Bush Legacy

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

Hate people who spy on the US.  Or are they spying to help us out? Still hating the US I4E?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. I'm not I4E!

2. Both he and I love the US...we just don't like our Prez.

3. Every country in the world has "spies" in the US, and the US has "Spies" in every country in the world. Don't be so naive as to think otherwise.

[Texsox]

1. I'm not I4E!

2. Both he and I love the US...we just don't like our Prez.

3. Every country in the world has "spies" in the US, and the US has "Spies" in  every country in the world. Don't be so naive as to think otherwise.

 

1. I'm guessing he borrowed your login for a day. It was fun.

2. OK.

3. I agree. But just because that is a fact, doesn't mean we have to accept it. People will commit crimes, we prosecute them for it. When we are supporting a country with all this aid, it is an insult that they would in turn commit a crime against the United States. If you invite me to your home, pay for my airfare, rent me a car, prepare a nice dinner, and in return I rip off the family sterling silver place settings, you might feel a little betrayed. I feel betrayed by every ally that sends spies to the US, whose diplomats use privilege to circumvent US laws, who in general do not act responsibly in this country.

 

When any country is successful in stealing US government secrets it potentially puts us at risk. Now we are in the position of trusting that country does not use that against us. The same country that supposedly is our ally. In this case I can hear your brother claiming "Israel would never harm us" but then why spy in the first case?

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

1. I'm guessing he borrowed your login for a day. It was fun.

2. OK.

3. I agree. But just because that is a fact, doesn't mean we have to accept it. People will commit crimes, we prosecute them for it. When we are supporting a country with all this aid, it is an insult that they would in turn commit a crime against the United States. If you invite me to your home, pay for my airfare, rent me a car, prepare a nice dinner, and in return I rip off the family sterling silver place settings, you might feel a little betrayed. I feel betrayed by every ally that sends spies to the US, whose diplomats use privilege to circumvent US laws, who in general do not act responsibly in this country.

 

When any country is successful in stealing US government secrets it potentially puts us at risk. Now we are in the position of trusting that country does not use that against us. The same country that supposedly is our ally. In this case I can hear your brother claiming "Israel would never harm us" but then why spy in the first case?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I see your point. However, our relationship with Israel is not a "One Way Street"; it's not like the US gets nothing in return for the money it "invests" in Israel. We get tons of "intel", medical tecnology, scientific technology, military tech., etc. (Too bad we can't say the same for the money we "invest" in countries like Egypt.)

[spiderman]

In my humble opinion, Bush II is the worst president in my lifetime (since 1964).

 

He has trashed the economy, the environment, kowtowed to "Big Business", his foreign policy sucks, he has continued to f**k the poor, he screwed up re. Iraq, etc.

 

Other than that, I guess he's been okay.

 

:puke Bush!

 

How has Bush trashed, as you say, the economy ?

 

He inherited an economy that was on it's way down, and had 9/11 in his 1st year, and yet had the shortest recession in history.

 

Yes, the economy can always be better, but it's been a solid, not spectacular, economy under him.

[spiderman]

Okay then...let's nail the unemployed, the homeless, the disenfranchised, the uninsured, etc.,

 

Let's let the fatcats like Bill Gates, Donald Trump, the Waltons sit in their ivory towers and make billions of dollars virtually untaxed. Let's let Exxon destroy Alaska....

 

Bush only cut taxes on those who were paying taxes - I don't think most homeless people are actually paying federal taxes.

 

Why should people too poor to pay federal taxes get a tax refund ?

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

How has Bush trashed, as you say, the economy ?

 

He inherited an economy that was on it's way down, and had 9/11 in his 1st year, and yet had the shortest recession in history.

 

Yes, the economy can always be better, but it's been a solid, not spectacular, economy under him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He inherited a federal surplus of SEVERAL billion dollars, and turned that into a deficit of SEVERAL billion dollars.

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

Bush only cut taxes on those who were paying taxes - I don't think most homeless people are actually paying federal taxes.

 

Why should people too poor to pay federal taxes get a tax refund ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why should wealthy people who don't need the money get tax refunds?

[Rex Kickass]

The glib answer is "It's their money."

 

The truth is that governments need to strike a balance between being fiscally responsible and maintaining the programs needed to take care of its citizens.

 

Unfortunately, too often, governments fail at doing that.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Why should wealthy people who don't need the money get tax refunds?

 

 

Uhhh,,,,,,,,,because they paid more than was due!? Why are you so eager to punish wealthy people for being successful?

 

 

:rolly

[Texsox]

Bush only cut taxes on those who were paying taxes - I don't think most homeless people are actually paying federal taxes.

 

Why should people too poor to pay federal taxes get a tax refund ?

 

Why should he cut taxes while *increasing* expenses? You do realize we are borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars, and somehow some people think that other people will magically arrive to pay the debt. If it isn't the taxpayers with the most resources, who will be paying all this back *plus* interest?

[spiderman]

Why should wealthy people who don't need the money get tax refunds?

 

They're the ones paying the taxes ?

Who are you to decide that somebody doesn't deserve their tax money back ?

 

Why does a poor person who may not even pay federal taxes get that money ?

[spiderman]

He inherited a federal surplus of SEVERAL billion dollars, and turned that into a deficit of SEVERAL billion dollars.

 

He also inherited an economy that was on the downturn. Do you deny that ?

 

9/11 didn't help either.

[spiderman]

Why should he cut taxes while *increasing* expenses? You do realize we are borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars, and somehow some people think that other people will magically arrive to pay the debt. If it isn't the taxpayers with the most resources, who will be paying all this back *plus* interest?

 

I believe that the tax cuts are a stimulus, but I also believe we need to cut spending, and spend the money we do more responsibly - sounds simple, but the government is constantly waisting our tax money.

[Texsox]

I believe that the tax cuts are a stimulus, but I also believe we need to cut spending, and spend the money we do more responsibly - sounds simple, but the government is constantly waisting our tax money.

 

OK, I'll buy it's a stimulus. But who will be paying back the debt plus interest?

[Balta1701]

OK, I'll buy it's a stimulus. But who will be paying back the debt plus interest?

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

They're the ones paying the taxes ?

Who are you to decide that somebody doesn't deserve their tax money back ?

 

Why does a poor person who may not even pay federal taxes get that money ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One word answer...NEED.

 

Poor people need the money and opportunities...the wealthy don't NEED, they want.

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

He also inherited an economy that was on the downturn. Do you deny that ?

 

9/11 didn't help either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True...but the current administration has wasted billions of dollars on "pork", and the only people who have benefitted financially during the Bush years have been the wealthy. (I sure as Hell haven't benefitted!)

[kapkomet]

True...but the current administration has wasted billions of dollars on "pork", and the only people who have benefitted financially during the Bush years have been the wealthy. (I sure as Hell haven't benefitted!)

And just how did you "benefit" during the Clinton years?

 

The answer should be it didn't change. Presidents have very little about how YOU benefit. It's what you do with YOURSELF that effects how you benefit, or don't.

 

That's my problem with people like you. Whine, piss and moan about s***... what ever happened to personal responsibility and accountability?

[Steve Bartman's my idol]

And just how did you "benefit" during the Clinton years?

 

The answer should be it didn't change.  Presidents have very little about how YOU benefit.  It's what you do with YOURSELF that effects how you benefit, or don't. 

 

That's my problem with people like you.  Whine, piss and moan about s***... what ever happened to personal responsibility and accountability?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When Clinton was in Office, I got regular cost of living increases every year (I am a Government employee), that hasn't happenned during the Bush presidency. That's just 1 example.

[southsider2k5]

When Clinton was in Office, I got regular cost of living increases every year (I am a Government employee), that hasn't happenned during the Bush presidency. That's just 1 example.

 

You mean he did something to cut the size of government? Now it all makes sense, its sour apples.

[YASNY]

And just how did you "benefit" during the Clinton years?

 

The answer should be it didn't change.  Presidents have very little about how YOU benefit.  It's what you do with YOURSELF that effects how you benefit, or don't. 

 

That's my problem with people like you.  Whine, piss and moan about s***... what ever happened to personal responsibility and accountability?

 

Personal responsibility and accountability? From the left?

[spiderman]

One word answer...NEED.

 

Poor people need the money and opportunities...the wealthy don't NEED, they want.

 

 

Full blown socialism. If you make above a certain limit, then any remaining money should go to people below a certain limit.

 

At least you seem to be admitting it.

[spiderman]

True...but the current administration has wasted billions of dollars on "pork", and the only people who have benefitted financially during the Bush years have been the wealthy. (I sure as Hell haven't benefitted!)

 

If you look at the actual numbers, you'd see the economy is actually performing well (not great) and unemployment is very low right now - if it was this low during Clinton's years, you'd probably be bragging about it.

 

I do agree that this adminstration needs to cut back on it's spending.

[Balta1701]

If you look at the actual numbers, you'd see the economy is actually performing well (not great) and unemployment is very low right now - if it was this low during Clinton's years, you'd probably be bragging about it.

 

I do agree that this adminstration needs to cut back on it's spending.

I've made this point before, and I'll make it again...it is absolutely useless to compare the "Unemployment" numbers published by the government between even the early years of an administration and the later years of that same administration. This goes for Clinton, Bush 1, Bush 2, etc.

 

Why? Because the "Unemployment" numbers published by the government don't really measure the number of people out of work. They measure a certain subset of that group; the unemployment percentage numbers specifically exclude the long-term unemployed (people who haven't been able to find work for many months), those on any sort of disability or government assistance, or those who are getting any sort of education (i.e. you lose your job and go back to school). All of these groups have significantly inflated under both Clinton and Bush 2, which has allowed both administrations to claim that the unemployment percentages say that either the economy is doing great or is really not that bad...when in reality all they've done is exclude enough people from the count so as to make it look better.

 

Furthermore, there is no way to gauge the percentage of "Under-employment" in this country either - people with high level degrees stuck working at WalMart, that sort of thing, which can be just as much a drag on the economy as the former.

[southsider2k5]

Furthermore, there is no way to gauge the percentage of "Under-employment" in this country either - people with high level degrees stuck working at WalMart, that sort of thing, which can be just as much a drag on the economy as the former.

 

I just want to speak to this part of the post. There is one better, but obviously not perfect, way of measuring underemployment IMO, and that is to use the average hourly wage numbers that get put out. Interestingly enough those have been steadily increasing over the years, and I can't figure out why. We always read about layoffs from high paying jobs, but this number never really goes down, and I have not been able to figure out why. I don't know if it is just we always hear about the layoffs and assume that all high paying jobs are gone, or if there really is high wage job creation going on, but just in different fields from where people are getting laid off of, and we never hear about that either. Then again it could be all statistical manipulation as well, and we would never really hear about that either.