Trader, sometimes I can't tell if you say these things with tongue in cheek or not. Are you just trying to get a rise out of people? G. W. Bush has done many things that are not all that commendable or terrific. Yes, he is the President, but that doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with some of his policies is a critter that just crawled out from under a rock. It's called honorable dissent. By the way, you never replied to a question I asked you in my thread about Bush's tax cut being slashed (currently on page 6, I believe... between "man bites dog" and "SUV's are Creatures of the Devil"). I expressed the belief that if there was going to be a tax cut at all (which is foolish during a war of unknown duration, imo, but that's another topic... as is this question), that eliminating the capitol gains tax would have made far more sense than what Bush proposed and would have a much greater benefit to the middle class, and asked your opinion. You gave the question a pass. I was curious about what you thought about it. (sorry for getting off track with the thread)
pasox2, It's that kind of attitude that scares me. I guess you are all for going down the "Axis of Evil" list and systematically wiping them out?
This afternoon's anouncements reminded me of this Gulf War Sim I saw it @ Swopa's needlenose site, and laughed quite a bit at the time. It suddenly doesn't seem quite so funny...
Nope, I think Bush did a great job in handling the Post 9/11 attacks. He was patient and didn't immediately react. Then when he did act he worked with local factions inside of Afghanistan, and gathered a great coalition of countries and UN support to help in that effort. I will only besmirch Bush's reputation where it deserves besmirching. Because he handled that correctly doesn't mean that he hasn't done other things wrong. You previously mentioned the high esteem that you had for the National Guard. Yet when I bring up Bush being derelict in his duty to that honorable institution, you dismiss it, because it was in the past. So my questions to you are: Does your feelings for the National guard only apply to current actions? Back when Bush was serving in the National Guard do you feel they weren't worthy having a persons commitment to it honored? After you messed up with the whole veterans thing, I was just giving you a chance to be consistent on this matter. Apparently you won't do it. As for the current Coalition, it's a coalition in name only. Only a small percentage of those are contributing troops or money to the effort. I mean their support is one thing, but to boast of it as a true coalition, actions speak louder than words. As for the current war, I think it was handled poorly, but a good will come out of it. Saddam will be out of power. I think that's great. If Bush is doing it to liberate the Iraqis as he claims, giving away contracts that should only be given away by the Iraqi people is poor way of showing it. If he wants to liberate them, then let them have a say in what happens, and which contracts go to which country's firms.
Deckard -- Just so you know, I do not answer all questions posed to me. That would require a very large allocation of my time. I also do not answer questions posed to me by people with malicious intent. I must be selective. My time is very valuable. With regard to your tax question: I invite you to go back and read a few of my classic posts on the topics of tax policy and economic growth. I would welcome a cut in the capital gains tax. I have maintained for a while now that the last piece to the economic-recovery puzzle is a rise in equity valuations. Access to capital is critical right now for publicly traded corporations. The debt markets are providing cheap money with low interest rates, however raising equity capital is very expensive. Companies are currently over leveraged and over time this debt burden (and corresponding interest payments) will impair their ability to grow and sustain earnings. Debt to capital ratios must be brought in line by raising equity. Until the stock market recovers, this is simply not a viable option. Cutting the capital gains tax will encourage investment in the stock market, thereby raising stock prices and lowering the cost of equity capital. This in turn will lead to firms raising money through the equity market, retiring their debt, and engaging in capital spending. This is how jobs are created and how economic growth occurs (and how budget surpluses come about). Eliminating the double taxation of corporate earnings (slashing the tax on dividends) will lead to very similar effects. Eliminating this tax will encourage investment in firms which pay dividends. This will lead to higher share prices and the same effects listed above (capital spending, job growth, etc.). However, it will also accomplish other important financial goals. It will encourage firms who are not currently paying a dividend to begin paying a dividend. This will lead to greater transparency of corporate profitability. You can fake earnings, but you can’t fake dividend payments. This will allow investors to more accurately gauge a company’s financial health, which will in turn provide the investor with greater confidence in the market. This tax cut will also create greater efficiency in the capital budgeting decisions of senior management. Non dividend-paying companies will be penalized relative to their dividend-paying peers. An executive will be forced to make a decision as to where to allocate free cash flow in the most efficient manner. Companies that have been sitting on huge cash hoards (Cisco, Microsoft, for example) will now be incented to distribute this cash to shareholders. This will spur consumer spending as well as raise their equity valuation (share price). To sum it up, both measures would be welcomed by Wall Street. I believe that cutting the dividend tax has additional benefits which will aide our economic recovery more so than a cut in the capital gains tax.
That means he won't answer questions on which he doesn't have a leg to stand on. I'm not really trying to be malicious TJ, but I've noticed a pattern of you mischaracterizing what someone says in a post, taking a stand on a position, and then not being at all consistent with that stand. It's really nothing personal, but it's time you were called on it.
Dude that article was so full of riddles I don't know if the U.S. was threatening anyone, talking crap, or having a spat with Syria.
1. Why do you choose a time of war to criticize our Commander In Chief's military record? 2. Why do you consistently focus on his negatives and not his contributions? 3. The Air Guard allegations are just that -- allegations. Your AwolBush.com link just doesn't inspire journalistic confidence in me. 4. I have repeatedly defended my stance on the veterans' shelter. Build it. Just don't built it in an area of economic development. My consistency remains unblemished.
Quit trying to make criticism worse than it is by calling him the Commander and Chief. He's the military's Commander and Chief, there is no democracy in the military, He is our President. Sorry .
Jorge, we get the picture you support Bush and the war and you disagree with those who oppose the war. However, wouldn't you better off taking your frustrations out by tormenting young secretaries at work? It might make you feel better and clear your head for some calmer and more effective posting. Do you really think that Dubya is a great military and political leader just because he was president during the 9/11 attack? Don't you think that just about any president would have gone after Bin Laden? Don't you think any president could have threatened of bribed at least 30 or so of the 194 nations in the UN to support us? Don't forget at least two of the countries, Iceland and the Solomon Islands have no army at all, much less one to send for the invasion.
1.Because his military is more relevant at a time of war. Also it was in another thread that his national guard service was brought up. I just picked up on it, after it was already in the open. 2.I don't just focus on negatives. I mentioned a couple of positives. I mentioned that as wrongly as this war and the effort leading up to it were mishandled the positive is that Saddam will be gone. I also mentioned what a great job I thought Bush did in Afghanistan and post 9/11. 3.The Bush AWOL story first came to my attention from stories in the Boston Globe. There was also a veterans group offering reward money to anyone who could prove that Bush showed up for that second year. Nobody claimed it. Not one person stepped forward to show that they served with Bush during the time in question. The commanding officer says Bush never showed up. So if you don't have confidence in the website check the Boston Globe site, or the words Bush's comanding officers, Turnipseed(what a strange last name) and Lott also said that he didn't show up. Maybe you will believe those military officers. Maybe you will side with the Veterans on this one, who don't believe Bush was there. 4. As George Carlin would it's NIMBY syndrome. Not In My Back Yard. If you support it, then support it, don't push it off on some other area.
Hey Admins, is there any way we can get some sort of warning if TJ posts in a thread? Maybe something like this. Thank You.
1. First, his military record's been criticized before. If he received preferential treatment and then didn't even fulfill his cush duties, which is the unrefuted allegation, that is certainly even more relevant when he is sending men and women into combat. I'm sure I don't need to remind you of all the military personnel who said Clinton wasn't "their" commander-in-chief due to what they called his draft dodging. Apparently this is only a serious offense when committed by Democrat commanders-in-chief. 2. It is not the job of members of the opposition party to laud the admin's acheivements, but okay, I'll play. I supported the Afghanistan action and thought it was very well handled, with the one exception of not giving full support to the attack on Tora Bora. Even so, I thought in general it was remarkably well handled. Incidentally, I have long thought the Taliban was evil and wished for its demise, well before 9/11. Doesn't mean I would have supported an unprovoked military strike, but as long as we're in the business of liberating the oppressed, the Taliban has long been one of the worst offenders. I signed an online petition calling for UN sanctions against them about a week before 9/11. I also loudly applauded Bush's proposed AIDS money for Africa and continue to do so. Aside from that I think his international policy has been disastrous, from backing out of signed treaties to consistently alienating the world community to carrying out what I continue to believe is an immoral, illegal war. I also think his tax cuts, social security proposals and various other domestic policies have been disastrous. Sorry I can't find more Bush policies to praise. I truly wish I could. 3. This has been addressed elsewhere. You're one of the best at believing whatever you want and tuning out the rest. If Bush had any defense on this at all, we'd have heard it. And you know very well awolbush.com is not the only source for this. It was all over the place during the election and reasonable people accept that it's probably true. Some reasonable people think it's enough reason not to support Bush and some don't. I personally don't have a problem with Bush taking as much preferential treatment as was available to him to avoid going to war and I don't even think that his failure to fulfill his duties is enough reason to oppose him. I do think the double standard is appalling, with regard to criticism of Clinton or Gore or other Dems who didn't fight in their generations' conflicts, but I'd use whatever means available to me to avoid fighting too so I don't fault him that. If he were to reinstate the draft, given his record of 'service,' I'd have a huge problem with it. 4. You conveniently leave out the part where you said that you support the troops until they are no longer contributing members of society. Valuing the almighty dollar over providing essential services to men who've risked their lives for this country is pretty low. Abandoning them when they stop "contributing to society" is appalling.
I find it funny that many of the people who are presently asserting that stating we would consider X a 'hostile act' to be subject to interpretation, and not necessarily indicative of belicose warnings are the same ones who state that the 'severe consequences' in the UN resolution are only open to one interpretation...war. For the record I think that neither is clear cut.
