What can Bush run on?

Intelligence failure that was 9/11 under his watch.
Click to expand...

Attempting to put this on Bush's head is akin to blaming WWII on FDR. A mistake made only by those who know little of history.

The U.S. was attacked by Al-Qaeda repeatedly throughout the 90's and did very little in response. Cruise missiles aimed at backwater camps and Sudanese chemical plants were the extent of our armed response to the growing threat.

The "blame" for 9/11 can be spread around the world.
 
cosmictraveler

Thank you for agreeing with me.

Eluminate

well undicided i doubt any arguments i have for the other side will have any bearing on helping you realize not everyone thinks like YOU or like People you know... some think differently.

I recognize that other ppl think differently then me, I am in charge of a debating organization. I am well aware of differences, but sadly one is almost more logical, and one is innately more beneficial. Sadly for you, your system is literally mortgaging America's future, and guaranteeing the doubling of those same taxes by 2040, your kids will love you for you selfishness.

i believe my own inner self rathern then you guilting me into believing your embelishments and lies.


Which you have not been able to show, where are these "embellishments? Where are these lies? Sorry but mere rhetoric's mean nothing and I think you know that.

CounslerCoffee

I don't understand why you get those PM's? Ever think because ppl are angry that they don't have points as shown as above? I guess they are angry because I expose that they have no cognitive points? Think of the context of the PM’s not the quantity of the PM’s.
 
Bush will run on primarily one issue: His administrations efforts in the war on terrorism have made americans safer.

There is merit in that argument.

The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have liberated over 50 million people, which has warranted both Bush and Blair to be nominated for a Nobel Peace prize that is hard to argue against.

The use of force has been instrumental in 1) bringing Lybia to the table regarding its Nuclear weapons program 2) bringing the scary Pakistani program to light and hopeful ending its proliferation of nuke technology 3) making North Korea understand the true stakes of the game they are playing in.

It is unlikely that these things would have occurred without the use and display of the "big stick". I won't outright dismiss negotiation with the North Koreans, but seeing the other side of negotiation can have only helped them understand the position they are putting themselves in.

He can also legitimately claim that through the administrations efforts there have been no more terrorist attacks on US soil since 911. I'm not sure I would have taken that bet had it been proffered to me in October 2001.

These are legitimate items that can be claimed by the administration. The war on terrorists is of chief concern for a large percentage of the population.

Whether you believe it or not, I am simply laying out what can be claimed and supportted by the Bush administrations as important accomplishments.
 
gregoftheweb

Thank you for actually showing an alternative to just lying, and attacking with rhetoric's.

The war on terrorists is of chief concern for a large percentage of the population.


But the economy is a MUCH larger issue for the American ppl. Iraq seems to be on shaky ground, Afghanistan is by all accounts a disaster of foreign policy. Americans will blame the wars for the budget deficit, and terrorism is slipping from the minds of Americans. If Bush can't win the economy he won't win the election.
 
The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have liberated over 50 million people, which has warranted both Bush and Blair to be nominated for a Nobel Peace prize that is hard to argue against.
Click to expand...

Afghanistan isn't really that liberated, for most of the country it is warlords, taliban and business as usual. Anyone can be nominated for a nobel peace prize, it doesn't mean anything.

The use of force has been instrumental in 1) bringing Lybia to the table regarding its Nuclear weapons program 2) bringing the scary Pakistani program to light and hopeful ending its proliferation of nuke technology 3) making North Korea understand the true stakes of the game they are playing in.
Click to expand...

1) It seems that way
2) eh?
3) Since the Bush administration has been in power relations with North Korea have greatly worsened. Intimidation will only work with middle eastern minnows. N. Korea won't be pressured in the same way.

It is unlikely that these things would have occurred without the use and display of the "big stick". I won't outright dismiss negotiation with the North Koreans, but seeing the other side of negotiation can have only helped them understand the position they are putting themselves in
Click to expand...

Will they capitulate or seek nuclear weapons will renewed vigour in order to protect themselves?

He can also legitimately claim that through the administrations efforts there have been no more terrorist attacks on US soil since 911. I'm not sure I would have taken that bet had it been proffered to me in October 2001.
Click to expand...

That's inconsistent: you absolve Bush from blame in regard to 9/11, but give him credit for stoping the attacks thereafter. Given the rarity of attacks on US soil, this is no great accomplishment, anyway. There have been two in the last 15 years. And who says this is a result of his policies? I'd attribute it to increased vigilence on the part of the appropriate govt. agencies.
 
I don't understand why you get those PM's? Ever think because ppl are angry that they don't have points as shown as above? I guess they are angry because I expose that they have no cognitive points? Think of the context of the PM’s not the quantity of the PM’s.
Click to expand...

No. It's the way that you post, Undecided. People tend to take your posts as attacks. I know, that by looking at your post it does appear that you are doing so, when you are not. TYPING IN ALL CAPS DOESN'T HELP EITHER.
 
headsroll.jpg
 
I find it the absolute HEIGHT of hypocrisy, when the architect of war, being Perle has the gall to actually say that Mr. Tenet should be fired!!! I almost spit on Paula Zahn during that interview, that man is the greatest threat to the world, forget Kim.
 
the deficit is not as big as you claim it to be 500 billion or more is nothing taken in comparison of gdp its about 4-6 percent. Taxes do not need to be higher to pay off the debt. Time+inflation and gdp growth could make up for any lost revenue taxwise in the meantime.

Honestly speaking noone knows a legacy of a president while he is in office it cannot be gauged or judged effectively until long after. You can speculate all you want but what happens and what people think is going to happen are two different things. Bush didnt loose the 3 million jobs the internet buble burst that wasn't his fault. He didnt make people believe a company with losses was worth billions. The recession is more or less over and the cycle will pick up no matter who the next president is. They "presidents" do not make jobs they provide incentives but they do not make business hire or fire people. The ecconomy isn't completely controled by the gov't we arent running a controlled ecconomy are we? So yes you exagurate and scream fire where there is none and embelish with facts which arent compared to the whole.

- A projected Budgetary Surplus of $5.6 trillion for the decade, now a $2.3 trillion deficit for the decade ($7.9trillion loss).
projected when? before nasdaq went from 5 thousand to 2 and all those internet companies went bust?

- "Bush has created a $1.1 trillion shortfall in government revenues with his tax cuts."
i dont care about revenue shortfall for the gov't , I care about revenue shortfall for my pocket.
-"...the U.S. GAO says that in order for America to balance its books by 2040, it will have to either cut federal spending in half or double the federal tax bite.
wow they can predict accurately 30+ some odd years in the future? Things change with time and creating a linear growth curve isn't realistic unless you want to scare someone.
 
Last edited:
the deficit is not as big as you claim it to be 500 billion or more is nothing taken in comparison of gdp its about 4-6 percent.

That is what I claimed! That is huge budget deficits even conservatives are mad at Bush for being a liberal spender in conservative shoes. The US has to import $1.5 billion a day to support itself. That is simply not sustainable. Simple.

Taxes do not need to be higher to pay off the debt. Time+inflation and gdp growth could make up for any lost revenue taxwise in the meantime.

Growth, please most the growth will be with corporations who have their HQ's in the Cayman Islands so they can escape the tax man. Inflation is low, and growth is faux, workers aren't going back to work. So where will this "tax revenue" come from? That is assuming that the government doesn't spend more money as well, by the looks of it Government spending is going up by 15% and the economy? 3%

The ecconomy isn't completely controled by the gov't we arent running a controlled ecconomy are we? So yes you exagurate and scream fire where there is none and embelish with facts which arent compared to the whole.

Bush is not in control of the economy that is true, but let's see Bush only made it worse by ballooning the deficit to unknown levels, it was Bush's team that proclaims that exporting jobs are good for Americans. The tax cuts have not provided the "stimulus" as of yet and its been 3 years...where's the beef?

projected when? before nasdaq went from 5 thousand to 2 and all those internet companies went bust?

Which has almost nil to do with it, the markets have very little to do with the budget. The tax cuts, and enormous spending on the military have made this deficit. If Bush did not cut taxes then we would be in surplus today, or a very small deficit.

i dont care about revenue shortfall for the gov't , I care about revenue shortfall for my pocket.

Which is symptomatic of short vision, you care about your wallet. Well wait until the government gives you $50 a month for your pension when your 401k collapses.

wow they can predict accurately 30+ some odd years in the future? Things change with time and creating a linear growth curve isn't realistic unless you want to scare someone.

Following current trends which you somehow support, that is the reality. The American economy will not grow fast enough to make up the tax burden. Welcome to Globalization, companies and jobs are leaving not coming.
 
several things:
1.when 2-3 million programmers who were making between 70-120k a year get laid off and have to get federal&state unemployment asistance doesn't effect the budget in any way? Not even mentioning the billions that were gotten from ipo floating and capital gains... which are now very very small compared to those levels and are just pickin up.
2. as I said you cannot force a company to hire people here if its not wage competative unless you want the to go out of business. And imposing penalties on them would give some insentive to mout out completely of the US market and reduce the marketplace in effect shifting prices higher by reducing the total market of producers.
3. My last statement about the 30 years prediction was a sarcasm, they can hardly predict 1 year accurately into the future not to mention 36.
4. 64-67% of americans got about 600-1500 because of bush's tax cuts thats a big stimulus. I kinda think money ending up in peoples pockets instead of the govt is a plus apparently you rather have it sent as a welfare check to someone who doesn't work for a living.
5. If gdp grows at 4-5% yearly and debt 10yr is 4.3-4.5% last i looked isn't it in effect a zero sum? thats besides considering 1% inflation and other ecconomic factors which would make it beneficial to borrow and give to people in tax cuts making the growth higher by cycling the funds through the ecconomy instead of out of it.
 
1.when 2-3 million programmers who were making between 70-120k a year get laid off and have to get federal&state unemployment asistance doesn't effect the budget in any way?

The vast majority of jobs lost were not high priced programmers; no most were in the mid-west industrial belt, and in the South with textiles. Real Americans are suffering and Bush is going to pay his non-chalant attitude towards them and their jobs. Trust me saying that exporting American jobs is not a very smart political move in an election year, and Bush has not said Mr.Mankiw was wrong.

2. as I said you cannot force a company to hire people here if its not wage competative unless you want the to go out of business. And imposing penalties on them would give some insentive to mout out completely of the US market and reduce the marketplace in effect shifting prices higher by reducing the total market of producers.

I agree with you, and I agree with Globalization I don't have a problem with the system. But millions of Americans do, and they decide who is in the WH come November.

3. My last statement about the 30 years prediction was a sarcasm, they can hardly predict 1 year accurately into the future not to mention 36.

If they follow current trends, more likely then not that will be the case. Obviously what they are trying to say is that Bush-onomics is not working, and putting the United States in a VERY dangerous position indeed.

4. 64-67% of americans got about 600-1500 because of bush's tax cuts thats a big stimulus.

Love to see that source... also consumer confidence is down to the best of my knowledge, and what stimulus? The only thing that is going up is debt.

I kinda think money ending up in peoples pockets instead of the govt is a plus apparently you rather have it sent as a welfare check to someone who doesn't work for a living.

No I think that someone with some ethics would want ppl to have government programs. I suggest you read up Utilitarianism because it is your ethics that denigrates society into a cess pool of poverty, and backwardness. The United States and other western states are founded on the principles of Utilitarianism, and it's ethos. As a Canadian, I love seeing my money going to my free health care, so you know I can live. Unlike 43 million Americans who can't afford to go to your so called "hospitals".

5. If gdp grows at 4-5% yearly and debt 10yr is 4.3-4.5% last i looked isn't it in effect a zero sum?

If the Budget is growing by 15% per annum like it did with this budget? With Imports growing faster then exports? Sorry debt is increasing beyond measure, four more years of Bush is expected to create another $5 trillion of debt that your children will be paying. So less money is their pocket, and collapse of the American consumer economy.

thats besides considering 1% inflation and other ecconomic factors which would make it beneficial to borrow and give to people in tax cuts making the growth higher by cycling the funds through the ecconomy instead of out of it


Ah yes when those interest rates go up, what fun... what fun.
 
OH YOUR A CANADIAN? lol and I thought you lived in US like me and could vote.
What the hell am I arguing with you for. Well utilitarianism I ain reading about
I dont like the notion at all. Government programs for people usually run poorly
and are almost always do worse then ever planned. The budget will not grow 15% per annum we both know that its gonna be scaled be and cuts in the programs will be made. You kinda ignored the point in my last scentance, when those rates go over 1% ergo inflation it would in effect be financialy beneficial to have debt because the rate of inflation is eating it faster then you are repaying it. Therefor those who financed you are loosing money and you are getting a debt load at below inflation levels or semi-free. And no they can't predict 30 years in advance as I said before they have trouble predicting 1 year ahead.
 
OH YOUR A CANADIAN? lol and I thought you lived in US like me and could vote. What the hell am I arguing with you for.

Wow, I have never been subjected to so much undeserved exceptionalism in my life, pathetic...yes. But that's the way these neo-cons think.

Well utilitarianism I ain reading about
I dont like the notion at all. Government programs for people usually run poorly
and are almost always do worse then ever planned.

Actually government healthcare here in Canada is not that bad at all, irregardless of what you hear in the US. Most Canadians want universal healthcare, then risk not being covered at all. Consider this, Canada is running a budget surplus, and you are a deficit. So thus government spending is better then not, but oddly the US spends the most on healthcare then the rest of the world. No wonder we constantly beat you on the UN HDI.

The budget will not grow 15% per annum we both know that its gonna be scaled be and cuts in the programs will be made.

You know this for certain? The budget will grow in my est. much faster then the GDP as long as Bush is in power. Thus the deficit will stay if not grow.

You kinda ignored the point in my last scentance, when those rates go over 1% ergo inflation it would in effect be financialy beneficial to have debt because the rate of inflation is eating it faster then you are repaying it.

Interest rates I assume? The recent boom in the US is being fueled by low interest rates, once they go up the market will cool, it's only a matter of time. Cars, houses, etc are bound by these rates, and so is debt.

And no they can't predict 30 years in advance as I said before they have trouble predicting 1 year ahead

Hmmm...please re-read, if current trends continue... ;) Which you do support, so do tell which programs should be cut?
 
I m hardly a neo-conserative. The only reason I m voting for a republican is because of tax cuts. Thats is it. I want marijuana legalized as well as other soft drugs. Abortion is a non-issue to me. Protitution should be legolized and free speech protected up the arse. But I cant stand overspending thats just my nature thats why I m voting republican. A few years ago the Ny budget spent $300 per toilet seat I hope that never happens again. They were dubbed golden toilet seats by press, in reality they cost less then 5 to manufacture. Where exactly did I say current trends will continue? I dont really think current trends continue I said things come in cycles thats not the same thing. Also I hate unions a lot and I m not loaded my family is lower-middle income bracket.

Welfare, affirmative action are the first that should be cut in my mind.
 
The only reason I m voting for a republican is because of tax cuts. Thats is it.

Which has done untold harm to the US economically and socially so you can buy a new TV? If you are lower middle class there is no need to vote Bush anyways, the democrats have said that they will not repeal the middle class tax cut, so unless your rich you have very little to fear.

A few years ago the Ny budget spent $300 per toilet seat I hope that never happens again.

But you think that doesn't happen in the military? You don't think spending $400 billion of your money, and the country is still chronically short men, and wasting your money in some imperial adventure overseas is not wasting money? HAH! Obviously $300 is outrageous, but that is no reason why public spending should be cut or mitigated in any way. Americans are reverting back into a protectionist past again, and the cyclical has begun you are right. Chances are you will pay more taxes in the long run for the meager tax cut you get now.

Where exactly did I say current trends will continue?

You are advocating current trends.

I dont really think current trends continue I said things come in cycles thats not the same thing.

Cycles are totally subjective, they could mean nothing. Who says that this jobless recovery will last? Chances are that the US will not be able to bite Bush's tax cuts, simple Globalization.

Also I hate unions a lot and I m not loaded my family is lower-middle income bracket.

Well you don't sound lower middle class, but you have a right to think what you want. I am not a big fan of unions myself, but I do recognize their value.
 
"I don't vote"

thank goodness for that

mr. coffee, i object. political debate does get lively and it should.
 
"No wonder we constantly beat you on the UN HDI."

but not by a lot. canada is #3 while the us is #6. however, the us got such a high ranking only because it is so rich (on the upper end only). if you sift through the individual rankings, the us falls pitifully low except for gdp where it is on top by a long shot.
 
So what can this man run on?
Click to expand...
hes under alien control. or some kind of mind control by some force.
clearly hes not in his right mind half the things that come out of his mouth are wierd and nonsensical. his actions are shady too.
they even have a calander with his stupid words for each day. some of them really make me wonder what the hell is going on in his mind.
 
My father works for a small marble & tile contractor for a long time now.
Unions are like mafia they occupy things and dont let you work even if you got a right to it. They had some work in manhattan to put in a mozaik on a marble floor the union retards didnt let him work because he wasnt a union member until his boss came and hired one of their reject morons. All that guy did throughout the whole day was when a union moron came he showed that he was a member he was sitting at the entrance the whole day doing absolutely nothing. They are leeches + teachers should be fireable I had a teacher who did nothing but berate kids all day a pure sob he taught sht and blamed the kids for being idiots and thats in a good school. He got in trouble for screaming and cursing a kid but nothing serious happened.

And no the tax cuts are definetely better for the long term. The growing trend in ny is more and more republican. Taxing less means spending less and budgeting less. Sure they might go negative but it wouldnt be as much a negative if they had more money.

And I m advocating that: Bush does have something to run on in rebuttal of your thread not current trends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top