Election America!

[JPaul]

What should Bush do if he sees they're about to fuck-up.

He should perhaps learn the "acronym" inmho and change the above to ".... he thinks they're about to fuck-up.".

Like I said earlier, it doesn't appear right to me that a large group of presumably intelligent and educated people should be able to debate a point and democratically agree it. Simply for one individual (of frankly questionable judgement) to say "nah, I personally have decided, for hundreds of millions of people, that we won't be doing that"

I agree there should be checks and balances. However your system was set up as a direct result of ensuring that there was no King, or equivelant. What you did however was basically to have the President as a King figure but a neutered one.

We have gone the opposite way. In theory a Government is formed on the Crown's behalf and they then make laws in her name. In practice her role is at best titular.

[JPaul]

I just read the post where busy used the word "reign".

It would appear that, in this instance, we concur.

[j2k4]

I said it all along, what good came of the Bush reign?

They spent like fuck while cutting taxes during a war. Dumb.

And the deficit is substantially lower than projected...because of the additional productivity brought about by tax cuts.

The jobless rate is at it's lowest since '01. Is that because of the tax cut or just because because?

Meanwhile, jobs are moving overseas like crazy and pensions are getting cut.

The jobless rate is at a low, yet we are exporting jobs?

I'll pick tax cuts as the reason unemployment is so low, but you can stick with "just because because" if it suits you.

BTW-We are not "exporting jobs", we are outsourcing.

Are you of the opinion a given job is created with a tag that reads "For American Use Only"?

I never thought about stuff like earmarks leading to corruption but earmarks get lumped inside of bills like for instance the prescription drug bill.

A congressman would more likely vote for it since his state would benefit from the earmark.

How the fuck does shit like that even exist?

Oh cos congress made the rules. That's fuuuuucked up.

They need to fucking axe all that shit out.

Not to excuse Republican abuse over the past several years, but it must be noted they were merely abusing a system created by 40+ years of a Democrat Congress.

Earmarks and feather-bedding, as well as some of the more creative strains of corruption were devised by the Dems.

I will say it again: There have been some real peachy Republicans, especially of late, but Democrats wrote the book.

Fact.

No gifts for congressman. They are civil fucking servants and not rock stars.

Wrong.

Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton are all rock stars; so says the major media-hell, even FOXNEWS calls them that-gotta be true, right?

I remember some bitch politician from Alaska saying with a straight face how Alaska needed that fucking 200 million dollar bridge to an island of 50 people.

Everyone in congress is out to get there's while they systematically fuck up everywhere else.

Careful, now.

These are the people you are expecting to "clean up" a "massive mess".

Meanwhile, Bush better keep his veto under wraps, 'cuz if he uses it, he's the obstructionist.

Would he be "obstructionist" if he vetoed a tax hike so massive it would kill the economy?

You realize, of course, the Dems are obligated to tax the hell out of somebody, if for no reason than to prove Bush wrong; they can't afford to acknowledge tax cuts have had a positive effect, can they?

[vidcc]

And the deficit is substantially lower than projected...because of the additional productivity brought about by tax cuts.

"lower than projected"-

Interesting way of putting it. Could it be that projections can be over or under estimated in advance to suit a later talking point?

And as to tax cuts being the reason for growth, well we have growth and loss under lower and higher rates.

[Busyman]

And the deficit is substantially lower than projected...because of the additional productivity brought about by tax cuts.

So says you. I'm sure there are reports saying either way. And when you say lower than projected, I guess that means we are in a slightly less bubble fuck of a deficit yet it's still a bubble fuck of a deficit.

The jobless rate is at it's lowest since '01. Is that because of the tax cut or just because because?

Meanwhile, jobs are moving overseas like crazy and pensions are getting cut.

The jobless rate is at a low, yet we are exporting jobs?

I'll pick tax cuts as the reason unemployment is so low, but you can stick with "just because because" if it suits you.

BTW-We are not "exporting jobs", we are outsourcing.

Are you of the opinion a given job is created with a tag that reads "For American Use Only"?

Oh not all a job is a job is a job. It says nothing of what the job is....like if a company's entire call center is sent to India vs. 5 new WalMarts opened up. Let's look forward to a nation of executives and grunt jobs (technicians, security guards....jobs requiring feet on American soil).

I never thought about stuff like earmarks leading to corruption but earmarks get lumped inside of bills like for instance the prescription drug bill.

A congressman would more likely vote for it since his state would benefit from the earmark.

How the fuck does shit like that even exist?

Oh cos congress made the rules. That's fuuuuucked up.

They need to fucking axe all that shit out.

Not to excuse Republican abuse over the past several years, but it must be noted they were merely abusing a system created by 40+ years of a Democrat Congress.

Earmarks and feather-bedding, as well as some of the more creative strains of corruption were devised by the Dems.

I will say it again: There have been some real peachy Republicans, especially of late, but Democrats wrote the book.

Fact.

Hmmm why must it be noted? I sure didn't note anything inheritly Republican in that last blurb. You are always the partisan. Leave it to you to defend Repubs by attacking Dems....for no reason. The Dems and Repubs of now are not the parties of old.

As if the Republicans didn't abuse the system and even help vote it in?
As if the Republican's recent culpability is to be blamed on the Democrats?

What a joke.

Did I note that one of the last Repub strongholds is in the old confederacy? Nah there's no reason to do that.

No gifts for congressman. They are civil fucking servants and not rock stars.

Wrong.

Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton are all rock stars; so says the major media-hell, even FOXNEWS calls them that-gotta be true, right?

What the hell are you on about now? Oh and fuck Fox News! They are an extension of the Republican party. They over and over demonstrate that and their fan base watches just to hear what they want to hear. Others that watch are simply laughing at them.

I remember some bitch politician from Alaska saying with a straight face how Alaska needed that fucking 200 million dollar bridge to an island of 50 people.

Everyone in congress is out to get there's while they systematically fuck up everywhere else.

Careful, now.

These are the people you are expecting to "clean up" a "massive mess".

Meanwhile, Bush better keep his veto under wraps, 'cuz if he uses it, he's the obstructionist.

Would he be "obstructionist" if he vetoed a tax hike so massive it would kill the economy?

You realize, of course, the Dems are obligated to tax the hell out of somebody, if for no reason than to prove Bush wrong; they can't afford to acknowledge tax cuts have had a positive effect, can they?

Well wow, we've had tax hikes before and it didn't kill the economy.

You say this stuff as if the pre-Bush tax-cut tax rate was the reason the economy was fucked.



edit: Oh and as far the Dems cleaning up a massive mess in 2 years that the Republicans created these past years, that's a tall order.

One can only hope. There was actually no hope with your party. The name of your party should have been changed since those folks in office didn't represent Republican ideals.

[j2k4]

[QUOTE=vidcc;1547090]

And the deficit is substantially lower than projected...because of the additional productivity brought about by tax cuts.

Interesting way of putting it. Could it be that projections can be over or under estimated in advance to suit a later talking point?

Even if they're Democrat projections, which where even higher?

And as to tax cuts being the reason for growth, well we have growth and loss under lower and higher rates.

Growth?

Loss?

Lower rates? Higher rates?

What?





No matter what, the fact of the extraordinary health of the economy as well as the low jobless rate goes unacknowledged by the Dems.

This is undeniable.

To put it in a context liberals understand, the folly of denying the importance of economic health and the low jobless rate is akin to denying global warming.

[Busyman]

[QUOTE=j2k4;1547123]

Interesting way of putting it. Could it be that projections can be over or under estimated in advance to suit a later talking point?

Even if they're Democrat projections, which where even higher?

And as to tax cuts being the reason for growth, well we have growth and loss under lower and higher rates.

Growth?

Loss?

Lower rates? Higher rates?

What?

What part don't you understand (again)?

THERE..HAS..BEEN..GROWTH..UNDER..HIGHER..TAX..RATES..TOO




No matter what, the fact of the extraordinary health of the economy as well as the low jobless rate goes unacknowledged by the Dems.

This is undeniable.

To put it in a context liberals understand, the folly of denying the importance of economic health and the low jobless rate is akin to denying global warming.

Again, you attribute a tax cut as the reason for the growth. I say you can't.

Correlation is not cause and effect. One could say that we bounced back since 9/11. Do you think absent a tax cut that our economy would have worsened (or even stayed the same)...forever?

Again, a job is a job and says nothing of the job, it's benefits or it's pay.

One is just employed.

[Busyman]

Btw, I was sickened by some major Democratic leaders supporting Michael Steele.

It was cos he was black.

Luckily the black folks voted their ideals versus skin color.

While I was in line at the polls I remember some folks I talked to talked about NOT voting for him.

Someone even said something really low and called him Clarence Thomas.

[vidcc]

[

Even if they're Democrat projections, which where even higher?

Are you saying the repubs predictions were lower than the achievement then?
So do you think that "projections" are not over or under estimated in advance to suit later talking points?

Do you really feel that it can be called a success when a deficit is lower than "projected" when it was even lower before your lot took charge.

It's like they deliberately created a mess that wasn't there so they could say "hey look, we can clean that up if we have more time"

[j2k4]

Btw, I was sickened by some major Democratic leaders supporting Michael Steele.

It was cos he was black.

Luckily the black folks voted their ideals versus skin color.

While I was in line at the polls I remember some folks I talked to talked about NOT voting for him.

Someone even said something really low and called him Clarence Thomas.

With regard to Steele, the media missed a very telling series of events:

Barack Obama (the rock star, remember?) went to Maryland to support Ben Cardin against Steele.

He said blacks should not cast their votes based on skin color, and that Cardin was the better candidate to represent them.

He then went to Tennessee to support Harold Ford, Jr. against Bob Corker.

He exhorted the crowd to "Send another brother to Washington-I'm gettin' lonely in D.C.".

Question:

Is this pandering or racism?

No Republican with presidential aspirations making similar comments could have escaped a hailstorm of criticism.

I guess we need to get us a rock star, too, huh?







As to the other issues, I guess we'll see what happens, won't we?

Here come the Democrats, all pristine and pretty, to clean up the Republican mess...

I wonder whose ideas they'll use?