Bush is just such a buffoon

#326
#326
20.gif
 
#330
#330
lawgator1 said:
One cannot with straight face defend what the Bush Administration has done (or if you prefer, allowed) in terms of the budget. To spend hundreds of billions on the war while at the same time authoring tax cuts and tax incentives for the folks he did is beyond irresponsible. He has doomed the middle class of this country to decades of paying off the debt that, regardless of whether there would have been some, was made infinitely worse by the Bush Administration.

True conservatives are even more appalled than Democrats. Only die-hard administration apologists even meekly try to defend it.
Click to expand...

your BDS must also affect your eyesight because I did not say anything about what Bush has done. I consider riding the dotcom boom into what would surely cause the bubble to burst very irresponsible also.
 
#331
#331
utvolpj said:
your BDS must also affect your eyesight because I did not say anything about what Bush has done. I consider riding the dotcom boom into what would surely cause the bubble to burst very irresponsible also.
Click to expand...


I didn't mean to imply that you were directly defending Bush on his handling of the finances of the federal government. However, in my experience those that minimize the at least balancing of the budget under Clinton tend to do so at the same time that they minimize the shredding of it under Bush.

And its not the riding of the "dotcom" fake revenue stream that was the problem. It was the utter mismanagement of the taxation scheme, incentives to big oil and others, in the face of the war, that was (and will be for a long time to come) the problem.
 
#332
#332
utvolpj said:
your BDS must also affect your eyesight because I did not say anything about what Bush has done. I consider riding the dotcom boom into what would surely cause the bubble to burst very irresponsible also.
Click to expand...

Do you suffer from CDS?
 
#333
#333
jkell24 said:
Do you suffer from CDS?
Click to expand...

No I can admit good and bad. When discussing the economy I think Bill did the best thing he could have done- keep his damn hands out of it and let the market do its thing. What I'm saying is that there should have been some thought about when it was over and what would happen then (kinda like the housing mess). There wasn't and it put a strain on the first year of the Bush pres. Add in 9/11 and he really didn't have a chance to begin with. From then on his handling of what could have been a huge opportunity was very poor.
 
#334
#334
utvolpj said:
No I can admit good and bad. When discussing the economy I think Bill did the best thing he could have done- keep his damn hands out of it and let the market do its thing. What I'm saying is that there should have been some thought about when it was over and what would happen then (kinda like the housing mess). There wasn't and it put a strain on the first year of the Bush pres. Add in 9/11 and he really didn't have a chance to begin with. From then on his handling of what could have been a huge opportunity was very poor.
Click to expand...


So now its Clinton's fault that Bush mismanaged the budget? Are you on the Bush family payroll or something? Talk about revisionist history.
 
#336
#336
lawgator1 said:
I didn't mean to imply that you were directly defending Bush on his handling of the finances of the federal government. However, in my experience those that minimize the at least balancing of the budget under Clinton tend to do so at the same time that they minimize the shredding of it under Bush.

And its not the riding of the "dotcom" fake revenue stream that was the problem. It was the utter mismanagement of the taxation scheme, incentives to big oil and others, in the face of the war, that was (and will be for a long time to come) the problem.
Click to expand...
why don't you walk me through this little doozy? I'm reasonably certain that you know as much economics as my 5 year old daughter, but I'd just like for you to prove it for everyone.
 
#337
#337
utvolpj said:
sorry, you must have missed this part
Click to expand...


No, I saw it. But you implied that Bush is to be somewhat excused by the fact that Clinton could have saved more which, to anyone that understands how our Congress will spend every penny it can get its hands on and then some, is an absurd notion.


BigPapaVol said:
why don't you walk me through this little doozy? I'm reasonably certain that you know as much economics as my 5 year old daughter, but I'd just like for you to prove it for everyone.
Click to expand...


The fact that you led off with the comment that my understanding of the economy is akin to your five year old's demonstrates that you wouldn't agree with me no matter what I said on this subject. You have already determined that I could not possibly be correct, so why bother asking me to explain?

I could put up as much rock solid evidence and logic as possible. But you've made up your mind. So why not just say so and quit pretending?
 
#338
#338
lawgator1 said:
The fact that you led off with the comment that my understanding of the economy is akin to your five year old's demonstrates that you wouldn't agree with me no matter what I said on this subject. You have already determined that I could not possibly be correct, so why bother asking me to explain?

I could put up as much rock solid evidence and logic as possible. But you've made up your mind. So why not just say so and quit pretending?
Click to expand...
I led off the way I did because you implied that this admin's lowering of the tax burden on the wealthy caused the imbalance in our federal budget. That is exactly incorrect and even the lefty economists of the world are starting to understand.

You could put up every "fact" you could find and it would still result in your being exactly wrong.

We have, more than once in this nation, proven that reducting the marginal tax rates on the wealthy and reductions in capital gains rates actually increases government tax receipts. It's no secret.

The spending side of the equation, this administration has been a complete embarrassment, but they have the tax side of the equation right. If you can't economically reason beyond tired leftist propaganda, just choose other subjects upon which to rail this administration. I assure you that there are plenty that we can agree upon.
 
#339
#339
BigPapaVol said:
I led off the way I did because you implied that this admin's lowering of the tax burden on the wealthy caused the imbalance in our federal budget. That is exactly incorrect and even the lefty economists of the world are starting to understand.

You could put up every "fact" you could find and it would still result in your being exactly wrong.

We have, more than once in this nation, proven that reducting the marginal tax rates on the wealthy and reductions in capital gains rates actually increases government tax receipts. It's no secret.

The spending side of the equation, this administration has been a complete embarrassment, but they have the tax side of the equation right. If you can't economically reason beyond tired leftist propaganda, just choose other subjects upon which to rail this administration. I assure you that there are plenty that we can agree upon.
Click to expand...


The problem isn't that he gave out tax breaks in an effort to stimulate investment. Its the timing and the refusal to adjust his thinking to match the change in circumstances. People can debate whether the return on tax breaks for the wealthy (as imprecise as that descriptor is) really does trickle down in the form of spending or investment. I imagine that we can both find qualified economists who can sincerely differ on it.

But in the face of the discretionary spending he allowed to go on along with the enormous cost of the war, it seems to me that tax cuts should have been rolled back. And it certainly seems as though the cuts, in that context, have not yielded anything other than a greater class divide. And my hunch is that the guys on McCain's team are already having some stressed out meetings trying to figure out how they are going to distance themselves from that part of the plan.

The fact thaty he maintained them given the sudden drain on our economy suggests that his motive was not what he said it was. (And when I say "he" I mean more like the guys pulling the strings because I don't think Bush himself totally gets it).
 
#340
#340
If Bush is a buffoon, what does that make the millions of Americans he convinced to vote for him twice?
 
#341
#341
lawgator1 said:
The problem isn't that he gave out tax breaks in an effort to stimulate investment. Its the timing and the refusal to adjust his thinking to match the change in circumstances. People can debate whether the return on tax breaks for the wealthy (as imprecise as that descriptor is) really does trickle down in the form of spending or investment. I imagine that we can both find qualified economists who can sincerely differ on it.

But in the face of the discretionary spending he allowed to go on along with the enormous cost of the war, it seems to me that tax cuts should have been rolled back. And it certainly seems as though the cuts, in that context, have not yielded anything other than a greater class divide. And my hunch is that the guys on McCain's team are already having some stressed out meetings trying to figure out how they are going to distance themselves from that part of the plan.

The fact thaty he maintained them given the sudden drain on our economy suggests that his motive was not what he said it was. (And when I say "he" I mean more like the guys pulling the strings because I don't think Bush himself totally gets it).
Click to expand...
you're still missing the point that reduced tax rates on the wealthy have been proven to increase government tax receipts. That is an empirical measure that is not up for debate. The few still dissenting are trying to argue that other influences generated the increased tax receipts, but those few are typically full blown socialists.

His thinking on the taxes was exactly right, it's the spending that he got exactly wrong, regardless of the tax situation. While we would like to think the two should be intertwined, they actually are not.

Changing his tax regime mid-stream would have been the most disastrous thing he could have even considered doing, especially since governmental tax receipts were considerably higher and continuing to increase.
 
#342
#342
lawgator1 said:
The problem isn't that he gave out tax breaks in an effort to stimulate investment. Its the timing and the refusal to adjust his thinking to match the change in circumstances. People can debate whether the return on tax breaks for the wealthy (as imprecise as that descriptor is) really does trickle down in the form of spending or investment. I imagine that we can both find qualified economists who can sincerely differ on it.

But in the face of the discretionary spending he allowed to go on along with the enormous cost of the war, it seems to me that tax cuts should have been rolled back. And it certainly seems as though the cuts, in that context, have not yielded anything other than a greater class divide. And my hunch is that the guys on McCain's team are already having some stressed out meetings trying to figure out how they are going to distance themselves from that part of the plan.

The fact thaty he maintained them given the sudden drain on our economy suggests that his motive was not what he said it was. (And when I say "he" I mean more like the guys pulling the strings because I don't think Bush himself totally gets it).
Click to expand...

this economy would be in the toilet if it wasn't for those tax cuts. and trust me our tax receipts would be far far less without that stimulus. and let's not forget that 10% of the population pays over 50% of the taxes.
 
#343
#343
No economist in the world btw (democrat or republican) has made a reasonable argument that tax cuts hurt the economy. those that argue otherwise are just plain ignorant about economics. one can argue that an increased national debt is a serious long term problem (though our debt as a % of gdp is far lower than most european nations), but not that tax cuts hurt the economy.
 
#345
#345
droski said:
No economist in the world btw (democrat or republican) has made a reasonable argument that tax cuts hurt the economy. those that argue otherwise are just plain ignorant about economics. one can argue that an increased national debt is a serious long term problem (though our debt as a % of gdp is far lower than most european nations), but not that tax cuts hurt the economy.
Click to expand...
and that was the point of my original comment to LG. The ensuing debate only solidified my original assertion.
 
#346
#346
utvolpj said:
No I can admit good and bad. When discussing the economy I think Bill did the best thing he could have done- keep his damn hands out of it and let the market do its thing. What I'm saying is that there should have been some thought about when it was over and what would happen then (kinda like the housing mess). There wasn't and it put a strain on the first year of the Bush pres. Add in 9/11 and he really didn't have a chance to begin with. From then on his handling of what could have been a huge opportunity was very poor.
Click to expand...

With the exception of his antitrust battle against Microsoft. I remember the day after the judge ruled against Microsoft, technology stocks took a hit and I told family and friends to get out of technology stocks because the bubble had burst. The judge’s ruling was later overturned on appeal but it was too late, the damage had been done. (Of coarse the bubble would have burst eventually, but he got it started.).
 
#347
#347
JZVOL said:
If Bush is a buffoon, what does that make the millions of Americans he convinced to vote for him twice?
Click to expand...

In addition, what does it say about the cream of the crop democrats that were put up against him (Gore, Kerry)? They must be lower on the evolutionary scale.
 
#348
#348
Kerry had a lower GPA in college than bush did. so much for his suppose intellectual superiority.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top