The End of Blaming Bush - Page 2

Originally Posted by jimmac

History will remember the greedy alright. They will remember the greedy rich that were supported by Republicans. They'll also remember the nut cases that make up the Tea party and their Republican supporters.

Jesus! I'm not even going to comment on something so dumb.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

First, I think the premise is flawed...that being that we should punish those who have more. Secondly, let's be serious...the Democrats are just as much in the tank for big business and the uber-rich as the Republicans are. Both parties cater to the powerful. Those would be people that have a boatload of money, by the way.

Now, is there a difference? Yes. I'm sure some Republicans support the Bush tax cuts for the "wealthy" out of personal gain or the gain of some of their supporters. Then again, some Democrats support increased social spending for the same reason. The point is, most Republicans (and Democrats) don't support/oppose policies for these reasons. They take policy positions based on what they think the solutions to problems are (of course, youy've already demonstrated you're not interested in a policy discussion, but I digress).

What we really have is a philosophical difference here between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe that the "rich" should be taxed at higher rates because it brings in more tax revenue, makes outcomes more "fair," and because frankly...the rich can afford it--the poor cannot.

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that higher taxes depress economic activity. Why? Because people in the upper income bracket are the ones who create jobs both directly and indirectly. They buy more goods and services, which indirectly creates jobs. They also may own small businesses which can directly create jobs. When we punish the rich, we depress economic activity. Taxation affects behavior, after all.

What Democrats refuse to understand is that tax revenue is never "zero sum." That is, we don't get a set amount of revenue from a tax hike, because the tax base can shrink. The same applies to tax cuts. Democrats often point out how much tax cuts "cost." Obviously, they don't "cost" anything because the money is not the government's to begin with....but beyond that, tax cuts (done correctly) can stimulate economic activity and thereby grow the tax base---resulting in more revenue.

The conservative position on taxes has been proven correct 3 times in the last 50 years. Kennedy signed off on lowering the top bracket from 90+ percent to around 75 percent. Revenue went up as the economy expanded. Reagan signed off on across the board tax cuts, but focused a lot of it on the top bracket, which went from 75 percent to 28 percent. The result? The economy boomed, and federal revenues doubled over 8 years. George W. Bush pushed for a won an historic tax cut in 2001 and additional tax cuts in 2003. The result? The economy expanded and federal revenue reached a record high in the middle of his Presidency. One can't argue with something that has worked 3 times. Well, liberals do argue, but it's a bit tiresome at this point.

Of course, what any good Democrat like yourself will point out is that deficits increased dramatically under Reagan and Bush 43. That's correct, but the problem was never revenue. The problem was spending. One can't argue that the Bush Tax cuts (and Reagan cuts) "added to" or "created" the deficit. Once one looks at what revenue actually was, the problem is obvious: Congress spending money like it was in a game of monopoly, drinking shots of Jack all the while. Republicans were just as guilty of this in 2001-2006, which is why they got tossed.

First, I think the premise is flawed

Originally Posted by trumptman

Nice and how typical of the Democrats. We've moved from "we don't have to address this because we won a wave election with a historic figure and thus will be in power for a generation" to "we don't have to address that because it is dumb."

See how many more seats Democrats lose next election with that attitude Jimmac.

Originally Posted by trumptman

American Spectator



Seems like I'm not the only person out there taking note of the intent game.

After today, America has a small chance in my opinion. The conservatives have helped reinvigorate the Republican party via the Tea Party and have taken and mostly reversed a thorough beating from 4 years ago.

What can be done going forward from here? Who knows? It depends upon how quickly other branches can either be captured or influenced from the gains that happen today. I suspect Democrats will control the Senate by a seat or so. The Fed will still be under the control of super Keynesian Bernarke who was nominated by Bush and renominated by Obama. The Boomers will still be out there just as selfish as ever.

As for the Democrats themselves, they don't appear ready to learn anything from this election. Everyone who votes for someone else is a no-nothing, an enemy, they are stupid and scared. They appear ready to go both barrels in with a whole array of -ists and -isms to explain their troubles along with the new and increasingly virulent form of misogyny that labels all Republican women of any form as either nuts, or sluts or both.

Will we see more awakening and movement after this? Can we hope to get the budget deficit down to the horrible and deplorable levels of ONLY $250-300 BILLION a year that we saw during the Bush years instead of the trillion+ we are seeing now? Can someone please end some damn wars and bring the troops home from Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, etc.? Can we agree to fair trade as a policy rather than engaging in games of chicken via multiple countries devaluing their currency in an every escalating currency war that is a proxy for the trade war out there?

The problems are looming ever larger. The longer the delay the higher the cost of action. Today isn't a good start because ideally Republicans would have never lost their way in the first place but that didn't happen.

Will it happen this time or is this the last hurrah before the huge decline? The Boomers never thought the rules would apply to them. The professional pundit class thinks that snarky jokes and a march of standing for nothing but mocking everything will somehow show us the way.

Either way, after today, a change has been made and it will hopefully be the beginning of us clawing our way back from the abyss rather than just falling in.

[Bush 'thinks' Sarah Palin 'unqualified'

Originally Posted by jimmac

Not surprising coming from someone who thinks there still WMD in them there hills!

The blame for Bush will never end and it shouldn't. The guy will never be held accountable for what he did. He's doing exactly what I said he'd be doing. Sitting on his fat ass writing his memoirs.

I know you will never see the reality here but it really doesn't matter.

Think Republicans are a shoe in in 2012?

First off they don't have a strong leader to run with. Secondly things had better get into the black economic wise in a hurry now that they have more say. And they better have a good reason to take credit for it. They had better not practice the same brand of obstructionism that they have in the last 2 years or they can get blamed for that. Remember voters aren't exactly in love with them either. Also I think that the splinters that we already see today will widen by then ( especially with the Tea baggers ).

Here's what I think is a likely scenario. The Republicans will either run with someone that's milquetoast or looney.

The economy will be showing improvement by then.

Obama's popularity will go up ( kind of like Clinton in the 90's ) and the Republicans will sound silly trying to take credit for the recovery.

It doesn't really matter. The economy will improve, Obama will get a second term, and Palin will still be fodder for comedians everywhere.

And Dubya? He'll still be making money in his cone of silence.

I can live with that.

By the way did you see the jobs report today?

Originally Posted by SDW2001

What a cheapshot. And, false at that.



The first part of that (the blame will never end and shouldn't) is astounding. The second part is just rhetoric.



I love how "reality" is defined as "whichever opinion jimmac holds."



I reread my previous post and didn't see any place in it where I addressed or even referenced the 2012 elections. This is another strawman, diversionary tactic that you tend to employ quite a bit.
But to answer the question: No, I don't think they are "shoe ins" at all. It will depend on who is nominated, the economy, global security, and whether or not Obama runs.



Why is that the most likely scenario, because you'd love it to happen? Is Huckabee looney or "milqetoast?" Is Romney? They are the frontrunners at present.



Probably. Hopefully.



Not unless Obama is as smart and pragmatic as Clinton. Not unless he comes to the center or is the benefactor of some unforeseen crisis that he can use to strengthen his image. I think, as I've said, that's he's going to go FULL RETARD and not back off. I don't know what Republicans will get credit for. If they can extend the tax cuts, reduce spending/improve the fiscal situation, and modify or repeal Obamacare, I think they'll get credit. If Obama can somehow triangulate like Clinton did, HE might get credit. We'll see. At this point I don't care who gets credit. I just don't want the country to be Rome.



It's possible he will get a second term as a lot can happen between now and then. Right now it's not looking good. He's in a worse position than Clinton was in 1994, because he can't blame his future failures on a GOP Congress as they don't control it totally. They control just enough to cinch the purse strings and screw up his agenda, but not enough to be scapegoats. Of course, they could blow it and go completely off course by trying to impeach him and/or investigate everyone under the sun.



QUOTE]Yes, I did. It was not good. What, are you all excited to see 151,000 jobs added? Do you realize that historically speaking, that 200,000 jobs per month must be created in order to begin reducing unemployment?

but not enough to be scapegoats.

At this point I don't care who gets credit. I just don't want the country to be Rome.

Originally Posted by trumptman

As you note, of course his double-standard is indefensible and pure bullshit. All through the Bush years the man downplayed millions of jobs being added by calling them McJobs and declaring that everyone had three of them because they weren't the "right" jobs to add to the economy.

Obama can't even bring "the wrong McJobs" let alone a job of any type. All he has done is generate a "stimulus" that hires and pays off a bunch of Democratic crooks.




Your posting history and current conclusions make these supposed claims about not caring about your party or claims sound like complete and total lies.

Your posting history and current conclusions make these supposed claims about not caring about your party or claims sound like complete and total lies

Originally Posted by trumptman

What wasn't clear about what I posted the first time?

As you note, of course his double-standard is indefensible and pure bullshit. All through the Bush years the man downplayed millions of jobs being added by calling them McJobs and declaring that everyone had three of them because they weren't the "right" jobs to add to the economy.

This is a statement of fact. What are you claiming is the lie? Are you saying you didn't directly call them McJobs but only declared them to be entry level jobs that everyone had to hold three of to get by? (aka the definition of McJobs)

What part are you saying you didn't do?

Originally Posted by trumptman

I could give a crap what you want. My statement stands. Take your reindeer games and go play them somewhere else. You can bite my ass if you think your ilk on here can keep making making demands.You are already being mocked for your past craziness and I feel no remorse about adding to that mocking for I remember the past. If you want to note a specific issues I'll address it. If you want to be a cranky tyrant then bite my butt.

I could give a crap what you want. My statement stands.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Not surprising coming from someone who thinks there still WMD in them there hills!

The blame for Bush will never end and it shouldn't. The guy will never be held accountable for what he did. He's doing exactly what I said he'd be doing. Sitting on his fat ass writing his memoirs.

I know you will never see the reality here but it really doesn't matter.

Think Republicans are a shoe in in 2012?

First off they don't have a strong leader to run with. Secondly things had better get into the black economic wise in a hurry now that they have more say. And they better have a good reason to take credit for it. They had better not practice the same brand of obstructionism that they have in the last 2 years or they can get blamed for that. Remember voters aren't exactly in love with them either. Also I think that the splinters that we already see today will widen by then ( especially with the Tea baggers ).

Here's what I think is a likely scenario. The Republicans will either run with someone that's milquetoast or looney. The economy will be showing improvement by then. Obama's popularity will go up ( kind of like Clinton in the 90's ) and the Republicans will sound silly trying to take credit for the recovery.

It doesn't really matter. The economy will improve, Obama will get a second term, and Palin will still be fodder for comedians everywhere.

And Dubya? He'll still be making money in his cone of silence.

I can live with that.

By the way did you see the jobs report today?

Originally Posted by gerald apple

Hope you are right? Bush looks like a moron siting there with the interview by Matt Lauer grinning and defending his position about water boarding.Give Obama a chance in his next 2 years as president.\

Originally Posted by jimmac

And yes Bush looks like a moron on any given day.

Originally Posted by segovius

So many on the Right do....I can't begin to imagine why....

Originally Posted by trumptman

You are funny. You'll ask if I'll call you a name. I want to actually discuss what you think might be wrong about the statement. You call me a coward and complain that you were begging for an ad-hom and didn't get the one you wanted.

Hey Jimmac. You're a liar here. If you want to say what point you think is misleading I'll gladly discuss it. If the mods want to do something after watching you beg for an ad-hom and also engaging in several yourself, let them do what they want. They clearly haven't been around as evidenced by the new brand of crazy MJ's been showing off.



You apparently can't even process this right. I've not claimed the boomers are responsible for every kid who snorts a dime bag. I've said that when they've run 14 trillion in deficits and demanded 50 trillion in future benefits for themselves, they have bankrupted the country. That statement easily stands true and your strawman doesn't change. Also I never said that old age problems are due to drug abuse. I said that when you have a generation that is coming in with more addicts and heavier than prior generations, the cost projections for the prior generations won't work. That is true as well. Do you read the forums in a fun house mirror or something?



Are you calling me a grown up?



Another ad-hom



Your understanding of "specific issue" doesn't match any standard definition. I asked you to clarify. You've thrown a tantrum.



Your question is a loaded one. It isn't meant to be answered. A real question would focus on the discussion and not on whether you can trick someone into calling you a name. The point of your question, which you admitted above, wasn't discussion but an attemt to solicit an ad-hom so you could report it. I gave it to you so now you can report away and maybe we can actually have a discussion.

Also I never said that old age problems are due to drug abuse.

If the mods want to do something after watching you beg for an ad-hom and also engaging in several yourself, let them do what they want. They clearly haven't been around as evidenced by the new brand of crazy MJ's been showing off.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Anyway, it's time to ignore the lefties who are off their meds.

GALLUP

Bush and Obama now poll equally in terms of favorables. When your poll number match the guy you've played the blame game on, using him won't work.

The Democrats have a horrible record now having blown through over three trillion of new debt in their brief time governing. Their delusion will make 2012 even more damaging for them.

The Democrats have a horrible record now having blown through over three trillion of new debt in their brief time governing. Their delusion will make 2012 even more damaging for them

Originally Posted by jimmac

So you don't like a move in the right direction?

God! You're so full of bullshit, the party line, the party rhetoric, and their lack of answers!

I just watched some smart people on " Meet The Press " this morning ( some of them Republican pundits ) saying that the GOP shouldn't see this as a mandate from the voters to support the GOP.

Disapproval exit polls showed 52 % for the Republicans and 53 % for the Democrats ( and before MJ starts they didn't say that was an automatic endorsement of any 3rd party ). Assuming that mandate would be making the same mistake they made in 1994. What it really was a rejection of what's been happening in Washington ( not an auto endorsement of The tea party as well ).

The Republicans want to make cuts but they won't say where.

They talk about taking the country back and dismantling Obamacare but they don't say what the voters are going to say when they take away the benifits they already have.

So tell me are they going to take away medical coverage for those kids that get it until 26? Are they going to cut seniors ( which represent the largest voting bloc )? Still think things are going your way?

Now if they do the smart thing and really work with Obama ( and of course he must work with them ) then that's something that might benefit the country and it's people. But they can't just say " No " to everything the way they have for 2 fucking years now!

Do you really think they have no accountability and responsibility after all the noise they've made? That's a nice made up artificial line of accountability you've made for them. Most I've heard here want to crow and celebrate their " Landslide " victory now that they have sooooo much more power. Well with power comes responsibility and accountability. It doesn't work any other way. Look at those polls again bucko.

All I care about is the country doing some healing and making some real progress. And less concern by political parties about winning and more about the people. I don't really care who tries to take credit as long as this happens. Let the historians sort it out later.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Unfortunately the last Presidental election didn't sit well with the GOP and it's supporters. They never gave Obama a chance in the first two years. I don't see that changing. So what we'll have is the GOP saying no to everything that wasn't their idea. The party of " No ". The joke is that won't look good for them in the long run.

And yes Bush looks like a moron on any given day.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Nice and how typical of the Democrats. We've moved from "we don't have to address this because we won a wave election with a historic figure and thus will be in power for a generation" to "we don't have to address that because it is dumb."

See how many more seats Democrats lose next election with that attitude Jimmac.

"we don't have to address that because it is dumb."

Originally Posted by jimmac

......

Quite simply trumpy who was in charge when we moved into this bad area?

Hint : It wasn't Obama.....

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Yes, yes...they should just fall in line and support those policies with which they completely disagree. They should support policies that are 100x worse than the worst parts of the GOP's actions over the past 10 years. Right on!

Originally Posted by SDW2001

No. You don't get to make that argument anymore. It (and you) have been thoroughly discredited. You have been unable to name ONE Bush policy that led the economic meltdown.

You have been unable to name ONE Bush policy that led the economic meltdown