Bush supporters' aftermath thread

cicerone imposter wrote:

As a matter of fact, blatham did tell us about his UFO ride. Too bad you missed it.

There were life-altering anal probes.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
It's paranoid if the words of a terrorist like Osama controls your life and freedoms. Just because there were some bombings in London and Bali, doesn't mean I'll stay away from my favorite city and favorite island. You are free to become paralyzed by Osama's words, but I refuse to sacrifice my freedoms and live in fear.
Better, but still plenty overstated. Neither Paralyzed nor paranoid describes me very well. In fact; I'm looking forward to meeting you (and hopefully Blatham) in Chicago in a few months. :wink:

Happy new year, bill. Nice to see you. My nephew Jer asked about you during a phone call two or three days past. I told him you'd died.

0 Replies

BBB and MM

I was referring to dyslexia. He has a truck and that truck has a shower and we showered together and he has a gun believe you me.

0 Replies

Blatham

blatham wrote:

BBB and MM
I was referring to dyslexia. He has a truck and that truck has a shower and we showered together and he has a gun believe you me.

I've been inside Dys' truck and giggled a bit at the purple banner flying from it's antenna.

BBB

0 Replies

As a general rule, I dislike cut & paste assaults from people I'm arguing with, so I am trying hard to spare my opponents of them. But today, I ran across an opinion piece that merits an exception, because the person who wrote it has spotless credentials as a Bush supporter. His name is Gregory Mankiw, he's currently a professor at Harvard, and he used to be President Bush's chief economic advisor. In today's Wall Street Journal, he offers a few New Year's resolutions to those currently responsible for economic policy in Washington. What the resolutions say about the people they are addressed to is left as an exercise to the reader.

In today's Wall Street Journal, Greg Mankiw wrote:

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. -- Now is a time when most of us sit back and reflect on the past year and on how to do better in the year ahead. Since I know, however, that economic policy makers inside the Beltway are often too busy for such introspection, my gift to them is a list of seven New Year's resolutions. Any senator, congressman or presidential wannabe is free to adopt them as his or her own. Just repeat after me:
#1: This year I will be straight about the budget mess. I know that the federal budget is on an unsustainable path. I know that when the baby-boom generation retires and becomes eligible for Social Security and Medicare, all hell is going to break loose. I know that the choices aren't pretty -- either large cuts in promised benefits or taxes vastly higher than anything ever experienced in U.S. history. I am going to admit these facts to the American people, and I am going to say which choice I favor.

#2: This year I will be unequivocal in my support of free trade. I am going to stop bashing the Chinese for offering bargains to American consumers. I am going to ask the Bush administration to revoke the textile quotas so Americans will find it easier to clothe their families. I am going to vote to repeal the antidumping laws, which only protect powerful domestic industries from foreign competition. I am going to admit that unilateral disarmament in the trade wars would make the U.S. a richer nation.

#3: This year I will ask farmers to accept the free market. While I believe the government should provide a safety net for the truly needy, taxpayers shouldn't have to finance handouts to farmers, many of whom are wealthy. Farmers should meet the market test as much as anyone else. I will vote to repeal all federal subsidies to growers of corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans and rice. I will vote to allow unrestricted import of sugar. (See resolution no. 2.) I will tell Americans that eliminating our farm subsidies should not be a "concession" made in trade negotiations but a policy change that we affirmatively embrace.

#4: This year I will admit that there are some good taxes. Everyone hates taxes, but the government needs to fund its operations, and some taxes can actually do some good in the process. I will tell the American people that a higher tax on gasoline is better at encouraging conservation than are heavy-handed CAFE regulations. It would not only encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient cars, but it would encourage them to drive less, such as by living closer to where they work. I will tell people that tolls are a good way to reduce traffic congestion -- and with new technologies they are getting easier to collect. I will advocate a carbon tax as the best way to control global warming. Because we may well need to raise more revenue (see resolution no. 1), I'll always be on the lookout for these good taxes.

Source (via Brad deLong's weblog)

There are three more resolutions, but I don't want to get A2K in trouble by copying and pasting a "subscribers only" article in full. I promise to post them as soon as they become freely available at OpinionJournal.com.

0 Replies

Blatham tells us that in some poll or other, President Bush is losing support. Blatham is apparently not aware that according to Rasmussen Reports President Bush has raised his Job Approval Level to 48%. This is nearly the same percentage for Job Approval that President Bush had when he defeated the undertaker- John Kerry in 2004 and when his party actually added seats to their House and Senate totals. See Rasmussen Reports today.

It does not appear that the left, even with all of its mud slinging, will be able to take either the House or Senate in 2006. Blatham, who apparently never references anything, may not know that a CBS Poll on Oct. 31st gave President Bush a 49% Job Approval Rating.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
As a matter of fact, blatham did tell us about his UFO ride. Too bad you missed it.

There were life-altering anal probes.

I would imagine ANY anal probing would be life changing...

0 Replies

Some things never change. Mortkat sounds an awful lot like good old Massagatto from Abuzz always consumed by polls. I assume that all polls are correct except the ones that showed that Kerry beat bu$h in that fraudulent election.

And of course he would never bother himself with the equally fraudulent voting equipment as long as his heros own or control most of them.

0 Replies

Thomas,

I fully agree with every point raised in the Greg Mankiew piece. Each, of course is stated and advanced solely upon its economic merits, and without regard for the very real political process of persuading the public and overcoming the misunderstandings and, in some cases, self-serving deceptions that stand in the way of their acceptance.

The next logical question is what domestic political forces oppose these ideas and which political party has come closest to dealing seriously with them as they really are?

The sad truth is that both Democrats and Republicans have evaded different aspects of these questions and in some cases have advocated exactly the wrong answer as needed to mollify their powerful constituencies.constituencies. Thus we have Democrats fighting to sustain agricultural subsidies; "protect jobs" by protectionism; add to CAFE standards regulating the manufacture of automobiles; and denying that evident demographic and fiscal facts of the Social Security system when the Republicansd attempted (somewhat ineptly) to reform it. By comparison I believe Bush has been relatively true to the right agenda. I say relatively because he has failed to adequately restrain Federal spending; to tackle agricultural subsidies; to counter Democrat arguments for government regulation of vehicle design and power production with simple tax incentives; and to argue the social security question in sufficiently stark terms - all for obviously political reasons. Just as bad, he has succombed to Democrat political pressure in several acts of trade protectionism.

However, in all of this I can't see a single element which the Democrats have got even partly right. On the contrary, they have engaged in the worst and most obvious demagogery. I doubt that they believe half of it themselves.

0 Replies

george, Even I can agree with your thesis that the democrats have offered nothing to solve our major problems through government inaction - even as the majority in congress.

Your mention of some of the weaknesses of Bush is refreshing, although I find it abreviated. Not only has he increased our national debt, but has done nothing to decrease spending while seeking permanent tax cuts for the rich.

The republicans have lost their way from "conservatism" that meant less government intrusion in past generations, and the democrats have no "road map." Americans will suffer for many years into the future.

0 Replies

I partly agree with you here, Cicerone.

Reagan dealt with these issues more honestly and openly than has Bush. Even in the face of a Democrat Congress that opposed him, Reagan at least tried to restrain Federal spending. Bush, even with a Republican Congress, hasn't even tried. However the Democrats have shown fairly clearly that there isn't any partisan level to which they will not stoop in opposing hin, no matter what falsehoods and bad policioes may be required.

The "tax cuts for the rich" mantra is a good example. In any system of progressive income taxation, any meaningful tax cut will necessarily benefit the taxpayers who disprooportionately enjoy higher incomes. The arithmetic fact is that after the Bush tax cuts our tax rate schedule was slightly MORE progressive than it was before. The Democrat mantra was positively and knowingly deceptive. If, on the other hand, the Democrats had truthfully acknowledged the looming Social Security crisis and embraced Bush's reform plan (or some variant of it as he suggested) then they could have without hypocricy tackled the one regressive element in our tax code - the social security payroll tax. Instead they denied the problem's existence and thereby condemned the country to future increases in this most regressive element of our tax structure.

Similarly with environmental issues, notably the Kyoto Treaty and the relaxation of the draconian provisions of the Clean Air Act which have effectively stopped cold any plant upgrades for over half of the power production plantsd in the country for over two decades , the Democrats ignored the adverse economic effects on the poor for whom they claim soo much concern, and even common sense with respect to practical measures to pollution reduction - all to make political points.

I find much with which to find fault with the Bush adninistration. However I see nothing of substance at all to admire in the Democrat alternative to it.

0 Replies

Posted on Tue, Jan. 03, 2006
Tax breaks for wealthy go into effect BY:WILLIAM NEIKIRK Chicago Tribune

WASHINGTON - They call them the PEP and Pease provisions of tax law and they are on their way out. If you are wealthy, this should make you smile. You could be a little richer.
PEP and Pease refer to two tax increases adopted in 1990 when President George H.W. Bush broke his "read my lips" promise against boosting taxes in order to cut the deficit, angering many in the Republican Party. But on Sunday, thanks to a law quietly passed in 2001 when his son, George W. Bush, was in the White House, the PEP and Pease provisions - essentially limitations on tax exemptions - began a five-year phaseout at a cost of $27 billion.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank here, some 53.5 percent of this money will go to households earning more than $1 million. Another 43.2 percent will go to those with incomes between $200,000 and $1 million. The rest will go to those earning between $100,000 and $200,000."It is particularly ironic that these two new tax cuts repeal provisions of the tax code that President Bush's father signed in 1990 to reduce deficits," said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the center.
By contrast, conservative groups said the PEP and Pease tax increases amount to bad tax law. PEP stands for "personal exemption phaseout." Basically, Congress decided in 1990 to slash the personal income exemption (now $3,200) for high-income Americans. Pease refers to former Rep. Don Pease, an Ohio Democrat who sponsored a provision limiting the value of itemized deductions for wealthy people.
By 2010, these provisions will be gone unless Congress reinstates them, and that does not appear likely.
Millionaires will receive an average tax cut of $19,000 a year when the two provisions are wiped out, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said. The center added that this comes on top of an average tax cut of $103,000 millionaires received in 2005 because of other tax cuts adopted since 2001.
Groups like the center, which frequently criticizes the Bush administration, are outraged that Congress would allow even more tax cuts for the wealthy in addition to those passed in the last five years.
But the phaseout of these provisions shows how the political climate has changed in Washington since 1990. That the wealthy have fared better with tax cuts in recent years indicates that old "soak-the-rich" policies no longer seem to resonate in the nation's capital.
Stephen Entin, president and executive director of the Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation, a conservative think tank here, called the two provisions "very complicated backdoor methods of raising taxes on the rich," and said they should be repealed.
Any tax increases on wealthier Americans should come in the form of higher tax rates, not through denying some Americans tax benefits that go to others, he said. The two tax measures effectively raise the top tax rate from 35 percent to nearly 40 percent, Entin said.
A Treasury Department tax expert in the Reagan administration, Entin said the 1990 tax hikes came about because the first President Bush was under intense pressure to make a budget deal with Congress to reduce the deficit.
"Reaching arbitrary budget targets nudges Congress into making silly behind-the-scenes tax changes," he said.
If Congress had kept these tax hikes in place, Greenstein said, budget cuts this year on programs affecting the poor, particularly Medicaid, could have been prevented. From 2010 to 2019, he said, the cost of these tax cuts would swell to $146 billion.
Joel Friedman, a tax expert at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, noted that Congress added repeal of the two provisions to Bush's 2001 tax-cut package that slashed income tax rates across the board.
Entin said the provisions are highly complex. For example, in 2005 the Pease provision would reduce the value of most itemized deductions for people who have incomes above $145,950. The value of the covered exemptions would be reduced by 3 percent for every dollar of earnings above $145,950. Itemized deductions could not be cut more than 80 percent.
The personal exemption phaseout operates similarly. In 2005 taxpayers lose 2 percent of the personal exemption for every $2,500 by which their income exceeds $145,950 for singles and $218,950 for married couples.
email thisprint this

0 Replies

Quote:

Why We Don't Trust Democrats With National Security

By Ann Coulter

Jan 4, 2006

It seems the Bush administration -- being a group of sane, informed adults -- has been secretly tapping Arab terrorists without warrants.

During the CIA raids in Afghanistan in early 2002 that captured Abu Zubaydah and his associates, the government seized computers, cell phones and personal phone books. Soon after the raids, the National Security Agency began trying to listen to calls placed to the phone numbers found in al Qaeda Rolodexes.

That was true even if you were "an American citizen" making the call from U.S. territory -- like convicted al Qaeda associate Iyman Faris who, after being arrested, confessed to plotting to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge. If you think the government should not be spying on people like Faris, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

By intercepting phone calls to people on Zubaydah's speed-dial, the NSA arrested not only "American citizen" Faris, but other Arab terrorists, including al Qaeda members plotting to bomb British pubs and train stations.

The most innocent-sounding target of the NSA's spying cited by the Treason Times was "an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden." Whatever softening adjectives the Times wants to put in front of the words "ties to Osama bin Laden," we're still left with those words -- "ties to Osama bin Laden." The government better be watching that person.

The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia.

On this one, I'm pretty sure Americans are going with the president.

If the Democrats had any brains, they'd distance themselves from the cranks demanding Bush's impeachment for listening in on terrorists' phone calls to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (Then again, if they had any brains, they'd be Republicans.)

To the contrary! It is Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer who are leading the charge to have Bush impeached for spying on people with Osama's cell phone number.

That's all you need to know about the Democrats to remember that they can't be trusted with national security. (That and Jimmy Carter.)

Thanks to the Treason Times' exposure of this highly classified government program, admitted terrorists like Iyman Faris are going to be appealing their convictions. Perhaps they can call Democratic senators as expert witnesses to testify that it was illegal for the Bush administration to eavesdrop on their completely private calls to al-Zarqawi.

Democrats and other traitors have tried to couch their opposition to the NSA program in civil libertarian terms, claiming Bush could have gone to the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and gotten warrants for the interceptions.

The Treason Times reported FISA virtually rubber-stamps warrant requests all the time. As proof, the Times added this irrelevant statistic: In 2004, "1,754 warrants were approved." No one thought to ask how many requests were rejected.

Over and over we heard how the FISA court never turns down an application for a warrant. USA Today quoted liberal darling and author James Bamford saying: "The FISA court is as big a rubber stamp as you can possibly get within the federal judiciary." He "wondered why Bush sought the warrantless searches, since the FISA court rarely rejects search requests," said USA Today.

Put aside the question of why it's so vitally important to get a warrant from a rubber-stamp court if it's nothing but an empty formality anyway. After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get a warrant from FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it later turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant requests from the Bush administration like never before. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the FISA court "modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined."

In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not modify -- much less reject -- one single warrant request. But starting in 2001, the judges "modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration." In the years 2003 and 2004, the court issued 173 "substantive modifications" to warrant requests and rejected or "deferred" six warrant requests outright.

What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack. Also, perhaps as a gesture of inclusion and tolerance, hold an Oval Office reception for the suspected al Qaeda operatives. After another terrorist attack, I'm sure a New York Times reporter could explain to the victims' families that, after all, the killer's ties to al Qaeda were merely "dubious" and the FISA court had a very good reason for denying the warrant request.

Every once in a while the nation needs little reminder of why the Democrats can't be trusted with national security. This is today's lesson.

0 Replies

Top Ten George W. Bush New Year's Resolutions

10. Fewer decisions based on wild, drunken hunches
9. Have N.S.A. find out what really happened between Nick and Jessica
8. Stop using Situation Room monitors to play X-Box 360
7. More C-SPAN, less "Yes, Dear"
6. Team up with leading scientists to make Cheetos even cheesier
5. To capture and bring to justice King Kong
4. Beat the twins at beer pong
3. Respond to reporters questions with, "Bitch, don't go there"
2. Scale back on grueling 12-hour work week
1. "Who needs resolutons? Everythng is fine"

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

However, in all of this I can't see a single element which the Democrats have got even partly right. On the contrary, they have engaged in the worst and most obvious demagogery. I doubt that they believe half of it themselves.

I certainly hope they don't. I agree with your observations about the constraints from public opinion, and feel confirmed in my opinion that the best option for America is gridlock. I think your country worked a lot better under Reagan and O'Neill, as well as under Clinton and Gingrich. Here's to gridlock in November '06. <clonk>

0 Replies

george wrote:
I find much with which to find fault with the Bush adninistration. However I see nothing of substance at all to admire in the Democrat alternative to it.

I totally agree.

_________________

I find it interesting, according to this mornings San Jose Merc, that many republicans including Bush are trying to distance themselves from Abramoff by "donating" the money received to charity.

If this is any indiciation of the middled waters of politics, who need them?

0 Replies

I'll drink to gridlock.

0 Replies

gridlock is secondary only to philosophical anarchy. A congress/whitehouse in action is the greatest threat to personal liberty.

0 Replies

Bush assertions on right to waive torture ban slammed by top Republicans:

A joint statement issued by Senators Warner and McCain, the lawmakers said:

Quote:

We believe the President understands Congress's intent in passing by very large majorities legislation governing the treatment of detainees included in the 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations and Authorization bills. The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation. Our Committee intends through strict oversight to monitor the Administration's implementation of the new law.

Senator Graham echoed the sentiment, adding "I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified."

Boston Globe report: 3 GOP senators blast Bush bid to bypass torture ban

0 Replies

tico

That you even bother reading Coulter, not to mention posting her here, does a pretty serious disservice to anything else you might write or contribute.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know