election in 2000 (since George Sr’s administration lost, probably) that they needed to go back in and finish the war. While I agree that SH was a Bad Man ™, and war is sometimes a necessary evil, I’m very hard pressed to understand why we had to be in both Afgahnistan and Iraq at the same time, for the same reason (preemptory strikes), when at least part of the reason was that Bush Sr’s administration team was still smarting from not being able to finish the job in ’92. It was unnecesary then, and the only necessity for going into Iraq this time was to get our hands on Iraqi oil (one of the largest reserves in the Mid East).
I understand that it’s hard to find biological weapons if they don’t want to be found, but given the tack we’re currently taking with North Korea, Libya and Iran, I’m to believe that war with Iraq was the only solution? Or that our nations’ Black Ops teams couldn’t do a better job of counter-terror when they’re not in a war, and free to assasinate anyone they can get away with?
And if it was about dictatorships and human rights oppression, what are we doing about Somalia, Burundi, Indonesia, Palestine, Morocco, and on and on… Maybe even the folks leading our own troops need a refresher course?
One final bit–if you didn’t bother reading the original article that lead up to this discussion, then you just missed all of the grounded arguments that the others were commenting on. OTOH, I gotta agree, Reb needs a few more words in his vocabulary. ;-)
Hm.
I fail to see your reasoning for why we are in Iraq. We have not seized any oil yet and as you can see the prices of oil in America have not dropped significantly becuase of it. The government can only store some 700 billion barrels in reserve, a number that has not increased during the war. The only war for oil was fought in the early nineties when Saddam invaded Kuwait becuase they were selling oil at a price below the agreed OPEC standard. Thats blood for oil, my friend.
Going to war with Iraq was unavoidable because Saddam would never have stepped down from power without a fight, though he should have never come to power. I believe the United states offered for him to resign before we started bombing Baghdad. War is a necessary evil and one that won’t go away, until everyone across the world acts with the same social selflessness. Bush may have wanted to finish a Family vendetta but his approval ratings have risen with the capture of Saddam. As for the grounded arguements that you mention in the original article, geoff rips on bush for having contempt for america and contempt for life. This arguement is ludacris.
“In the end, it comes down to the simple issue of character.” – geoff
He may not be an agreeable character by your parents standards but this does not condemn him. (focus on his actions)
I Fucking hate GW Bush
Without even taking into consideration what happened in iraq & 9/11 and preteding it never happened I
still Fucking hate that son of a bitch, everything he has said or done has in some way or another made
me angry at how in the hell he was put into office.
I Fucking hate GW Bush
Without even taking into consideration what happened in iraq & 9/11 and preteding it never happened I
still Fucking hate that son of a bitch, everything he has said or done has in some way or another made
me angry at how in the hell he was put into office.
Its ok Matt. You’re entitled to your opinion, would you like to explain why exactly you think that George Bush is letting this country down right now? Maybe we can spark some intelligent conversation out of you yet.
this says it all
those are my reasons for disliking him…
I love my country but I hate George Bush and here’s why.
George Bush is a puppet and Karl Rowe is the puppetmaster. Bush is a quasi-charismatic talking head spewing the neo-con party line. These ultra-right wing power-mongers, who have been planning their rape and pilage of American coffers and social security reserves since Bush I, all the while disguising themselves as good christians, seek to circumvent the democratic process to force their agenda on America while making their friends in the oil & gas industry richer than their wildest dreams.
The US had the world’s sympathy following 9/11 and Bush squandered. Was it greed, corruption or just plain ol’ vanity, George? Regardless of the recent O’neil bombshell, it seems more than plausible that the Bush II admin was plotting the SH overthrow from the get-go to defend the good names of Reagan/Bush. Rememeber them? They were the good Americans that brought us Iran/Contra as well as supplying Saddam’s regime with WMD. Many years from now, when we’re still mired in mid-eastern politics, the Clinton doctrine of non- or minimal interference is going to look very smart because NO ONE WINS WARS OVER RELIGION OR IDEOLOGY. Look at the Jews and Palestinians as a case in point.
Back to why I hate Bush, though. A couple good concrete examples of the subversive neo-con plotting include the most recent Judicial Appt that was implemented during the congressional break and the re-districting fights in TX and CO. What is so wrong with ultizing the democratic process to seek what an admin wants to achieve? The problem, so it would seem from the Bush Admin, is that the system of checks and balances, won’t allow such extreme policies to be enacted And for good reason. It’s one of the key mechanisms our founding fathers sought to include in our government for just such cases.
Even though I hate George Bush, I find great comfort in knowing that each day when I awake from my restful slumber, I know that George Sr and George Jr are one day closer to death. And in death, they will meet the god they profess to worship and he will pass judgement upon them … and it won’t be pretty.
I hate this little asshole more than anybody. When thinking about Bush I literally get nauseous. It also pains me to think that this mediocre family will some day shit out another President. What I don’t understand, is how come the name Bush gives you political legitimacy? His dad was a lousy President. This current sack of shit will be rated one of the worst of all-time. If there is a hell, this fucker is going there. Because I gotta believe that God has a special place for those that quote the bible constantly, but never practice one concept in it.
What do you guys think of these Quotes?
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
The previous adminstrations did know about the WMD that everyone bitchs about, except that during the eight years that they did nothing Saddam was able to remove and possibly sell them off. Applaud Bush for taking some action.
Ok Rob six you have proved two things, 1) lots of people were wrong about
Whether saddam had WMDs as NONE have been found even now a year after the
invasion, and 2) President Clinton, was smart enough not to act on intellegence
he could not validate. Lets also not forget that when the congress passed the resolution
allowing bush to attack that they (along with the american people) were under the faulty impression that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the american people based on claims
such as WMDs, attempts to aquire uranium etc. All of these claims now clearly amount
to a flaming sack of shit. What the iraq war really did was deflect attention and recources from afghanistan and al-Queda, comprimise the position of the UN, and effectivly undermine
international sympathy that came about from the attacks of 9/11, and in short make the
world a great deal less safe. Further more we now have the daunting task of establishing
a democracy in a society where theocratic dictators are the norm and where people’s
mindsets have been shaped by life times of oppression; you can bet if we fail this
objective al-Queda will be crawling all over Iraq. It is a bit disheartening that the
administration who is controlling this process is now down playing it in favor of
thier braindead initiative to send people to mars during the biggest budget deficit
in history. A deficit that I might add came after a budget surpluss on Clintons watch
. In light of all of this I think it has been shown that it is your argument and not
Geoff’s that is ludacris. How could a president who is concerned about peoples livers
wage unnecessary war, at the expense of the real problems at hand and our international
support, and at the same time piss away billoins of dollars to trasition a buget surplus
into the biggest deficit in history. How can a man who went awol from the National
Guard during vietnam presume to have the authority to send young men to thier deaths
in the name of a personal vendetta? To make matters worse he is actually trying to
decrease thier benefits. Face it rob you are more partisan than anyone on this site
because while you can site obscure points and quotes to your favor the OVERWHELMING
BODY of evidence refutes them all. Bush is scum, he is a dangerous, incompetent, self interested, warmongering, alcoholic, greedy, hypocritical, puppet of an imbecile. Have fun refuting that one.
GWB rules keep the spics outta office. C me on Smasckdown this week yall
Is Garrison for real? I guess I couldn’t tell with hois lilly white hood on.
Hurin-
The fact that there were no WMD’s found in Iraq is exactly the point of this war. Unfortunately, they weren’t confiscated so they are out there somewhere. Thats where President Clinton’s lack of action got us. You must admit that the government, with all its information gathering resources knows a little more than you do. Maybe if you tapped that source then you would see the real “overwhelming body of evidence”. Until you do, rest assured that there is one less nation out there that poses a threat to your loved ones. Please let me know what this body of evidence is that you speak of.
Robsix- The fact that no WMDs were found has absolutely no bearing on whether
or not they actually exist/have existed. Maybe you are familiar with David Kay the
Bush administration appointed CIA weapons inspector that recently stepped down?
In his report as related by the new york times yesterday he found evidence of little
capacity for the actual production of WMDs within Iraq, stating that most of the programs
had been abandoned after Bush Sr.’s gulf war. Kay also painted a picture of a Saddam
Hussein who was loosing touch with reality and being duped by his scientists into financing
phoney Bio/Chem weapons programs, the funding of which were then funneled into different
avenues that would make the scientists money. Finally there is the issue of the nuclear program; which Mr. Kay said could have been a fledgling at best, nowhere near what would
be nesessary to produce bombs. The fact is these are not new findings, since the end of the war there have been people in Iraq looking for weapons and evidence of thier production
and so far I beleive noone has even found more than this. To cite Kay’s report once more
saddam had nothing in the way of actual deployable weapons on the night of the invasion
. It is true I do not know everything that is to be known about the intellegence that
was used to sell this war, however plenty of information is available to the public
concerning it, and not the least of it is comming from the mouths of those who were
or are working for the CIA. Furthermore if solid evidence was available substantiate
the Bush Administration’s claims then why hasn’t it been released? It sure would releive
a lot of criticizm from those who beleive we had no substantial cause for the war. You
seem to be operating under the assumption that this intelegence does in fact exist
but is sitting in some top secret file at Langley. So if this information exists what would the line of reasoning be for not releasing it? Could it be that W and the CIA are working
together conspiracy style to see who is “patriotic” enough not to question anything the
government does? If you want to convince people who have better than, say, half a brain,
that Iraq was more than a negligable threat to the USA then you need evidence of your own.
Thus far you have produced three quotes, and no findings. OK, your turn. Convince me, I dare you.
So wait…the best one of you can come up with is a commercial?
Or…I Fucking Hate GWB?
The liberal side to this argument could mount substantial competition to those running for the democratic nomination in 2004. Unfortunately, that isn’t saying very much for either of you…
Not a COMMERCIAL dumbass, A NEWSPAPER. which i might add is the best you could do without access to government primary sources. Its funny to hear conservatives who spent eight years cringing at Clinton’s sex life try to refute a valid argument about real problems.
I’m sorry Hurin ( who names their kid that anyway?), but you fail to see the point of the whole exercise. These qoutes that you blast go to show that a lot of people, including David Kay, thought that there were weapons of mass Destruction in Iraq. Now that there are no longer weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq does not mean that there have not been weapons there. Still, you have not presented an overwhelming body of evidence, and the definition of evidence is now going to be defined for you: Physical fact. Here are some physical facts that he was not a negligable threat. Saddam committed genocide on his own people (the kurds). He also invaded kuwait becuase they were selling oil at a price below the opec standard. This is your evidence. If you can’t agree with that then its fine but you’re going to have to live with it, and with Bush.
Rob, though I am unable to produce physical evidence in the form of data collected by weapons inspectors, secondary sources such as newspapers in such cases as this may function as evidence provided that they are a factual representation of the findings documented in primary sources. This puts us on the same playing feild for finding evidence concerning the existance of WMDs (unless you know where to find the primary sources in which case please enlighten me to their location). If I am not mistaken most of the prewar intellegence was derived from spy satelites which could pick out certain suspicious activities that resembled weapons manufacture, however due to saddam specifics were not available. Under Kay’s inspection it was shown that these sights (mobile labs, flatbed trucks etc.) were really being used for bizzare activities such as manufacturing rocket fuel, a testement to Saddam’s growing senility. The fact is for better or worse the mixed reliance on UN inspectors and satelites, that formed much of the pre-war intelegence, was not adequite to accurately depict whether or not weapons were being manufactured. I fully understand that Saddam was a murderous bastard and do not doubt that he harbored Ill will toward the US. The major problem in my mind is that 1) the US attacked before sufficient evidence was compiled and certain claims made by the Bush administration were cleary illogical (There is no way in hell Iraq was enriching uranium purchased from niger with their resources)and 2) There was no UN resolution backing the US invasion, a move that not only damaged the apparent potency of the UN but also caused hostilities to form between the US and some of its allies. WMDs be damned, if the UN had been behind our country in Iraq I might be more sympathetic toward your point of view. This unilateral action is precisely why we have few friends in the global community these days. Another issue was and is the more imminent threat of al-Queda. Saddam is caught however bin-Laden remains at large, and guess which one was definitly a party to the last major attack on American soil. By attacking Iraq we spread our resources thin and allowed al-Queda more time to regroup, while crucially undercutting the rebuilding of afghanistan. Today we are already beggining to see the re-immergence of taliban fighters in rural afghanistan, and at very least this is a threat to there new government. The US position is pinned down in two places, and either one could become a haven for anti US sentiment and terrorist organizations. Sorry I know not all of this is about WMD, but I really feel we have been hung up on a relatively minor point for to long considering all the other exciting stipulations attatched to the Iraq blunder. While this might not constitute the “overwhelming body” promised (I conceived of the phrase to hastily it seems), I beleve it is substantial at least. As for whether I will have to live with Bush for more than another year that remains to be seen, it may be that not as many people agree with you as you think.
Hurin-
First let me thank you for such a cordial response and let me, secondly, apologize for targeting your name in the previous response, it was immature and unnecessary.
Though you may disagree with this statement it is still true. This war has been great for the economy, something we can both smile at. The keynesian economics of big deficit spending will someday payoff in spades. The rolling deficit will only be added to a large debt that never needs to be paid. Contrary to popular belief that debt will not really ever be paid off in full. Do you like what Bush has done for the economy.
Isn’t the current economic theory that the individual president doesn’t have any control over the immediate economy, and that the actions taken today are only felt approx. 8 years later? I seem to remember that number being thrown around in the last election, proving that Clinton/Gore didn’t provide the economic boost of the late 90’s. (FWIW, I think the Y2K bug created the spending and investment in technology. The Internet came about at such speed because big business and telco was upgrading all of their systems.)
OTOH, the tech bust was coming no matter what anyone says, and this recovery of the tech stocks is a natural pendulum reaction. There’s no reason Amazon’s stock should ever have been over $100/share. Plus, IT budgets were busted on Y2K solutions (so big business wasn’t investing in 2000/2001 — 3 years later, when tech systems are fully depriciated and ready to be replaced, IT folks are spending again…) and a number of other factors weigh in here. I don’t think that GWB’s economic theory (Which Greenspan Himself refused to endorse) is working like you think it is.
Rather, it’s making a lot of rich people richer, and since times are tough, rather than spending their money, the rich are packing it away for a rainy day.
I hardly think that the Estate Tax breaks are doing anyone any good in terms of getting lower health care or prescription drug costs. That’s the problem with GWB’s deficit spending. He’s going into deficit, giving up income, without realocating wealth in any inteligent manner, and creating unfunded mandates on the states like Homeland Security — btw, I’m not totally bagging on DHS, just that it’s up to the States to pay for DHS, and provide the services for DHS, and every upgrade in threat condition costs real money that has to be diverted from Head Start or any of a dozen other services that were funded before DHS came out of thin air.
Oh, and GWB is spending at a rate several times larger than any president previously has.
Taxes pay for society, and that’s a good thing. We can’t have society without paying for it. And personally, I hate the inconveniences, but I like having running water, stable utilities and roads, not to mention standardized immunizations, public health initiatives, housing and rehabilitation for criminals, homeless, and runaways, etc. Taxes pay for all of that, and when we vote to cut taxes, we vote to cut projects. The ability to pre-emptively strike and travel to Mars should be just as equally impacted as Head Start and Medicare, but it’s not under GWB. He cuts taxes, then increases spending on his unfounded, unproven pet projects, and lies to the public to make it happen, e.g., Nigerian Uranium.
That’s just not fiscally responsible.
Cps-
I think reallocating wealth is the key phrase there. What is wealth? And who are you to determine what happens with someone else’s money? This is a fundamental issue. Conservatives do not want their money taken through taxes. We all should know that the most deaths happen at the first of the month becuase thats when welfare checks come out. What does that say about reallocating wealth? Did you know that there are certain Blockbusters that accept food stamps? Thats where some of the money goes… Reallocation of wealth does not work in this respect, economically.
OK. Ok. You all have very good points. I love a good political debate. I will try to make some valid points in regards to this discussion. Try not to flame me too hard. I will not say that I hate George W. I did not vote for him and I wouldn’t vote for him now either. After 9/11 he got such a huge amount of praise for being strong for America. Dah. I mean did he really have a choice? What else could he have done? Gone on national TV and say, “Holy CRAP! Now it is time to panic!” or “They finally beat us, lets surrender and do as they tell us!” Neither were an option. Being a herois only applicable if the person has a choice. GW did not. Next comes the whole “prior knowledge” idea. I cannot stand the man but lets think through this rationally. If he had reliable working knowledge he WOULD have stopped the attacks. I mean come on. WHat would he gain by not stopping them. He is a redneck dunderhead, not a cold hearted man capeable of treason. That just isn’t thinking that is productive. I do not believe that we should have been in Iraq or Kuwait in the 90’s. I know that the whole thing is about oil. Both Bushes come from Texas and they both have very strong interests in oil. Hello? See a connection? As for the war thing. My husband fought in the Persian Gulf, My father Vietnam, my grandfather WWII and my greatgrandfather in WWI. I know about war. I know that it is such a horrible, sad and tremendous thing that it should be avoided at all costs. Just because UN inspectors were not allowed into buildings doesn’t mean that we should declare war on someone. OK so we got Saddam out of office. Big Deal. Werent we supposed to be focusing on Bin Laden? Remember him? We were making no progress in finding him so geez maybe we can find some success in another war.
You can’t just start bombing the hell out of a country just because you don’t like the leader. Its none of our business. 9/11 would have never happened if we just minded our oum business. OK America is a wonderful country but just because Iraq doesnt do things the way we do they are evil. I know of the attrocities that Saddam committed against the people of his country but he is not in America. We see these pieces of news footage and we are supposed to swoon when we see a “reformed” country and its citizens stuffing their vootes into a ballot box. We breath this sigh of relief. AHHHHH look they are all democratic now. The way EVERYONE should be. JUST LIKE US. The whole manifest destiny bull. Can’t stand it.
Next, I do not like Bush because of his space exploration comments. He is going to pump BILLIONS of dollars in to space exploration. Ummmm, WHY? I mean it is great for the nerds to know how much Tang a lab rat can eat when at zero gravity! Hey lets not use the money on schools to in turn boost whole generations. Lets not give it to the Fostor care program that is dismal at best. Lets use it instead to look at some martian rocks. The whole idea just baffles me. Well that is it for now. I have a ton more to say on BUSH but it is way past my bed time.
Good comments tweedle, just wanted ot add a couple things to the space exploration comments. As it turns out I am a nerd myself (a Bio/Chem) major and the other day in a physics class I am taking we were talking about the possible benefits of such a mission. My professir , a Ph.D. in geophysics, made the assertion that there are really minimal benefits to sending a manned mission to mars, as a probe can take pictures, do chemical soil analysis and really any other such research one might desire, at a fraction of the price. His main point was that
many more valuable projects could be funded for the cost of such an endeavor. My take is that Bush wants to show the Chinese up since they have recently been involved in certain space exploration initiatives.
Just wanted to Respond to Rob six’s comment on the reallocation of wealth too while I amm at it. Weather or not taxation is convinient for citizens it is a necessary evil americans first realized this under the articles of confederation some 200 years ago, Under the articles the central government could not tax and was utterly powerless as a result, as it had no money to do anything. This system failed miserably within several years of its creation and led to the draft of the constitution we now have in place. As for the comment about the deaths of the first day of the month I am not familiar with such a finding and I have to beleive if it is true a better statistical corellation could be made to explain it than the issuance of welfare checks.
It is undeniable that someone has to pay for government programs be they education or defense, and I can think of noone better to do it than those who have the most moneyand are pretty much assured a comfortable lifestyle, like the Bush family for instance. Of course from what we have seen with the bush handling of the economy they obviously do not se it that way.
Guys, GWB is a good president, we all have our views, and we need to support our president no matter who it is i didnt like clinton but i still supported him because he was America’s president. So stop dissing and start supporiting throwing blame around really doesnt fix anything just move with the flow and hope for better luck next time. I bet half of you guys dont even vote. Now thats not saying much about your opinions.
So by this logic if say, Adolf Hitler came to power in America you would say to support him because he is our president. It is by a persons actions and not office that they are held accountable. Not saying that GWB compares to hitler, but it is dangerous not to question authority. Besides what better way to get people voting than political discussion, I know that I am planning to vote.
Hurin-
There is nothing wrong with taxation, it is the reallocation of wealth that is a problem. Secondly you should volunteering in an emergency room for a couple months. You will see then the correllation.
Rob, part of the reason I am dubious of this correlation is that I cannot see any sort of causal relationship between the issuance of a welfare check, and the death of the person to whom this check was issued. It would be easier to see such problems arising in a situation such as rent being due at the beginning of the month, and people shooting themselves due to the destitution caused by loosing a home, or turning to violent crime in order to see that the payment gets in. I am also not sure what kind of deaths you are talking about, as a lot of different things can kill a person, and certain ones could be more plausably linked to welfare checks than others. Please let me know what kind of scenario you are implying.
I’m implying that the lower class blows their welfare checks on alcohol and drugs when they first recieve the money. This is easily seen in the emergency roon during the first few days of the month. My dad told me this, as he interned in the ER for several months.
I cannot agree with Bush’s proposal to send a manned mission to the moon again. It seems trivial and very unimportant to say the least. I figure he maybe trying to spur some space exploration, just like JFK did in the early sixties, but I don’t see short term gains coming from it. Another thing that really miffs me about Bush’s Space policy is the stranding of the Hubble telescope, a mission that has recently been the only redeeming feature of the american space program. Hopefully, he will replace it with a better space telescope, seeing how Hubble has been the best telescope ever built he is truly doing a disservice to humankind.
With that out of the way, I turn to the comments of Tweedle (Dum.) I still fail to see how people can relate the war in Iraq with the copious amounts of oil over there. So far there has been no decrease in the price of oil in the united states and no companies have been shoed into the Iraq oil fields. I admit that there will be sometime in the future when capitalist Oil companies will move into Iraq and set up shop in conquest of profit but I see this as an overwhelmingly positive influence on the the Iraqi people. Firstly, their economy will be supported by the oil that comes from the ground, seeing as how that is the only commodity that grows in the desert, through the addition of jobs and global interest into the region. The people who gain the most are the Iraqi’s not the republicans from Texas.
As for the war, I think you fail to see the correllation between Humans and war. Your family has served proudly and selflessly to defend your great nation/community as many billions of humans have done over the past several thousand years. I’m sure that to have a generation in your family that didn’t fight in a war would be almost alien. Humans and war go hand in hand. It is unfortunate but true. This cannot be argued. I would rather have the wars fought for the indepedence of the people of earth than to see the reach of a tyrannical Saddam (and his type) be extended across this great planet.
As far as a negative job growth for GWB, all I have to say is that he came in during the “dot-com” bubble burst. So many people got laid off that any growth that has moved to offset the balance is minute in comparison. If he is reelected people will see the biggest growth following a major economy bust since Roosevelt in in the thirties.
Might I add that I was pretty lit when I wrote about Roosevelt (we all those moments.) That graph was so random. I would like to also say that the selection of presidents in that graphs was pretty skewed. I would like to see a graph for every president in history.
It may be that the bush tax cuts will cause some momentary economic growth, however at the rate that bush is spending it wont take people long to realize that the economy is seriously out of whack. I am no economist, however I have noticed that usually when a president cuts taxes he also cuts spending, or if he is going to spend like there is no tomorrow he appoints the taxpayers to pay for his excess. Bush wants it both ways, he is prepaired to give all the money collected through tax away, and still spend with the most fiscally liberal of the democrats. to quote Kristoff of the times “I have seen this before: in Argentina”; point being that just because the U.S. is a rich and powerful country dosnt make it immune to a debt crisis. I have also recently learned that the IMF has warned the US that its current economic practices are a threat to the world economy. Yes, we will probably get some kind of spike from Bush’s economy; tweak something that much and drastic things are bound to happen, but like the economic crack cocain that it is it will last five minutes and leave us bottomed out. By the way Rob, welfare isnt prefect but Id like to see you come up with a better system for helping out the underprivelaged in our country. If you were powerless and jobless and sleeping in a gutter you would probably be on some pretty hard drugs yourself. Having volunteered for an organization that distributed food to homeless shelters and soup kitchens, I am familiar with the desperation (at least from an observers point of view) that is the life of many recipeints of welfare and other social programs. To suggest that eliminating programs such as this would help them, is to piss on those who have hardest in our nation.
I just learned that lightweights like me have expert support in our contradiction of the “economic benefit” of the bush tax cuts; today a collum in the opinion section of the New York times summarized the feelings of Alan Greenspan on such matters. Greenspan warned of the Long and short term dangers of the gigantic deficite, and related that his support of the tax cuts when first announced was contingent upon Bush’s ability to listen to his advice and make them temporary. To access the full text of the article go to this adress . So much for Roosevelt, Bush’s fiscal dealings look downright Hooverish to me.
Sorry I cannot paste the address so here is the article which i will render under the protection of the fair use doctrine.
Alan Greenspan has cleared up any questions about whether a half-trillion-dollar deficit is a danger to the American economy, and whether the huge Bush tax cuts are part of the problem. Testifying before Congress yesterday in that polite, jargon-riddled way of his, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board contradicted the Bush administration and its allies, who have been dismissing the significance of deficits. Mr. Greenspan also complained about “diminished restraint” on discretionary spending — perhaps an indication that he has lost some faith in the conservative credo that cutting revenue is the best way to control spending.
Mr. Greenspan’s warning that the “outsized federal demands on national saving” will appreciably raise long-term interest rates is the stuff of Econ 101 orthodoxy: if the government gobbles up too much credit, it drives up the cost of capital for the rest of us. But apologists for the Bush administration’s reckless fiscal policies like to write off such thinking.
Mr. Greenspan’s overall outlook on the economy is quite bullish, but the most striking thing about his testimony was that he did not confine his warnings about federal deficits to the long term. He said they threatened his short-term rosy scenario.
Listening to Mr. Greenspan testify is more interesting in the context of what we now know about the early Bush administration. According to a recent account by the former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, Mr. Greenspan backed the tax cuts because of a mistaken belief that he and Mr. O’Neill would be powerful enough to convince the White House and Congress that the reductions should be temporary. The notion was to include a trigger mechanism that would revoke the cuts in the event of budgetary conditions like the ones the nation is now facing. We know now, and presumably Mr. Greenspan understands as well, that this is an administration whose commitment to cutting taxes for the wealthy is not subject to any respect for sound financial management.
Given the relatively meager slice of federal spending that can be substantially cut and the alarmingly meager federal receipts, as a percentage of the economy, there is only one responsible way for Congress to heed Mr. Greenspan’s warnings about those spiraling deficits. Instead of debating whether some of the Bush tax cuts should be extended, it’s time to consider rolling some of them back.
THe name of that article is “Mr Greenspan weighs in” and it appears in the feb. 12 issue of the opinion section of the Online New York times
Sorry folks, the birth of my daughter caused me to lose track of this thread briefly. ;-)
Rob, my orignal statement on “redistribution of wealth” was based on my recolection of my High School econ class… That was more than a few years ago, but I thought that the term “wealth” was the generic term for monies generated by an economic system, not a term of “someone else’s cash.” “Redistribution of wealth” then, was the idea that a country has expenses, which must be paid for by the population, and if the country has no national resources to sell and generate its own wealth, then the people must provide for the services they use. Our country has chosen to privatize the natural resources, and tax the products that those private industries provide. As there are more products and wealth to tax, there should be more income for the country to continue to do with as it needs to to support the welfare of it’s people.
That definately means that the wealthy end up paying for the burdens of those who can not pay for themselves. It’s proven time and time again in the private sector. My health care premiums are astronomical, but is that fair? Prior to the birth of my child, I’ve been to the doctor once in the last 3 years. I should be able to pay for my one visit, not averaging out the cost of everyone covered by the insurance plan, and charging everyone equally. OTOH, I’m sure as hell glad I don’t have to pay the costs of childbirth out of pocket. This year, the insurance company is going to have to get recompensated by someone else, as I’m using my full allotment plus some.
That’s how redistribution of wealth works. The fact that some may fraudulently abuse the system is a statistical drop in the bucket (compared to the number of poeple that really need help) that is compensated for by the system. A correctly designed system should be able to take that into account.
My point was (as Hurin has pointed directly to) that nobody in their right mind thinks that tax cuts coupled with extensive spending increases are going to fix the economy. Look back to Bush Sr’s “No New Taxes” speech and later reversal. Tax cutting only works if you stop spending as well. Neither Bush seems to grasp that statement, as far as I can tell.
I am further outraged by the Bush Administration because while the war in Iraq was misguided by bad interpretation of evidence, I also believe that as a country that supports court systems, rule of law, and evidence of guilt before judgment for ourselves, GWB (and most Republicans I’ve met) does not give any quarter to a foreign sovreign nation.
The US is well on its way to becoming the next United Kingdom–a washed-up, former imperial power that is the lapdog of the next powerhouse. As soon as China’s (or whomever’s) economy kicks it into high gear, rather than having the support of the rest of the world, the weight of our economic folies, and lack of respect for the UN-WTO-IMF, (and other leading world bodies) are going to crush the US into fiscal and social dependency that is unbearable to our collective egos.
Clinton may not have been the best person or President, but at least we were working towards sharing the burden of saving the planet with the rest of the world, and there was some respect for the inteligence an capabilities of foreign nationals.
Yeah, I second that, third that one, and fourth and fith that one and this one… NOW GO OUT AND REGISTER AS A DEMOCRAT AND VOTE FOR JOHN KERRY!
Life is not going to be easy, it never is, but anyone, ANYONE is better that this fool.
The Bush crew is killing this nation, its tragic! No more, vote his sorry ass out of office, please!
In macroeconomic analysis, yes, wealth would be considered the overall sum of products and services produced and consumed. In this context, however, that is not whats wrong with your argument. Your anology to the insurance company is a bad one. First thats a privatized elective service, which, in comparison to a public good is totally different. You can choose not to have it and go with out it. Other people may see the benefit in having insurance and purchase some. With a public good, everypays and everyone can recieve with no discrimination. Now, where you’re dead wrong is this: just becuase someone has more money than you doesn’t mean that they have to pay for the insurance that they get. Everyone pays the same for like coverages. Everyone benefits from it when people are injuried.
You argue for an ablility-to-pay tax, so that means you have target the wealthiest people in the country to pay for something you want to provide. Thats not okay. Just becuase someone has a lot of money does not mean that its alright to say that they shouldn’t have their money and that someone else should. Through, the government you are stealing. Now you may say that you also pay welfare taxes and this correct, but proportionately nothing near what wealthy people pay. So they bear the cost of the tax and they don’t even benefit like you do in seeing the lower class be supported (who likes to see their money go into the hands of drugg addicts and people who have made poor decisions in life?) This too is an economic contradiction. People who don’t have to work to get by, and are satisfied with just getting by, will not work to improve their status. Welfare is a great social idea but in life it does not work well.
In macroeconomic analysis, yes, wealth would be considered the overall sum of products and services produced and consumed. In this context, however, that is not whats wrong with your argument. Your anology to the insurance company is a bad one. First thats a privatized elective service, which, in comparison to a public good is totally different. You can choose not to have it and go with out it. Other people may see the benefit in having insurance and purchase some. With a public good, everypays and everyone can recieve with no discrimination. Now, where you’re dead wrong is this: just becuase someone has more money than you doesn’t mean that they have to pay for the insurance that they get. Everyone pays the same for like coverages. Everyone benefits from it when people are injuried.
You argue for an ablility-to-pay tax, so that means you have target the wealthiest people in the country to pay for something you want to provide. Thats not okay. Just becuase someone has a lot of money does not mean that its alright to say that they shouldn’t have their money and that someone else should. Through, the government you are stealing. Now you may say that you also pay welfare taxes and this correct, but proportionately nothing near what wealthy people pay. So they bear the cost of the tax and they don’t even benefit like you do in seeing the lower class be supported (who likes to see their money go into the hands of drugg addicts and people who have made poor decisions in life?) This too is an economic contradiction. People who don’t have to work to get by, and are satisfied with just getting by, will not work to improve their status. Welfare is a great social idea but in life it does not work well.
Rob, you paint the poor of this nation with to broad a brush. there are many disadvantaged people in this nation who are born into families too poor to put them through college , and generally unable to turn the situations that suround their lifes around. Conversely, what has George W Bush ever done to earn the weath that he has to fall back on? If you said absolutely fucking nothing that would be correct. The bush fortune is based on two things, Oil, and illicit trading with Nazi germany which Prescott Bush engaged in during WWII. Still convinced that the afluence one gains in life is directly tied to thier choices? In spite of all the other economic stipulations resulting from bushes half baked economic plans your only retort
is based on this faulty picture of the lazy vagrant drug addicted poor, stealing from the hard working and deserving rich. It all boils down to self interest, on your part and on the part of bush, but let me ask you this, what millionarebillionare has ever had to lower thier standard of living even to that of the average american because of federal income tax? I really doesnt happen. Furthermore welfare is not nearly as well funded as other programs such as the millitary, dept of homeland security, etc. Do you also beleive that those programs should be cut so that the wealthy can hoard thier money? Do you beleive that the middle class would be better off dealing with these tax burdens? Finally I wanted to portray my disgust with someone who repeatedly spits on the poor for being lazy and using drugs, yet admits to getting “lit” and apparently (if my understanding is correct) grew up in the privelaged household of a doctor. I can say I share both of these latter traits, however I feel that my social privalage should be used to help others of a lower standing, and I dont spit on those who use drugs, given that I myself have engaged in such activities.