Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

McGentrix wrote:

old europe wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
All I did was point out that it wasn't the tax breaks that gave Paris Hilton money to spend, rather work (a 4 letter word for liberals) gave her money to spend on designer clothes.

Her TV shows provide many people with jobs, her perfume and purse lines provide people with jobs, her parents hotel chains provide people with jobs, her providing her name to a videogame provides people with jobs.

It's not how much money she makes that makes her successful, it's the work she does to make that money that makes her successful.

I like your logic.

You're right. It's not a question of how much she works, or how much she earns. It's a question of how many people have a job, thanks to her.

I guess that means that Santa Claus is the most successful businessman in the world, given that he provides millions of people with jobs.

Wouldn't you agree?

I will leave it to your Mom to tell you about Santa Claus.

Then I will leave it to your daughter to tell you about Paris Hilton.

0 Replies

Bush Lied is the Big Lie
By Debra Saunders

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson wants to impeach President Bush. In arguing that point, he asked Fox News' Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday, "Have you seen the National Intelligence Estimate that was provided in October of 2002, in which the intelligence agency under the State Department said that Iraq was not building up a nuclear capability, that this whole story about the aluminum tubes (reportedly sought by Saddam Hussein in Niger) was completely off base?"

I decided to re-read the NIE excerpts that the administration released. What does the report say? "Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade." The NIE also reported that Iraq had "expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production," that Baghdad had renewed production of mustard and sarin gases, and that Iraqi missiles could threaten the "U.S. homeland."

Yes, the NIE key judgments reported that some officials in the State Department did not believe Saddam Hussein was pursuing a "comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons." But the report also noted that, "Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that (U.N. weapons) inspectors departed -- December 1998."
<A HREF="http://a.tribalfusion.com/h.click/aSmyJd4dnZdQV7Zc56MIoHXOVH79YFQkYrj60TeMSUUHTrYSVd3TmUQnQb7mYqUy4ajc5qv3nqJK1r3cWHBXmPUKpGrwoHQK2TZbl3dZaN5mvZamUnIYV30XsvY0GnNnqn43FnTWFFDWPQ1PqMQ3UQGf7LBR4/459514669" TARGET="_blank"><IMG SRC= WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 BORDER=0></A>

So let us review the Bush-lied argument that Anderson and other war critics espouse. They say Bush lied about WMD, when, in fact, America's best intelligence presented no doubt about Iraq having chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. And according to the NIE, most intelligence agencies also believed Iraq had been working on nukes for four years.

Here's another point that the Bush-lied misinformation campaign has forgotten. While war critics point to Bush's inclusion of this sentence -- "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" -- in his 2003 State of the Union Address as proof that Bush misled the country into war, Bush uttered those words three months after Congress voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

Bush Lied is the Big Lie. It takes the controversy over one aspect of U.S. intelligence on Iraq's WMD -- the nuclear program question -- to argue that the whole WMD argument was bogus. That is, the president's accusers are guilty of the very sort of dishonest selectivity that they accuse Bush of using.

Now the Bush-lied lie is boomeranging on those Democratic presidential hopefuls -- Sens. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd and former Sen. John Edwards -- who voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution.

By going along with the Bush-lied spin, by refusing to acknowledge that the intelligence community presented strong reasons to vote for war, these Democrats have boxed themselves into a corner. They now have only one rationale for their vote that they can use -- they were duped by the nincompoop Bush -- or one rationale that they cannot use -- they sent U.S. troops to Iraq against their better judgment but out of naked ambition.

And the dishonesty now has placed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the uncomfortable position of pushing for passage of a bill to continue funding a war into next year that the grassroots believe was based on a lie.

So how does Pelosi plan on getting the House to pass the Iraq spending bill? As The Washington Post reported, the Democratic leadership has larded the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act with pork. After all the (deserved) rhetoric decrying Republican big spending, the Democratic leadership inserted $25 million for spinach growers, $75 million for peanut storage, and $120 million for shrimp and Atlantic menhaden fishermen into the supplemental spending bill.

The idea is to sweeten the pot so that war opponents will agree to fund a war they oppose, while war supporters will vote for the bill, despite provisions the seem to be designed solely to undermine the Bush surge.

Pelosi frequently says that President Bush must heed the message that American voters sent in November 2006. Who knew that message was to fund the war while undermining the war effort and to spend more tax dollars on pork?

0 Replies

But their strategy works McG, mostly because the flock wants to believe the lie that Bush lied. They use whatever works with the flock. Such as the following:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg0321j.jpg

0 Replies

Mud sticks, doesn't it?

Nice to see the chickens coming home to roost. If you like your metaphors mixed. Or not. Laughing

0 Replies

Who Pays America's Tax Burden, and Who Gets the Most Government Spending?

by Andrew Chamberlain, Gerald Prante and Scott A. Hodge

Special Report No. 151

Executive Summary
While many studies answer the question of who pays taxes in America, the question of who gets the most government spending is often overlooked. Just as some Americans bear a larger portion of the nation's tax burden than others, some Americans also receive a larger share of the nation's government spending.

This report summarizes the key findings of a comprehensive 2007 Tax Foundation study of federal, state and local taxes and government spending. The results show that when we consider the distribution of government spending as well as taxes, it provides a dramatically altered view of how U.S. fiscal policy affects Americans at different income levels than is apparent from the distribution of tax burdens alone.

Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state and local taxes. In 2004, between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending policy.

These findings suggest tax distributions alone do not tell Americans how much the nation's fiscal system is helping or hurting low-income households. To answer that, we must look beyond tax burdens to government spending as well. Lawmakers who ignore the distribution of government spending risk making policy judgments based on an incorrect set of facts about the United States fiscal system.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Who Pays America's Tax Burden, and Who Gets the Most Government Spending?

by Andrew Chamberlain, Gerald Prante and Scott A. Hodge

Special Report No. 151

Executive Summary
While many studies answer the question of who pays taxes in America, the question of who gets the most government spending is often overlooked. Just as some Americans bear a larger portion of the nation's tax burden than others, some Americans also receive a larger share of the nation's government spending.

This report summarizes the key findings of a comprehensive 2007 Tax Foundation study of federal, state and local taxes and government spending. The results show that when we consider the distribution of government spending as well as taxes, it provides a dramatically altered view of how U.S. fiscal policy affects Americans at different income levels than is apparent from the distribution of tax burdens alone.

Overall, we find that America's lowest-earning one-fifth of households received roughly $8.21 in government spending for each dollar of taxes paid in 2004. Households with middle-incomes received $1.30 per tax dollar, and America's highest-earning households received $0.41. Government spending targeted at the lowest-earning 60 percent of U.S. households is larger than what they paid in federal, state and local taxes. In 2004, between $1.03 trillion and $1.53 trillion was redistributed downward from the two highest income quintiles to the three lowest income quintiles through government taxes and spending policy.

These findings suggest tax distributions alone do not tell Americans how much the nation's fiscal system is helping or hurting low-income households. To answer that, we must look beyond tax burdens to government spending as well. Lawmakers who ignore the distribution of government spending risk making policy judgments based on an incorrect set of facts about the United States fiscal system.

I guess this depends on how you mesure who is 'receiving government spending'. I would imagine that there are many healthcare officials who are in "America's highest-earning households". I'm also sure these people recieve government money, which is distributed to them for giving healthcare to the lower income people. They would lose money if these programs were not in existence.

Also, how many of the "America's highest-earning households" are own grocery stores, gasoline stations, etc. Without food stamps there would be less money flowing into those businesses as well.

And what about military spending. Don't the rich have the most to gain from having a safe country or a safe economy. If another 9/11 happened you understand that many of America's highest-earning households would have the most to lose so shouldn't some of that spending be shifted their their bucket.

I guess it's all in the spin right?

0 Replies

Other then attempting to be critical, I fail to see your point.

Healthcare officials? You mean doctors that see low-income patients?

Grocery store owners? Yeah, they make a profit selling food. Ever try growing your own? Refining your own gas? etc?

Military spending is a governmental function, don't see how that has anything to do with what I posted.

Let me test something here...

The sky is gray and overcast today.

0 Replies

Senate war bill features $20B in pork

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Nope,they arent kidding.
Mark Pryor,a democrat from Arkansas,came up with this goofy plan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032602034_pf.html

Quote:

The Arkansas Democrat is a key holdout on his party's proposal to approve $122 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while setting a goal of March 31, 2008, for winding up military operations in Iraq. Unlike the plan's Republican opponents, Pryor wants a withdrawal deadline of some kind. He just doesn't want anyone outside the White House, Congress and the Iraqi government to know what it is.

"My strong preference would be to have a classified plan and a classified timetable that should be shared with Congress," Pryor said yesterday. A public deadline would tip off the enemy, "who might just bide their time and wait for us to leave," he said. "Then you'd have chaos and mayhem and instability."

Pryor said a classified plan would be provided by the president, shepherded by Senate committees and ultimately shared with Congress and Iraqi leaders. He is confident that the plan would remain secret, because Congress is entrusted with secrets "all the time."

0 Replies

Have you ever seen those car chases on "COPS" or similar shows in which the fugitive signals his turns? Signaling our intentions to the enemy is just about as bright and far more tragic since it will certainly cost many lives. We haven't elected the brightest bulbs in the chandelier to Congress have we.

Meanwhile, what in the heck is stretching these pages so wide that I can't even access the edges?

0 Replies

Bush Serves Jokes at Broadcasters Dinner

WASHINGTON (AP) - Tell us, Mr. President, how have things changed since the last broadcasters' dinner?

"A year ago my approval rating was in the 30s, my nominee for the Supreme Court had just withdrawn, and my vice president had shot someone," President Bush said Wednesday night during the annual gathering.

"Ah," he said, "those were the good ol' days."

In keeping with the lighthearted traditions of the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association dinner, Bush poked fun at himself and a few others in remarks that drew laughter and applause at the Washington Hilton Hotel.

Bush thanked the organization for providing dinner, "and I'd like to thank Senator Webb for providing security."

Virginia's Democratic senator, Jim Webb, had to explain this week why an aide was carrying a loaded handgun as he tried to enter a Capitol complex building.

Noting that Vice President Dick Cheney was not in attendance, Bush said: "He's had a rough few weeks. To be honest, his feelings were kind of hurt. He said he was going on vacation to Afghanistan where people like him."

Cheney's recent trip to Afghanistan was marked by a bombing near where he was meeting with officials.

On the controversy over the Justice Department's firing of eight federal prosecutors, Bush said: "I have to admit we really blew the way we let those attorneys go. You know you've lost it when people sympathize with lawyers."

Acknowledging House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., at the head table, Bush said some had wondered how he'd get along with her. "Some say she's bossy, she's opinionated, she not to be crossed," he said. "Hey, I get along with my mother."

Looking ahead to life after leaving the White House, Bush said he might follow President Clinton's lead and produce a memoir.

"I'm thinking of something really fun and creative for mine," he said. "You know, maybe a pop-up book."

Possible titles: "How W. Got His Groove Back, "Who Moved My Presidency?" and "Tuesday with Cheney."

But seriously, folks, Bush noted that another person missing from the audience of broadcast journalists was Sen. Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat running for president.

"Not enough press," the president cracked.

Comics from the TV show "Whose Line Is It Anyway?" provided the professional humor. Among other things, they persuaded Bush political adviser Karl Rove to participate in an improvised rap song.

The black-tie dinner, the group's 63rd annual gathering of journalists, politicians and their guests, features political and topical humor.

*********************************************************

I wonder, how long til the typical whiny leftists come and discuss how serious the President should be and continue slamming Bush?

0 Replies

Good jokes. We're going to sign that guy up for our next official black-tie dinner.

0 Replies

Source: The Guardian, 30.03.07, page 3

0 Replies

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/070328/arial.gif

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Have you ever seen those car chases on "COPS" or similar shows in which the fugitive signals his turns? Signaling our intentions to the enemy is just about as bright and far more tragic since it will certainly cost many lives. We haven't elected the brightest bulbs in the chandelier to Congress have we.

Meanwhile, what in the heck is stretching these pages so wide that I can't even access the edges?

Quote:

source

other past republican flip flop statements

Quote:

And here's the most priceless factoid: A Texas Republican congressman, Sam Johnson, is leading the current push for the aforementioned bill that would bar any restrictions on the Iraq war moneyyet this same congressman uttered these remarks on the House floor, on Dec. 13, 1995: "I wholeheartedly support withholding funds Although it is a drastic step and ties the president's hands, I do not feel like we have any other choice. The president has tied our hands, gone against the wishes of the American people, and this is the last best way I know how to show my respect for our American servicemen and women. They are helpless, following orders."

Huh, how 'bout that! Here is the same Sam Johnson on how we must remain "always faithful" to our troops:

So - little did I know back in my rat-infested 3 x 8 dark and filthy cell that 34 years after my departure from Hell on Earth I would spend the anniversary of my release pleading for a House panel to back my measure to support and fully fund the troops in harm's way.and that just days later I would be on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives surrounded by distinguished veterans urging Congress to support our troops to the hilt.
Today, let my body serve as a brutal reminder that we must not repeat the mistakes of the past instead learn from them.

We must not cut funding for our troops. We must stick by them. We must support them all the wayTo our troops we must remainalways faithful.

Always faithful eh? Except when it is politically inconvenient, that is.

Quote:

source

0 Replies

Simple, Revel - all the Bushatrons have to say to that is, "Well this war is different."

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Simple, Revel - all the Bushatrons have to say to that is, "Well this war is different."

Still it will be interesting to see the twists foxfrye comes up to reconcile her little analogy with previous republican statements concerning timelines and withholding war funds. I know she won't disappoint.

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know