Bush.... put\'n the T back into Taste

[GmanJoe]

I don\'t think it\'s distastful. Now....British cuisine....THAT\'S distastful!

Yeah, let\'s just forget that Bush\'s approval rating was through the roof following 9/11 due to the way he led our distraught nation after that horrible tragedy. I can see why people are bothered, but personally I think it\'s fine. In the ad, they don\'t dwell on 9/11.. they simple "mention" it and acknowledge the fact that Bush helped make this country safer following the action.

Now folks all over, even those not directly affected by 9/11 are crying foul. Then.. I notice that they\'re wearing Dean pins, and Kucinich pins, and waving Kerry For President signs around. Seriously..

I love how people say, "Bush led us through that terrible ordeal."
How did Bush lead us through?
Did he come to your house and talk you through your personal issues? NO!
Did he visit the families of all those that died? NO!
Did he catch the man responsible?NO!

All he did was go on TV, and say, "You are either with us, or against us.", went to war in Afghanistan, which accomplished NOTHING except to drive Al queda even deeper and increase thier recruitment, and he went and HID for a month somewhere in Texas. HE VANSIHED AFTER 9/11!

Bush has repeatedly used 9/11 politically to achieve ends he wanted before this even happened.

Before this happened, the week after he got in office he commisioned a department to discuss us going back into Iraq.
He had plans to reinvade before 9/11 happened and before the weapon inspectors ever left.

He is using the images of 9/11 to make people think that because of Him, our savior, our dolt in shining armor, it hasn\'t happened again. Him using those images , in my opinion, also subletly states that if he isn\'t in office it might happen again.

Its low, its distasteful. It\'ll probably help him get re-elected.

[clips]

Originally posted by Faithdies
I love how people say, "Bush led us through that terrible ordeal."
How did Bush lead us through?
Did he come to your house and talk you through your personal issues? NO!
Did he visit the families of all those that died? NO!
Did he catch the man responsible?NO!

All he did was go on TV, and say, "You are either with us, or against us.", went to war in Afghanistan, which accomplished NOTHING except to drive Al queda even deeper and increase thier recruitment, and he went and HID for a month somewhere in Texas. HE VANSIHED AFTER 9/11!

Bush has repeatedly used 9/11 politically to achieve ends he wanted before this even happened.

Before this happened, the week after he got in office he commisioned a department to discuss us going back into Iraq.
He had plans to reinvade before 9/11 happened and before the weapon inspectors ever left.

He is using the images of 9/11 to make people think that because of Him, our savior, our dolt in shining armor, it hasn\'t happened again. Him using those images , in my opinion, also subletly states that if he isn\'t in office it might happen again.

Its low, its distasteful. It\'ll probably help him get re-elected.

that is all true..but just look at it from a general standpoint

1--he led the country in the wake of 911. (generally)
     looking into it more--(so what he was the pres. he did what he was supposed to do. same goes for the mayor..did we expect anything less?

2--he caught saddam.(will get votes in general just for that)
     looking into it more (so what..some feel iraq was not a threat and so far no wmd\'s reason we went to war)

3--the stock market has improved somewhat on his watch (he will get votes generally because of this)..my knowledge of the stocks is not that great but i know that i think the dow or the idustrial stocks went above 10,000 for the first time in years..don\'t know if he had anything to do with it.

4--gays rights i think he will lose some votes here for reasons i don\'t even have to list.

5--this is my personal take on the pres. he gave americans that tax cut not too long ago and he wants to make them permanent. that goes a long way with me. even tho. they are spending billions on iraq & other shit he still finds time to give some money back to the people.

i\'m not big on bush but the democrats are not feelin\' those tax cuts,..they keep sayin\' we have to balance the budget. Which means what?...higher taxes! Get real nobody is ever goin\' to balance the budget..so why not give to the "people" and balance the budget at the same time? It could be done..anytime congress can approve 83 billion at the drop of a dime, anything\'s possible.

ps: i consider myself a democrat, but at this moment i\'m not feelin\' anything the democrats are sayin\'

[SirMystiq]

Originally posted by GmanJoe
The Economy is actually not as bad as you think it is. Tourism and restaurants took a huge hit due to 9/11, mad cow is hurting a lot of West Coast restaurants (my brother is general manager of Black Angus). Here\'s a factoid : when people have more money, they tend to spend more. Poor isn\'t getting poorer and the rich put their money back into the economy by investing in businesses and thier stocks. However, poor people tend to keep thier money for "rainy days" and they get too many rainy days. THeir money doesn\'t get circulated as much as the middles class and the rich.

Gas prices? Do you really think the President controls the price of gas? Here\'s a hint : NO.

Education : where I live, our city has received more funding than any city in the country and the kids still are stupid and still killing each other. More money to schools does not equal to better students. You should know this.

Thank you, Mr. President Bush! I have more money coming back from my tax refund. Looks like I will be hiring some people to fix up my condo a little better.

FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!

Really?! When people have more money they can spend more?! Wow, now that\'s news!

...

So what are you trying to say, that if the "poor" people (AKA Democrats) weren\'t to be so selfish and start spending their money, the economy would be much better? Hmm...maybe if the people were rich enough to begin with they would have businesses and stocks they can invest into...You really didn\'t back up your "the economy isn\'t that bad" statement. Why? B/c your probably too busy spending your money.

Thanks for the insult. But was I the one that responded in a stupid and childish manner to one of Ooseven\'s post? If the money for education made people like you, I see your point. Other than that, money means more classes, more money for districts to spend on equipment, more money for extracurricular classes, sports, new schools and the list goes on. I know that one of Bush\'s tax cuts only benefits people with a certain amount of income. Yeah, I suppose those with more money need the extra money to get their kids through college...

Thank you Mr. Bush! Now my parents can enjoy the tax-refund they got! Even though they didn\'t get the extra money because you know, they aren\'t rich, but that\'s A-Ok! Hopefully tomorrow at school, we will have those new computers we need for the Computer team! wait...it got slashed!! NO more money!!

You know clips, your post reminds me of this famous quote:

"Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country"
You said it yourself, it will be impossible to balance the budget. Besides, who is it really affecting? The 150K a year income or the less than 50k a year income? We all pay taxes, and raising the taxes is and will probably be the only way to get the country out of the hole which GWB has slowly and painfully made.

[clips]

Originally posted by SirMystiq
Really?! When people have more money they can spend more?! Wow, now that\'s news!

...

So what are you trying to say, that if the "poor" people (AKA Democrats) weren\'t to be so selfish and start spending their money, the economy would be much better? Hmm...maybe if the people were rich enough to begin with they would have businesses and stocks they can invest into...You really didn\'t back up your "the economy isn\'t that bad" statement. Why? B/c your probably too busy spending your money.

Thanks for the insult. But was I the one that responded in a stupid and childish manner to one of Ooseven\'s post? If the money for education made people like you, I see your point. Other than that, money means more classes, more money for districts to spend on equipment, more money for extracurricular classes, sports, new schools and the list goes on. I know that one of Bush\'s tax cuts only benefits people with a certain amount of income. Yeah, I suppose those with more money need the extra money to get their kids through college...

Thank you Mr. Bush! Now my parents can enjoy the tax-refund they got! Even though they didn\'t get the extra money because you know, they aren\'t rich, but that\'s A-Ok! Hopefully tomorrow at school, we will have those new computers we need for the Computer team! wait...it got slashed!! NO more money!!

You know clips, your post reminds me of this famous quote:

"Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country"
You said it yourself, it will be impossible to balance the budget. Besides, who is it really affecting? The 150K a year income or the less than 50k a year income? We all pay taxes, and raising the taxes is and will probably be the only way to get the country out of the hole which GWB has slowly and painfully made.

y\'know mystic i usually agree with you on some points when you post (some of those giga & mystic debates are already classic. )but i gotta disagree with you on this one..jim florio was the govenor of n.j. & he did exactly that. raised taxes..and practically ruined the economy for the state..large businesses was leaving..property tax was through the roof at the time..(it\'s high now but back then he raised taxes on everything!)..raising taxes is not the answer...congress will still find ways to spend, spend spend..& the rasing of taxes will be for naught.

that said i do agree with you on the point of having more money into education. It  does make a difference..if you have the proper resources in place, students will achieve to their potential..of course the students have to put forth some effort but that goes without saying.

as far as the tax cut is concerned. for whatever reason bush gave us the tax cut,,..and i was glad to see that check in the mail. sadly there will always be the rich & the poor,..there is really no middle class..maybe i\'m a slave to some degree for the green,..but let\'s face it we need money to survive & that is what make the world go round. I realize the tax cuts are mearly a bone the pres. threw at us,..and he\'s pimpin\' the american public good, but every little bit helps.

[GmanJoe]

Originally posted by SirMystiq
Really?! When people have more money they can spend more?! Wow, now that\'s news!

...

So what are you trying to say, that if the "poor" people (AKA Democrats) weren\'t to be so selfish and start spending their money, the economy would be much better? Hmm...maybe if the people were rich enough to begin with they would have businesses and stocks they can invest into...You really didn\'t back up your "the economy isn\'t that bad" statement. Why? B/c your probably too busy spending your money.

Thanks for the insult. But was I the one that responded in a stupid and childish manner to one of Ooseven\'s post? If the money for education made people like you, I see your point. Other than that, money means more classes, more money for districts to spend on equipment, more money for extracurricular classes, sports, new schools and the list goes on. I know that one of Bush\'s tax cuts only benefits people with a certain amount of income. Yeah, I suppose those with more money need the extra money to get their kids through college...

Thank you Mr. Bush! Now my parents can enjoy the tax-refund they got! Even though they didn\'t get the extra money because you know, they aren\'t rich, but that\'s A-Ok! Hopefully tomorrow at school, we will have those new computers we need for the Computer team! wait...it got slashed!! NO more money!!

You know clips, your post reminds me of this famous quote:

"Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country"
You said it yourself, it will be impossible to balance the budget. Besides, who is it really affecting? The 150K a year income or the less than 50k a year income? We all pay taxes, and raising the taxes is and will probably be the only way to get the country out of the hole which GWB has slowly and painfully made.

Since when did I say Democrats are poor? Are you insinuating that there are no rich Democrats? That\'s absurd. The Dow Jones has recovered from its slump since Clinton left, since 9/11...the stocks are above 10,000.

I still don\'t see where I insulted you.

Lemme repeat what I just said about the school district that has received MORE money than any other district in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : the money invested has equaled to zero improvement. The kids here are still one of the worst average in the US. They have computers, they have vocational programs, after school programs, specialized classes.....still NO IMPROVEMENT. Do you know the meaning of (I\'ll quote myself)

More money to schools does not equal to better students.

I\'ll rephrase it for you : it does NOT NECESSARILY (or not always or not 100%) mean BETTER STUDENTS.

Think of it this way, I can buy you Nike shoes but that doesn\'t make you a better basketball player. ?Intiende?

Defecit. As simple as I can put it in one sentence :

Government spending greater than the money it collects taxes from its people.

Surplus : Government taxing more money from people greater than what it needs to spend.

It may sound silly but that\'s about as simple as I can make it.

Bush Sr. had to balance the budget as best he could by curtailing its Reagan era spending. It sent many companies into a nose dive when the gov\'t stopped its massive spending. By the time Clinton took over, the balance had almost been attained, but Clinton took the credit.

W. Bush Jr was going to coninue that balance but 9/11 and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan tilted that balance to a defecit. Still, on the whole, American business is going steady and still getting better. There are still a lot of companies and corporations still hurting from the tech collapse from the Clinton 90\'s. But they\'ve learned their lesson from over-expanding and they\'re slowly recovering from that.

Originally posted by GmanJoe
Bush Sr. had to balance the budget as best he could by curtailing its Reagan era spending. It sent many companies into a nose dive when the gov\'t stopped its massive spending. By the time Clinton took over, the balance had almost been attained, but Clinton took the credit.

You have NO idea what you are talking about. Bush Sr raised government spending levels while in office. Clinton cut back government spending more than any president in modern history(since the late 40s).

Using your logic the government should have bottomed out. It didn\'t. It experienced one of the greatest surpluses ever.

Still, regardless of how much spending(overall) has been lowered since 1980, Dubya has managed to raise the government\'s spending levels and lower the defecit worse than Reagans ABSOLUTE worst.

(look it up).

[GmanJoe]

Originally posted by Black Samurai
You have NO idea what you are talking about. Bush Sr raised government spending levels while in office. Clinton cut back government spending more than any president in modern history(since the late 40s).

Using your logic the government should have bottomed out. It didn\'t. It experienced one of the greatest surpluses ever.

Still, regardless of how much spending(overall) has been lowered since 1980, Dubya has managed to raise the government\'s spending levels and lower the defecit worse than Reagans ABSOLUTE worst.

(look it up).

As far as I recall, Congress had him by the balls and they pretty much had him raise taxes. Bush DID reduce spending when he took over after Reagan. Which Bush are you talking about? Clinton raised taxes and did lower spending via military cutbacks. Bush Jr. knew better and put more money back into the military.

EDIT : Bush jr has a war to spend money on. What\'d you expect?

Regarding the US governments spending - have you all forgotten how 9/11 impacted not only our security (defense spending) - but it also impacted numerous industries that the government had to help out as well.

Originally posted by GmanJoe
As far as I recall, Congress had him by the balls and they pretty much had him raise taxes. Bush DID reduce spending when he took over after Reagan. Which Bush are you talking about? Clinton raised taxes and did lower spending via military cutbacks. Bush Jr. knew better and put more money back into the military.

EDIT : Bush jr has a war to spend money on. What\'d you expect?

Bush Sr. raised government spending over the course of his term. Look at the numbers. I just don\'t see how you can say that Bush Sr. boosted the economy when all he did was spend money we didn\'t have.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
Regarding the US governments spending - have you all forgotten how 9/11 impacted not only our security (defense spending) - but it also impacted numerous industries that the government had to help out as well.

Bush Jr. has been spending since day one. Bush raised spending almost immediately after inauguration, well before 9/11.

Originally posted by Black Samurai

Bush Jr. has been spending since day one. Bush raised spending almost immediately after inauguration, well before 9/11.

Reference please

Taken from here.
....The results on actual as opposed to estimated spending for Bush are horrific and present a worse record than for Bill Clinton. The paper conveniently starts with 2002. If one starts with fiscal 2000 under Clinton as a base, NONDEFENSE outlays increased 4.7 percent in 2001, 6.2 percent in 2002 and 6.99 percent in 2003. On DISCRETIONARY NONDEFENSE spending, it increased 10.9 percent in 2002 and 11.2 percent in 2003, WITH HOMELAND SECURITY TOO SMALL TO AFFECT THE RATES SUBSTANTIALLY. By comparison, the average of the Clinton years was only a 6 percent increase for discretionary spending....

^^^Article is about 3 pages long.

BTW, caps added for emphasis.

Taken from here.
...The GOP has become the party of big spending...

^^^Related

From your link -

"Bolten argues that the president hasn\'t vetoed a single spending bill because "he hasn\'t needed to." It\'s more likely that the president hasn\'t vetoed any spending bills because he hasn\'t wanted to. Each spending bill that has come to his desk has represented a new vote-buying opportunity, whether it was the big education bill in 2001, the big farm bill in 2002 or the even bigger Medicare prescription-drug bill in 2003."

Which one of those 3 bills is worthy of a veto?  Dems cry for Health Care and Education.  Farms in general have been in trouble since the late 70\'s and early 80\'s so that is nothing new.

Lets not even get into the spending programs that the Dems support.  The economy was weak BEFORE Bush took office and then 9/11 came and we were engaged in 2 wars.  As far as the deficit is concerned - the only reason we had a surplus when Clinton was in office is because the Republican Congress forced Clinton not to spend.

[GmanJoe]

Originally posted by GigaShadow
From your link -

 As far as the deficit is concerned - the only reason we had a surplus when Clinton was in office is because the Republican Congress forced Clinton not to spend.

And also, during Bush Sr, it was the Democrat controlled Congress that forced him to spend.