1. Would we have fought the Taliban? 2. Would we have invaded Iraq? 3. Would the patriot act have made it through? 4. Would we be ignoring the domestic economy? Rocket River
How are we ignoring the domestic economy when the current administration has provided multiple fiscal stimuli, engaged in one of the most accomodative monetary policies of all time, and cracked down on corporate corruption harder than any president since Roosevelt? You continue to have no idea what you are talking about.
Yet more reactionary rhetoric. You must be doing pretty well as a trader to buy into such crap. Actually 9/11 played right into this administration's hands. Do some reading into the subject and you'll see what I mean. Or just continue to believe just because Dubya is a hero just to believe it. As for the economy, Dubya has passed some really excellent stimulus packages....if you happen to be among the very few who already have a ton of money. Or is there some sort of economic theory that states CEO's, when pocketing that extra money, will use it to help out the little people? Let me quote a bad movie, "Godfather III." "Ha perdito il fiducio del popolo." "Chi construisce sul populo construisce sul fango." (transl: 1. You've lost the people's trust./2. He who builds on the people builds on mud.)
Let's see now... 1. Multiple Fiscal Stimuli, and they have worked about as well as Viagra on a rotting male corpse. 2. One of the most accomodative monetary policies of all time...an extension of the previous administration's policy. 3. Cracked down on corporate corruption harder than any president since Roosevelt...yet if you donated to his campaign, you seem to be immune (see Lay, Kenneth). Got any other spew you wish to share, T_J?
"No" on all 4. 9/11 really changed W's worldview. He started listening more to the hawks, "neocons," and others (not all conservative) who wanted to fix the situation in the Middle East. But another question- if 9/11 didn't happen, would something similar have eventually happened? Considering the growth of terrorism, the instability and poverty of Middle Eastern states, the failure of the peace process, etc. Remember Clinton was trying to catch Osama and launched missile strikes on Iraq.
See, one thing I'm afraid of is that the fact that people might have exploited 9-11 for their own purposes might eventually lead us to lean too far the other way. 9-11 as an answer to everything might just make people tune it out as an answer to anything. Don't get me wrong, we are still way way too far in the 9-11 excuses anything the government does way of thinking...but it might not last, and just as the Republicans hammering the sex aspect of Clintons' perjury for political gain eventually desensitized people to the entire issue...and made them miss the real issue, perjury...I wonder if Dubbya's dragging out 9-11 every time he makes a decision about anything might, as that reasoning becomes more and more obviously politically motivated, eventually desensitize us to the real issue; the war on terrorism. I actully feel that we have, lead by W, already gottenway off track with it...and we might never get back. Mybe not until another 9-11 jars us, but even then, if the current guys are in play, I have little faith that they will use that resumed awareness propoerly. What have they ever done to show that the can?
I think we were due for some kind of attack, sometime. Even if we would've prevented (doubtful with the CYOA bureaucracy that is the FBI these days) 9/11, the evil would eventually have reached our shores for a second time. I strongly doubt we would've fought the Taliban or invaded Iraq because we really didn't have a good reason or national interest to do either. I don't think the Bush admin is ignoring the domestic economy, but I think that the role of the president (this applies to Clinton too) in the economy for immediate boosts is rather limited. The economy is cyclical, what comes up most go down and besides, 9/11 played a big part in worsening a downturn that began during the waning days of the Clintonistas due to the bust of the internet boom.
If if's and but's were candy and nuts , what a wonderful Christmas we would all have. Why bother with the hypotheticals of a different past?
Read....from http://www.aigvalic.com/valic2000/valicweb.nsf/contents/taxlaw_2003 Looks like a pretty basic 2% deduction all around, not just for the rich. Looks like that is better for married people...nothing about being rich to get tax breaks there. I guess you can say this benefits the rich if you consider investing only for the rich, but that would be pretty closed minded. Anyhow, investment drives the economy and always has. This capital gains cut also is directed more towards the non-wealthy since the lower income capital gains will drop to 0% in 5 years. You can't ask for less taxes than that. I guess you can say this might benefit the rich, but you can also say it will benefit the baby boomers who might be living off dividends when they retire. Hmmm....this one really doesn't seem to be directed towards the rich...who knows maybe it really is and we don't know it. I don't think this Enron execs can really benefit a lot from this. Ok here again the AMT exemption was raised. Doesn't seem to benefit the rich that much either. So just explain how this tax plan is so biased towards the rich.
No to all of them. Also, we aren't ignoring the domestic economy. I don't really understand how we are. Bush has cut capital gains taxes and dividend taxes and he increased the tax credit for children significantly. Also, the Bush Admin has taken steps to reorient the American economy towards China and Asia in general and its potential for massive growth. If someone has suggestions for what else the president can do then bring them on and stop complaining. It's funny Clinton gets all this credit for a great economy, but at the same time one can look at it from the perspective that he reigned over the greatest runaway bubble economy in history, not a good thing. It's taken Japan almost 15 years to start to recover from its horrible bubble economy. How long will it take ours? One man won't be responsible for it either.
what country and president are you talking about? cuz I know you couldn't be talking about ours u realize that by the time we can get rid of Bush, our national debt will be over $10 TRILLION DOLLARS... do you realize how much money it takes just to pay the interest on that debt?
wouldn't a 2% reduction be more beneficial to the rich than a 2% reduction to someone who is middle class? I am not a tax accountant..but isnt this correct?
Well put. This rising deficit is the fault of Bush abandoning his limited government principles and signing every bad spending bill that crosses his desk. Did you guys realize that he's going to be the first president since I think John Quincy Adams to allow a full term to pass without vetoing a SINGLE bill. This new drug "benefit" isn't going to help the budget either. If we want to control the budget deficit, we must cut out all this pork barrel garbage. Here are some Alabama examples: -1 million dollars to refurbish the statue of Vulcan who overlooks Birmingham from his perch atop Red Mtn. Now why is the Federal govt. funding that? Where is the natl. interest? -Another mil to dredge the Dog River in Mobile, a river not used by commercial traffic at all, that happens to run in front of the house of former representative Sonny Callahan of Alabama? -2 million dollars from the Fed. transportation fund to build Shelby Hall (named after Sen. Richard Shelby) at the University of Alabama. And folks, that's just in Alabama. Imagine all the crap projects and ridiculous grants that are going on in all 50 states. A line-item veto and term limits put in constitutional amendments would go along way to stop this excess.
Ignoring i guess is the wrong word but it does not seem to be a priority. Not us much as foreign policy [I'll caulk that up to the MEDIA reporting] However, Didn't Clinton put forth a balanced budget a surplus even. How did that happen. IMO that means he planned to spend what was available whereas Bush is spending beyond the budget Rocket River
Those surpluses were PROJECTED at present rates of growth, which at the time the economy was roaring like an M1A1 through Iraqi infantry. It just turned out those revenue projections turned out to be waaaaaaaaay off. And 9/11 didn't help matters either.
If I remember correctly, the last year or two that he was in office, we had an ACTUAL surplus, not just projections. Granted this was because of a soaring economy, but it WAS the first surplus in a long, LONG time.
Yes and they also pay a hell of a lot more of the taxes too. Each bracket is getting a 2% reduction in their respective taxes. Of course someone who make a million will save more money than someone who isn't paying any federal taxes at all. Come on man you can't get as much tax relief if you aren't paying as much in taxes in the 1st place.
I will agree with you that Bush is spending too much and not working towards a balanced budget enough. Especially this prescription drug plan. Very inefficient use of money. Many people already have prescription drug plans from their employers and whatnot and this will end up being more expensive for some of them. Also, foreign policy is taking a bigger position because quite frankly we are at war. When you are at war you are going to have to dedicate more resources to foreign policy. If we are not secure then our economy will never be secure in my opinion.