3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 12:09 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Here are the first four hits I got on recent pieces providing the good news I was talking about. Yes, you can find lots of stuff saying how bad it is. But you just can't corroborate all that doom and gloom stuff if you look at the real numbers.

If you don't want to read all four, at least look over the first one. It pretty much says it all.

http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/projo_20060721_21perry.119fd61.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/30/ap/business/mainD8IIPVBG0.shtml

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110008699

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008640


In fact the first one is good enough and so pertinent that I'll post it in its entirety. Mindless optimism? No way. And even if it was, it would be far preferable to mindless pessimism.

Chugging economy gets no respect
by Mark J. Perry
01:00 AM EDT on Friday, July 21, 2006
FLINT, Mich.

NO MATTER how good the U.S. economy gets, no matter how many new jobs are created, the red-hot economy still gets no respect from the media, leading The Wall Street Journal to call it the "Rodney Dangerfield economy."

The media have consistently downplayed the turbo-charged U.S. economy, now in its fifth year of solid economic expansion. And yet almost any country in the world would gladly trade its economic conditions for a U.S. economy.

In Canada, it was headline news in June that the unemployment rate fell to a 32-year low of 6.1 percent. In more than a decade, the United States has not had an unemployment rate higher than 6 percent except for five months in 2003, and our media disparagingly dismissed that period as a "jobless recovery."

The same unemployment rates of about 6 percent are described differently in Canada's media: It's the strongest economic expansion in more than a generation!

Another example of the media's downplaying of the U.S. economy is their neglect of the history-making news that nine states have set record-low unemployment rates so far in 2006, and an additional 15 states are within a percent of their historical low jobless rates. Almost half of all states are at or near their lowest jobless rates in history, and we hear nothing about it from the media. Even though a national unemployment rate of 4.6 percent gets no respect from the media here, almost any country in Europe would love to have our labor-market conditions.

It's been more than a quarter-century since France or Germany has had unemployment rates anywhere close to 4.6 percent, and 30 years since the European Union countries as a group have had a jobless rate that low. If the European Union were a U.S. state, its current overall unemployment rate of 7.5 percent would rank it the highest in the United States except for Mississippi.

Where are the stories about the more than 5.2 million U.S. jobs that have been created in the last two years -- a pace that adds more than 142,000 jobs every month? Where is the coverage of the phenomenal 5.2-percent growth in real U.S. output so far this year, which is double the growth rate of most European countries?

And what about the dire warnings of the "2003 tax cuts for the rich," which the media trumpeted so loudly several years ago? Where are the reports today about the explosion in tax revenues generated by the strongest economy in a decade, and the increasing share of taxes paid by "the rich"?

In the first eight months of the current fiscal year, federal tax receipts have increased by 13 percent, the second-highest rate of growth for that eight-month period in the last 25 years -- surpassed only by last year's increase of 15 percent.

Further, the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest 10 percent has increased in each year since the 2003 tax cut, rising from less than 50 percent of all income taxes paid in 2003 to almost 60 percent in 2005.

In other words, the media spin about "tax cuts for the rich" never materialized -- tax revenues have increased significantly and the rich are paying more in taxes. Where are the news stories now about the "tax hikes for the rich"?

Even in its worst recession, the U.S. economy is stronger than almost any other country's during its best years. And yet even now when the U.S. economy has a historically high level of employment, historically low unemployment rates in nine states, and higher national income, output and tax revenues than at any time in U.S. history, the Dangerfield economy still gets no respect.

Mark J. Perry is an associate professor of finance and economics at the University of Michigan at Flint (mjperryumflint.edu
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 03:33 pm
Ninety eight percent of the adults in the US are decent, hard-working honest Americans.

It's the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity.

But then...............we elected them.

Lily Tomlin Cool
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 10:06 am
Quote:
"World opinion" is worthless
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, August 1, 2006


If you are ever morally confused about a major world issue, here is a rule that is almost never violated: Whenever you hear that "world opinion" holds a view, assume it is morally wrong.

And here is a related rule if your religious or national or ethnic group ever suffers horrific persecution: "World opinion" will never do a thing for you. Never.

"World opinion" has little or nothing to say about the world's greatest evils and regularly condemns those who fight evil.

The history of "world opinion" regarding the greatest mass murders and cruelties on the planet is one of relentless apathy.

Ask the 1.5 million Armenians massacred by the Ottoman Turks;

or the 6 million Ukrainians slaughtered by Stalin;

or the tens of millions of other Soviet citizens killed by Stalin's Soviet Union;

or the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis and their helpers throughout Europe;

or the 60 million Chinese butchered by Mao;

or the 2 million Cambodians murdered by Pol Pot;

or the millions killed and enslaved in Sudan;

or the Tutsis murdered in Rwanda's genocide;

or the millions starved to death and enslaved in North Korea;

or the million Tibetans killed by the Chinese;

or the million-plus Afghans put to death by Brezhnev's Soviet Union.

Ask any of these poor souls, or the hundreds of millions of others slaughtered, tortured, raped and enslaved in the last 100 years, if "world opinion" did anything for them.

On the other hand, we learn that "world opinion" is quite exercised over Israel's unintentional killing of a few hundred Lebanese civilians behind whom hides Hezbollah -- a terror group that intentionally sends missiles at Israeli cities and whose announced goals are the annihilation of Israel and the Islamicization of Lebanon. And, of course, "world opinion" was just livid at American abuses of some Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. In fact, "world opinion" is constantly upset with America and Israel, two of the most decent countries on earth, yet silent about the world's cruelest countries.

Why is this?

Here are four reasons:

First, television news.

It is difficult to overstate the damage done to the world by television news. Even when not driven by political bias -- an exceedingly rare occurrence globally -- television news presents a thoroughly distorted picture of the world. Because it is almost entirely dependent upon pictures, TV news is only capable of showing human suffering in, or caused by, free countries. So even if the BBC or CNN were interested in showing the suffering of millions of Sudanese blacks or North Koreans -- and they are not interested in so doing -- they cannot do it because reporters cannot visit Sudan or North Korea and video freely. Likewise, China's decimation and annexation of Tibet, one of the world's oldest ongoing civilizations, never made it to television.

Second, "world opinion" is shaped by the same lack of courage that shapes most individual human beings' behavior. This is another aspect of the problem of the distorted way news is presented. It takes courage to report the evil of evil regimes; it takes no courage to report on the flaws of decent societies. Reporters who went into Afghanistan without the Soviet Union's permission were killed. Reporters would risk their lives to get critical stories out of Tibet, North Korea and other areas where vicious regimes rule. But to report on America's bad deeds in Iraq (not to mention at home) or Israel's is relatively effortless, and you surely won't get killed. Indeed, you may well win a Pulitzer Prize.

Third, "world opinion" bends toward power. To cite the Israel example, "world opinion" far more fears alienating the largest producers of oil and 1 billion Muslims than it fears alienating tiny Israel and the world's 13 million Jews. And not only because of oil and numbers. When you offend Muslims, you risk getting a fatwa, having your editorial offices burned down or receiving death threats. Jews don't burn down their critics' offices, issue fatwas or send death threats, let alone act on such threats.

Fourth, those who don't fight evil condemn those who do. "World opinion" doesn't confront real evils, but it has a particular animus toward those who do -- most notably today America and Israel.

The moment one recognizes "world opinion" for what it is -- a statement of moral cowardice, one is longer enthralled by the term. That "world opinion" at this moment allegedly loathes America and Israel is a badge of honor to be worn proudly by those countries. It is when "world opinion" and its news media start liking you that you should wonder if you've lost your way.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 10:12 am
I was trying to decipher your post, Walter, but you deleted it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 10:15 am
Ticomaya wrote:
I was trying to decipher your post, Walter, but you deleted it.


Hmm, I noticed, this was the "Bush supporters thread", and of course here can be posted whatever they like and how often they like to do so.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 10:20 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
I was trying to decipher your post, Walter, but you deleted it.


Hmm, I noticed, this was the "Bush supporters thread", and of course here can be posted whatever they like and how often they like to do so.


I'm glad you recognize that, Walter. But I had not intended to duplicate a post. Did I do so?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 10:21 am
No, it hasn't been posted on this thread before.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 10:34 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
No, it hasn't been posted on this thread before.


I did check to make sure it didn't have a thread devoted to it before I posted it. But now I've I searched and found that Foxy had posted Prager's article on the " ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?" thread, which I've never posted to. I'm glad to know you're not still worked up about the fact that I posted an article that had previously been posted in the middle of a thread I don't follow.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 11:02 am
DEMS FINALLY WAKING UP??

Quote:
Opposing tax cuts has become the mantra of the liberal left. Sen. John Kerry wants to roll back Bush's "unaffordable tax cuts." Senator Mark Dayton (D., Minn.) called the cuts "dangerous and destructive and dishonorable." Bill Clinton in 2003 said the cuts were "way too big to avoid serious harm." And various New York Times editorials called them "economically unsound," claimed that "they will increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars" and said they were unlikely "to stimulate the wallowing economy." Earlier this month House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi promised that the election of a Democratic House in November would result in a "rollback of the tax cuts."

Of course they have it backwards. President Bush's personal income, capital gains and dividend tax rate reductions have created economic growth, significantly increased government tax receipts, and reduced the federal deficit by nearly $130 billion. As the New York Times was forced to admit in its front-page headline on July 9, a "Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Curbs U.S. Deficit." But it isn't surprising at all; the truth is that when tax rates go down, economic activity goes up.

[snip]

Tax cuts work, and work well, for individuals, employers and even the government, which sees its revenues increase dramatically when tax cuts are enacted and left in place over time.

State governments are coming to the same conclusions. Rhode Island Democrats came to realize their 9.9% top income tax rate--the third highest in the nation--was costing the state business and jobs, so they teamed up with their Republican governor to enact a flat-tax option: pay 7.5% (which phases down to 5.5% over time,) without deductions, instead of 9.9% with them.

Arizona's Democratic governor, Janet Napolitano, signed a 10% across-the-board income tax rate reduction. Oklahoma has reduced its income tax rates by 20%, and New Mexico's Democratic governor, Bill Richardson, cut his state's top rate from 8.2% to 4.9% and its capital gains tax rate in half. Experience has shown that such reductions will be very good for these states' economies. In the late 1970s, when Delaware had the nation's highest personal income tax rate at 19.8% (and also its lowest credit rating and second highest unemployment rate), it began reducing top tax rates down to 5.95%. Over 20 years income-tax revenues increased in every year but one, and became 300% greater than they had been.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 01:08 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
No, it hasn't been posted on this thread before.


I did check to make sure it didn't have a thread devoted to it before I posted it. But now I've I searched and found that Foxy had posted Prager's article on the " ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?" thread, which I've never posted to. I'm glad to know you're not still worked up about the fact that I posted an article that had previously been posted in the middle of a thread I don't follow.


And pray tell why are you snubbing my thread?

(just teasing)

Your input would be most welcome there however.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 01:18 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
No, it hasn't been posted on this thread before.


I did check to make sure it didn't have a thread devoted to it before I posted it. But now I've I searched and found that Foxy had posted Prager's article on the " ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?" thread, which I've never posted to. I'm glad to know you're not still worked up about the fact that I posted an article that had previously been posted in the middle of a thread I don't follow.


And pray tell why are you snubbing my thread?

(just teasing)

Your input would be most welcome there however.


Laughing Good question, Foxy ... not intentionally, I assure you.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 02:40 pm
Tico, or whoever, thanks for the Prager piece. It is the bitter truth.

SS, where did your piece come from? Hey, you can spend like crazy on your credit cards and appear quite prosperous. But you know this will catch up with you.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 02:44 pm
Advocate wrote:
Tico, or whoever, thanks for the Prager piece. It is the bitter truth.


Who are you, and what have you done with Advocate?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 02:50 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Tico, or whoever, thanks for the Prager piece. It is the bitter truth.


Who are you, and what have you done with Advocate?


While I may have my issues with Advocate on other subjects, he has been on the right-thinking side of the Israel/Hezbollah conflict and has provided some good observations on that.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 02:54 pm
Tico, I have taken over his liberal body.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Aug, 2006 07:02 pm
NYT: Some Bush Sr. advisers 'deeply uneasy' with 'pro-Israeli tilt to the policies of the son'

RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday August 1, 2006

Some advisers to the president's father are "deeply uneasy with the pro-Israeli tilt to the policies of the son," according to an article slated for the front page of Wednesday's New York Times, RAW STORY has found.

The paper reports that there is "a generational and philosophical divide between the Bushes" which "is creating friction between their camps."

"When they first met as United States president and Israeli prime minister, George W. Bush made clear to Ariel Sharon he would not follow in the footsteps of his father," writes Sheryl Gay Stolberg for the Times.

"The first President Bush had been tough on Israel, especially the housing settlements Sharon had helped develop," Stolberg continues. "But over tea in the Oval Office that day in March 2001 the new president charted a different course, going beyond the usual expression of support by pledging to use force to protect Israel."

"That embrace represents a generational and philosophical divide between the Bushes, one that is creating friction between their camps," writes Stolberg.

"As the president continues to defend Israel's bombing campaign against Hezbollah -- even after a devastating weekend attack that left dozens of Lebanese civilians dead and provoked international condemnation -- some advisers to the father are deeply uneasy with the pro-Israeli tilt to the policies of the son," Stolberg writes.

DEVELOPING...
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 01:06 pm
Say the Islamofacists defeat Israel, we can expect them to next turn on us.

GWB is probably not so much pro-Israel as anti-terrorist. After all, it was terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Aug, 2006 05:19 am
"Now, watch this drive."

Quote:
Soldiers 'hit golf balls before going out to kill family'

· US military court told of brutal attack in Iraq
· Evidence from colleague describes rape and murder

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1839522,00.html
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Aug, 2006 08:27 am
That confirms the suspicions I always had about golfers.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Aug, 2006 08:38 am
From the mouth of none other than Lanny Davis, one of the most prominent of the spokespersons for the Democrats and the Left:

Liberal McCarthyism
Bigotry and hate aren't just for right-wingers anymore.

BY LANNY J. DAVIS
Tuesday, August 8, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

WASHINGTON--My brief and unhappy experience with the hate and vitriol of bloggers on the liberal side of the aisle comes from the last several months I spent campaigning for a longtime friend, Joe Lieberman.

This kind of scary hatred, my dad used to tell me, comes only from the right wing--in his day from people such as the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, with his tirades against "communists and their fellow travelers." The word "McCarthyism" became a red flag for liberals, signifying the far right's fascistic tactics of labeling anyone a "communist" or "socialist" who favored an active federal government to help the middle class and the poor, and to level the playing field.

I came to believe that we liberals couldn't possibly be so intolerant and hateful, because our ideology was famous for ACLU-type commitments to free speech, dissent and, especially, tolerance for those who differed with us. And in recent years--with the deadly combination of sanctimony and vitriol displayed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage--I held on to the view that the left was inherently more tolerant and less hateful than the right.

Now, in the closing days of the Lieberman primary campaign, I have reluctantly concluded that I was wrong. The far right does not have a monopoly on bigotry and hatred and sanctimony. Here are just a few examples (there are many, many more anyone with a search engine can find) of the type of thing the liberal blog sites have been posting about Joe Lieberman:
MORE HERE
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/03/2025 at 04:22:28