So you're finally admitting that your original point, that Bush should be given a second term to right his wrongs, is bunk?
Bunge,
Do me a favor... instead of attempting to paraphrase what I say, just quote it.
Regarding Bush and a second term, I said if I have a choice between Democrat Lite, and Democrat, I take Democrat Lite (read Bush)
Note I didn't say Bush would be perfect, right, the best, fix all wrong, etc. I simply said he would spend less and take less than the Democrats.
I also said that if there were a fiscally conservative candidate who would claim to balance the budget and attempt fair trade they would have my vote. Read even if they were not Bush they would have my vote.
Note I didn't say Bush would be perfect, right, the best, fix all wrong, etc. I simply said he would spend less and take less than the Democrats.
But he's proven you wrong. He doesn't spend less, so in the end, he won't take less either. Maybe from Enron and the ultra-rich whose lazy freeloading kids will no longer pay taxes on money given to them by their dead parents.
So, you're wrong, he doesn't spend less. What was your point again? It gets confusing when you contradict yourself.
But he's proven you wrong. He doesn't spend less, so in the end, he won't take less either. Maybe from Enron and the ultra-rich whose lazy freeloading kids will no longer pay taxes on money given to them by their dead parents.
So, you're wrong, he doesn't spend less. What was your point again? It gets confusing when you contradict yourself.
I suppose you wouldn't know my point since you intentionally keep restating it instead of quoting it.
Bush has spent to much, but his proposals were still less than the Democratic alternatives. Thus even while spending too he still spends less than Democrats.
So my point, given a choice between a Democrat lite, and a Democrat, I take the lite version still stands.
Bush has spent to much, but his proposals were still less than the Democratic alternatives. Thus even while spending too he still spends less than Democrats.
Are you claiming that the Democrats would be spending more on programs than Bush is on war and reconstruction in Iraq?
Even some of his supporters are starting to go " Hmmmm? " after last night's demonstration of Bush's grasp of the situation.
Does the phrase " Nail in the coffin " mean anything to you?
No I understand that. I was just showing that your rhetoric made it sound like he had "lost" your vote due to his actions.
You can't lose what you never had.
You had never voted for him in the first place and likely never would. So don't make it would like your "loss" of support is some trend regarding Bush because you never would have supported him.
Sure, in fact I'll even claim they would have spent more on the war and reconstruction as well.
I do seem to remember a few "mired" discussion around here and folks commenting for about half a week that the force size wasn't large enough.
Does it really matter what I state anymore? You are just going to restate it anyway.
Nick
Trumpetman, Trumpetman, Trumpetman.........
The Democrats wouldn't have had this stupid, cooked up, pain in the ass war in the first place!
And before you bring up Vietnam.........It's the considered opinion of many that Kennedy didn't want to commit to a war there ( at the time he was only sending field advisors ). LBJ didn't want anymore of the war in the end because there was no way to win it. Only under Nixon did it begin to truly blossom into something horrific. Also Nixon was the one who wanted to expand the war into other countries.
I think Bush is going back to his old diversion tactics with this plea for money, front line for the war on terrorism etc. To keep our minds off of the lousy job he's doing. Well, he really must think we're stupid.
Go ahead. Keep mocking. Dean leans too Left for the general election.
I just love watching you guys froth at the mouth and shudder with anticipation at the thought that Bush might lose.
The democrats in America aren't the only people who wants George W. Bush to loose the election. We the people of Europe are keeping our fingers crossed also.
Sure, in fact I'll even claim they would have spent more on the war and reconstruction as well.
I do seem to remember a few "mired" discussion around here and folks commenting for about half a week that the force size wasn't large enough.
They wouldn't have gone to war and if they had, the U.N. would have been contributing. There's no way that would cost as much.
No one here thought we'd need a larger attacking force. Most everyone here expected to need a larger sustaining force, like we need in Afghanistan. You're just flat out wrong.
Bush has spent more on this war than any Democrat could have hoped to have spent. You're lying as usual.
The Democrats wouldn't have had this stupid, cooked up, pain in the ass war in the first place!
And before you bring up Vietnam.........It's the considered opinion of many that Kennedy didn't want to commit to a war there ( at the time he was only sending field advisors ). LBJ didn't want anymore of the war in the end because there was no way to win it. Only under Nixon did it begin to truly blossom into something horrific. Also Nixon was the one who wanted to expand the war into other countries.
I think Bush is going back to his old diversion tactics with this plea for money, front line for the war on terrorism etc. To keep our minds off of the lousy job he's doing. Well, he really must think we're stupid.
Sarcasm, sarcasm...
Come on jimmac, I enjoy discussing items with you folks but I keep putting smilies on certain statements and you keep treating them as serious. I had wordplay "mired" I had a grin, I had a plainly exaggerated statement.
They wouldn't have gone to war and if they had, the U.N. would have been contributing. There's no way that would cost as much.
No one here thought we'd need a larger attacking force. Most everyone here expected to need a larger sustaining force, like we need in Afghanistan. You're just flat out wrong.
Bush has spent more on this war than any Democrat could have hoped to have spent. You're lying as usual.
See above and... open the shades, see the sun, let Shawn out of the dungeon.
Now the conservative Weekly Standard and Cato Institute are getting in on Dean's act:
Quote:
The word Vermonters use most often to describe Dean is "frugal." Coming into office amidst the early 1990s recession, he cut formerly sacrosanct welfare spending to keep the state out of debt. The Cato analysis shows that during Dean's first four years in office, Vermont's budget grew much more slowly than other states'. He cut income tax rates across the board (much as President Bush did). Although he raised overall business taxes, he approved millions of dollars' worth of incentives to lure smoke stacks back into the Green Mountain State. It was during these early years that the head of the state's powerful Progressive party called him "a very right-wing Democrat." And during a time when President Bush has been piling up mountains of debt in Washington and 47 governors face record budget deficits of their own, Dean admirably left Vermont with a $10.4 million surplus when he left office this past January--which would certainly be one of his trump cards against Bush. If Dean were ever elected president, I'm convinced he would be monomaniacal about balancing the budget--though certainly not in ways that would please conservatives.
It's funny how republican's can trash talk democrats and their history with budgets...
All you have to do is look at the economy right now... and yes it's a complicated thing and it's not all their fault... but go back and look at what Bush did for Texas and what Dean did for Vermont...
here's another book that should be read by everyone.
"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently released new information on the income growth for each income category over the period from 1979 to 2000. The new CBO data show rapid income growth among the highest-income households, with less growth among low- and middle-income households. The CBO data are more comprehensive than the Census Bureau income data because the CBO income measure includes realized capital gains and the value of near-cash benefits such as food stamps. The CBO also estimates tax liabilities so the data can be used to identify the growth of both pre-tax and after-tax incomes ...
The figure shows that the highest-income households enjoyed the fastest inflation-adjusted income growth over the past two decades and that income inequality therefore increased greatly from 1979 to 2000. For instance, the pre-tax income of the top 1% of households grew by 184% over the 21 years measured, and the after-tax income of this group tripled to $863,000 in 2000.
In contrast, middle-income households saw pre-tax income grow by only 12.5% and after-tax income grow by 15.1%, less than 1% per year. The lowest fifth of households gained even less income, 6.6% pre-tax and 8.7% after-tax, over the 1979 to 2000 period. This uneven income growth is reflected in the fact that the ratio of incomes in the upper 1% to that of the lowest fifth nearly tripled, rising from 22.7 in 1979 to 63.0 in 2000. "
So do the top 1% really need a tax cut? They are getting bigger and bigger slices of the pie... if anything... their taxes should be adjusted upwards.
Comments
Originally posted by bunge
So you're finally admitting that your original point, that Bush should be given a second term to right his wrongs, is bunk?
Bunge,
Do me a favor... instead of attempting to paraphrase what I say, just quote it.
Regarding Bush and a second term, I said if I have a choice between Democrat Lite, and Democrat, I take Democrat Lite (read Bush)
Note I didn't say Bush would be perfect, right, the best, fix all wrong, etc. I simply said he would spend less and take less than the Democrats.
I also said that if there were a fiscally conservative candidate who would claim to balance the budget and attempt fair trade they would have my vote. Read even if they were not Bush they would have my vote.
Nick
His post war reconstruction has been as stupid as the war was in the first place. Now he wants more money to fix it.
Man he must think we're stupid.
Bush is going down ( I think even he knows it ).
I'd vote for Dean instead of this crap. In a heartbeat.
Originally posted by trumptman
A little more on Dean.
Lies from a liar
Gee, moving the retirement age, cutting, I mean GUTTING Medicare and balancing the budget on veterans pensions.
Sounds like a really heartfelt compassionate guy.
Also note to bunge... he is talking about the unbalanced budget... in 1995...how is that possible? I mean wasn't it balanced by then?
Nick
Kinda sounds like Reagan.
Originally posted by trumptman
Note I didn't say Bush would be perfect, right, the best, fix all wrong, etc. I simply said he would spend less and take less than the Democrats.
But he's proven you wrong. He doesn't spend less, so in the end, he won't take less either. Maybe from Enron and the ultra-rich whose lazy freeloading kids will no longer pay taxes on money given to them by their dead parents.
So, you're wrong, he doesn't spend less. What was your point again? It gets confusing when you contradict yourself.
Originally posted by jimmac
Well now Bush wants us to keep paying for Iraq ( and whatever else ).
His post war reconstruction has been as stupid as the war was in the first place. Now he wants more money to fix it.
Man he must think we're stupid.
Bush is going down ( I think even he knows it ).
I'd vote for Dean instead of this crap. In a heartbeat.
Are you seriously trying to convince us that you voted for Bush in the last election?
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
But he's proven you wrong. He doesn't spend less, so in the end, he won't take less either. Maybe from Enron and the ultra-rich whose lazy freeloading kids will no longer pay taxes on money given to them by their dead parents.
So, you're wrong, he doesn't spend less. What was your point again? It gets confusing when you contradict yourself.
I suppose you wouldn't know my point since you intentionally keep restating it instead of quoting it.
Bush has spent to much, but his proposals were still less than the Democratic alternatives. Thus even while spending too he still spends less than Democrats.
So my point, given a choice between a Democrat lite, and a Democrat, I take the lite version still stands.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Are you seriously trying to convince us that you voted for Bush in the last election?
Nick
Yeah that one's rich!
Look in light of last night's moving speech by our fearless leader I thought I would repeat this for you as it seems extremely relevent now. :
-------------------------------------------------------------
" Bush is clueless. Therefore a dangerous man to have in the whitehouse.
Given the choice between a monkey or Bush I'd take the monkey.
At least if you give the monkey enough bannanas he's predictable.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Even some of his supporters are starting to go " Hmmmm? " after last night's demonstration of Bush's grasp of the situation ( or lack there of ).
Does the phrase " Nail in the coffin " mean anything to you?
Originally posted by trumptman
Bush has spent to much, but his proposals were still less than the Democratic alternatives. Thus even while spending too he still spends less than Democrats.
Are you claiming that the Democrats would be spending more on programs than Bush is on war and reconstruction in Iraq?
Originally posted by jimmac
Yeah that one's rich!
Look in light of last night's moving speech by our fearless leader I thought I would repeat this for you as it seems extremely relevent now. :
-------------------------------------------------------------
" Bush is clueless. Therefore a dangerous man to have in the whitehouse.
Given the choice between a monkey or Bush I'd take the monkey.
At least if you give the monkey enough bannanas he's predictable.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Even some of his supporters are starting to go " Hmmmm? " after last night's demonstration of Bush's grasp of the situation.
Does the phrase " Nail in the coffin " mean anything to you?
No I understand that. I was just showing that your rhetoric made it sound like he had "lost" your vote due to his actions.
You can't lose what you never had.
You had never voted for him in the first place and likely never would. So don't make it would like your "loss" of support is some trend regarding Bush because you never would have supported him.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Are you claiming that the Democrats would be spending more on programs than Bush is on war and reconstruction in Iraq?
Sure, in fact I'll even claim they would have spent more on the war and reconstruction as well.
I do seem to remember a few "mired" discussion around here and folks commenting for about half a week that the force size wasn't large enough.
Does it really matter what I state anymore? You are just going to restate it anyway.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Sure, in fact I'll even claim they would have spent more on the war and reconstruction as well.
I do seem to remember a few "mired" discussion around here and folks commenting for about half a week that the force size wasn't large enough.
Does it really matter what I state anymore? You are just going to restate it anyway.
Nick
Trumpetman, Trumpetman, Trumpetman.........
The Democrats wouldn't have had this stupid, cooked up, pain in the ass war in the first place!
And before you bring up Vietnam.........It's the considered opinion of many that Kennedy didn't want to commit to a war there ( at the time he was only sending field advisors ). LBJ didn't want anymore of the war in the end because there was no way to win it. Only under Nixon did it begin to truly blossom into something horrific. Also Nixon was the one who wanted to expand the war into other countries.
I think Bush is going back to his old diversion tactics with this plea for money, front line for the war on terrorism etc. To keep our minds off of the lousy job he's doing. Well, he really must think we're stupid.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Go ahead. Keep mocking. Dean leans too Left for the general election.
I just love watching you guys froth at the mouth and shudder with anticipation at the thought that Bush might lose.
The democrats in America aren't the only people who wants George W. Bush to loose the election. We the people of Europe are keeping our fingers crossed also.
Originally posted by trumptman
Sure, in fact I'll even claim they would have spent more on the war and reconstruction as well.
I do seem to remember a few "mired" discussion around here and folks commenting for about half a week that the force size wasn't large enough.
They wouldn't have gone to war and if they had, the U.N. would have been contributing. There's no way that would cost as much.
No one here thought we'd need a larger attacking force. Most everyone here expected to need a larger sustaining force, like we need in Afghanistan. You're just flat out wrong.
Bush has spent more on this war than any Democrat could have hoped to have spent. You're lying as usual.
Originally posted by jimmac
Trumpetman, Trumpetman, Trumpetman.........
The Democrats wouldn't have had this stupid, cooked up, pain in the ass war in the first place!
And before you bring up Vietnam.........It's the considered opinion of many that Kennedy didn't want to commit to a war there ( at the time he was only sending field advisors ). LBJ didn't want anymore of the war in the end because there was no way to win it. Only under Nixon did it begin to truly blossom into something horrific. Also Nixon was the one who wanted to expand the war into other countries.
I think Bush is going back to his old diversion tactics with this plea for money, front line for the war on terrorism etc. To keep our minds off of the lousy job he's doing. Well, he really must think we're stupid.
Sarcasm, sarcasm...
Come on jimmac, I enjoy discussing items with you folks but I keep putting smilies on certain statements and you keep treating them as serious. I had wordplay "mired" I had a grin, I had a plainly exaggerated statement.
Tough house...
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
They wouldn't have gone to war and if they had, the U.N. would have been contributing. There's no way that would cost as much.
No one here thought we'd need a larger attacking force. Most everyone here expected to need a larger sustaining force, like we need in Afghanistan. You're just flat out wrong.
Bush has spent more on this war than any Democrat could have hoped to have spent. You're lying as usual.
See above and... open the shades, see the sun, let Shawn out of the dungeon.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
See above and... open the shades, see the sun, let Shawn out of the dungeon.
Nick
Well then I guess you're finally admiting Bush isn't a great leader after all? Make that not worthy of reelecting also.
The word Vermonters use most often to describe Dean is "frugal." Coming into office amidst the early 1990s recession, he cut formerly sacrosanct welfare spending to keep the state out of debt. The Cato analysis shows that during Dean's first four years in office, Vermont's budget grew much more slowly than other states'. He cut income tax rates across the board (much as President Bush did). Although he raised overall business taxes, he approved millions of dollars' worth of incentives to lure smoke stacks back into the Green Mountain State. It was during these early years that the head of the state's powerful Progressive party called him "a very right-wing Democrat." And during a time when President Bush has been piling up mountains of debt in Washington and 47 governors face record budget deficits of their own, Dean admirably left Vermont with a $10.4 million surplus when he left office this past January--which would certainly be one of his trump cards against Bush. If Dean were ever elected president, I'm convinced he would be monomaniacal about balancing the budget--though certainly not in ways that would please conservatives.
All you have to do is look at the economy right now... and yes it's a complicated thing and it's not all their fault... but go back and look at what Bush did for Texas and what Dean did for Vermont...
here's another book that should be read by everyone.
http://www.salon.com/books/review/20.../index_np.html
"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently released new information on the income growth for each income category over the period from 1979 to 2000. The new CBO data show rapid income growth among the highest-income households, with less growth among low- and middle-income households. The CBO data are more comprehensive than the Census Bureau income data because the CBO income measure includes realized capital gains and the value of near-cash benefits such as food stamps. The CBO also estimates tax liabilities so the data can be used to identify the growth of both pre-tax and after-tax incomes ...
The figure shows that the highest-income households enjoyed the fastest inflation-adjusted income growth over the past two decades and that income inequality therefore increased greatly from 1979 to 2000. For instance, the pre-tax income of the top 1% of households grew by 184% over the 21 years measured, and the after-tax income of this group tripled to $863,000 in 2000.
In contrast, middle-income households saw pre-tax income grow by only 12.5% and after-tax income grow by 15.1%, less than 1% per year. The lowest fifth of households gained even less income, 6.6% pre-tax and 8.7% after-tax, over the 1979 to 2000 period. This uneven income growth is reflected in the fact that the ratio of incomes in the upper 1% to that of the lowest fifth nearly tripled, rising from 22.7 in 1979 to 63.0 in 2000. "
So do the top 1% really need a tax cut? They are getting bigger and bigger slices of the pie... if anything... their taxes should be adjusted upwards.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots
First Dean is still having trouble getting anybody who isn't white or driving a Volvo to support his campaign.
Dean = few minorities
Next we have Dick Morris who says Bush would kill Dean, but that his own weak poll numbers could entice Gore or Clinton into the race.
Morris on Bush, Dean, etc.
Lastly we have the N.Y. Times assuring us in their best feminist tone, that no means maybe.
No Means Maybe
Nick