First, an apology for the Trollishness of this thread. If you are tired of the political debate, get out of here.
Is it me or is the secret behind President Bush's Campaign Strategy to take of of his own (President Bush's) weaknesses and claim they are Senator Kerry's.
Examples.
President Bush was elected originally based on his self-portrayal as a moderate, yet his Presidential Record shows him as much more of a Conservative. Being far away from the center, he is campaiging on Senator Kerry's non-centrist supposed liberalness.
He complains that Senator Edwards will be unable to leave his previous career--Personal Injury Lawyer--behind him. Mr. Cheney has lingering issues with his own previous career--Haliburton, or to be more generic--CEO's of multinational companies.
There are Republican inspired complaints about Senator Kerry's Vietnam War service. President Bush's Vietnam Service can be considered far less than impressive.
President Bush campaigns that Senator Kerry's economic plan must result in hirer taxes because someone has to pay the bill eventually. President Bush has created the largest deficit in US history. How is he planning to pay for this?
President Bush shouts that if Senator Kerry was president, Saddam Hussein would still be free, yet President Bush is president and Osama Bin Laden, leader of the people who attacked us, is still free.
I could go on, but I am sure there are Republican apologists waiting to rip these accusations, or me, to shreds.
What I am more interested in discovering is, does anyone think that this is a actual Republican Election Policy?
In that light I present my last example.
During President Bush's time in office the US faced the worst terrorist incident in its history. Thousand's of American's died that day, and more die around the world as we prosecute the War on Terror. Another attack on US soil is not only possible, but predicted. The US is not safer now than it was before President Bush took office. I am NOT blaming President Bush for this. It is a fact of timing. It is one that some Democrats would take advantage of in campaigning against him.
He says that if we elect President Kerry, we will be even less safe from the terrorists.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
When talking about Edwards's previous career there is relevance when trying to establish a link between frivolous lawsuits and medical costs. Likewise there is relevance if you're afraid Bush will give tax breaks to corporations and their CEOs. Both attacks are relevant although they may not be the case and that is why there are debates back and forth.
The complaints about Kerry's service were inspired by other veterans. There wouldn't be attacks if Kerry hadn't made it the centerpiece of his campaign. I still think attacks on his post-war activities are quite valid.
I'm not sure how the deficit argument fits into your theme and as Edwards admitted in the VP debate all the things that the Dems' ticket is promising aren't going to happen. Personally I don't see the point in making campaign promises that you're not even pretenting that you're going to keep.
I think that Osama bin Laden is being pursued and I don't Kerry would have even sent in American troops into Afgahnistan to begin with. I imagine he would have taken the Clinton approach and just launch cruise missiles until the Taliban surrendered power.
I think we will be less safe from terrorists because I don't believe Kerry will as aggressive in pursuing them.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
You go, girl!
You were more polite than I would have been. I would have simply said that the Bush re-election policy was just to Lie, Cheat and Steal the election, just like they did four years ago.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Its good that excuses are already being made for a Bush victory. Really it is, it goes along with that whole platform of not accepting responsibility. Don't have a job blame the Republicans, lost money in the stock market blame the Republicans, vote for Buchanan instead of Gore blame the Republicans even though a Democrat designed the ballot, got pregant because you were too lazy to use protection get an abortion, don't do well in school try to ride affirmative action, lose the election because you can't field a credible canidate blame the Republicans for cheating.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Except for that frustrating, nagging fact that Republicans did not lie, cheat, or steal the last presidential election.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
My big question is: how Conservative is George W. Bush really?
He's talked a good game, or his handlers and the media have, for him being the Conservative candidate.
His track record just doesn't scream Conservative, even in the more modern sense of the word.
Has prayer been returned to schools? Nope.
Has Roe vs. Wade been overturned? Nope.
Has the government shrank any? Nope.
Have we become less involved in world politics? Nope.
Has our government been more responsible with its budget? Nope.
Do we feel that our armed forces are sufficient to protect us? Nope, things are looking a bit thin. If China invades North Dakota, we're up the creek. But if you want to invade us in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait or South Korea, we're ready for ya.
Are education and hard work being rewarded? Nope.
Are our taxes really any lower? Nope.
Man, as a conservative, Mr. Bush really kinda sucks.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Well since the only country that can invade North Dakota is Canada we're actually pretty safe there. With the fall of the USSR the only threats to mainland United States are long range missile attacks (why Bush wants ABMs) and terrorist attacks (why Bush is aggressively pursuing terrorists abroad).
Taxes really are lower. Whether they are significant on an individual level for middle class families is debatable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree that Pres. Bush has been quite a bit less moderate than his first presidential campaign promised. Some of that, I feel, can fairly be attributed to 9-11, which simply demanded an immoderate response.
Others, notably financial and energy policy, I am shall we say 'unhappy' with.
However, Sen. Kerry's voting record is very liberal. Just because it's the Bush campaign saying he's behaved quite liberally doesn't mean it's untrue.
I don't really have a problem with Sen. Edwards, except that I distrust lawyers in general but not really in specific. Vice. Pres. Cheney, though, I like less than I like Sen. Edwards or Sen. Kerry.
Most 'Republican-inspired' comments about Sen. Kerry's military service have less to do with his three months in Vietnam and much more to do with what he did once he got home. Which is fair friggin' game, since Sen. Kerry went to great lengths to be public about what he was doing.
Swift Boat Vets. for Truth is a different matter, and if Michael Moore isn't going to be linked to the DNC, then they shouldn't be linked to the RNC, damnit.
The deficit is something I am most dissatisfied with Pres. Bush over, but then again that does not at all mean Sen. Kerry's plans will work, either. It takes Congress, not a President, to take care of the deficit.
Pres. Bush is right (probably) in saying that if Sen. Kerry were President, Saddam would still be free. That depends on whether or not Kerry's nebulous minimums of international allies (which we have), flouting of UN rules by Saddam (which we had), and the presence of danger posed by Saddam if he had WMD (which, for all we could tell-remember, he wasn't letting us find out)-he had, if those minimums were ever met.
No one really knows if OBL is dead or alive or injured, and it takes more than a Presidential decree to capture him. He kind of, you know, runs away when we do that and sort of, you know, shields himself with fantically loyal followers whom money almost certainly won't buy. If there is a more consistently irritating, irrational, and stupid criticism of Bush it is that he hasn't captured OBL yet.
Oh, and Democrats in general and the Kerry Campaign in particular do their own fair share of 'shouting'. But don't mind me, I'm just another frothing, ditto-headed Republican apologist. One of those registered-Independant kind.
[iquote]The US is not safer now than it was before President Bush took office. I am NOT blaming President Bush for this.[/quote]
Could have fooled me.
But to answer your question, I really do think that the points you've made play into the Bush Campaign. I say that without sarcasm; I think they play into the Kerry Campaign, too.
J4
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
'Are our taxes 'really' any lower? Nope'.
Are you high? Whether or not you think it's a good thing, regardless of deficit problems, taxes are lower.
And China poses a conventional military threat only to those nations with which it shares a land border.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Back on topic, yes Dan, I think Bush is using a bit of jiu-jitsu in his campaigning.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
So would this be the thread to bring up the remarks by Pat Robertson about the conversation he says he had with Bush before Iraq was invaded?
(Hey, I just want to know if this is the place! Honest!)
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
China was just chosen at random there. How about Gabon or Micronesia.
And I'm sure not feeling much of a reduction in my taxes. How about the rest of you? And with that deficit looming, it sure looks like it will get a might more expensive in the near future.
I'll stand by it: taxes lower -- nope. Income lower -- Yes!
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I'm amazed at how liberals hate Pat Robertson and company so much but are willing to believe what he says if it hurts Bush.
And personally I dislike Robertson no matter what he says even if he were to be soley responsible for Bush's reelection.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lost Ashes,
Well if we're going by the rubric of what you 'feel' your taxes are, then there's no point arguing about it. But despite your feelings on the matter, your taxes are lower. Whether that's a good or bad thing, and whether or not the means by which it was done are good or not are another matter (personally, I think good to the first, bad to the second)
----
What conversation might that be? Keep in mind I trust Pat Robertson about as high as I can jump.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
If Gabon gets a navy or Micronesia a soldier let me know.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Robertson claimed that Bush told him there wouldn't be a single casualty in Iraq.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
There wasn't a single one. There've been lots of 'em.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Rakeesh,
MY TAXES ARE NOT LOWER.
I now pay substantially more in state and local taxes to make up the shortfall that Bush created when he gave money away to the rich, and starved the mandated but economically unsuported programs he foisted upon the states and local municipalities.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, curse those rich. After all, nearly half of their income is a pittance! They should be grateful we don't 'liberate' more from them, those foul robber-barons!
What a caricature.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
My taxes are not lower, either.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
No amount delusional medication changes the fact that Bush has no direct or indirect control of local and state taxes.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:No amount delusional medication changes the fact that Bush has no direct or indirect control of local and state taxes.
Not exactly true. The irony, however, is that in Florida, where I believe Rakeesh, Ela, and you (nfl) live, it is Bush's brother who has the most control.
Forget that little fact? Been hitting the bottle yourself, eh? I really dare you to claim that the president has no influence with his brother. Please. I dare you to attempt to quantify such a ridiculous statement.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Actually, Bush has a fairly large influence on state taxes. Just as an example...he hasn't funded any of his homeland security programs, so states need to find the revenue to fund federaly mandated programs, that aren't being covered by federal spending. Thus, higher taxes, in many cases.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
No, don't leave him an opening to dodge my challenge to him. I seriously want to know what he has smoked to convince him that George Bush has no sphere of influence over a state that his brother, Jeb Bush, is the governor of.
Please share with the rest of the class.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well, um, Florida does not have a state income tax, for one thing.
-o-
Yay, this thread has helped me rediscover the middle! I don't think Bush "stole" the 2000 election. nfl, is that your honest appraisal of what those of us who don't care for Bush as president stand for, or were you backed into that caricature by the hostile posts that preceded yours?
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:No amount delusional medication changes the fact that Bush has no direct or indirect control of local and state taxes.
Allow me to clarify: My federal income taxes were higher after the Bush "tax cuts."
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Well, um, Florida does not have a state income tax, for one thing.
That's a good start, but there are lots of other taxes, so how does it stand to reason that people aren't paying lower taxes, yet live in one of the states where one of the president's family lives in?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Interesting tactic, Justa. Change the word from control to influence, then mock the statement that's only ridiculous because of your change.
Dagonee
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Actually, Dagonee, it's "direct or indirect control" that I changed to "influence." Influence involves a reasonable degree of indirect control. Nice tactic of misquoting to attack my argument there, Dagonee.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Please. you know it's absolutely ridiculous to contend that Pres. Bush has any meaningful input on Florida tax policies. It's a plain stupid argument.
Dagonee
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
If it's so stupid, then why not give something better than stupid responses?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Well you want to know what I think?......Nevermind, I know the answer to that question...
Sorry, it was getting a little too "heated" and I was feeling left out.
EDIT: I was just trying to lighten the mood a bit with my stupid humor.
[ October 21, 2004, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
It's not meant to be heated. I'm mostly just jabbing at Dagonee, and I'm teasing nfl because he seems to be choosing an extreme position to counter what he obviously sees as an alternate extreme position. Not very wise in the realm of politics, IMO.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You're right. I just can't match your masterful rhetoric: "I seriously want to know what he has smoked to convince him that George Bush has no sphere of influence over a state that his brother, Jeb Bush, is the governor of."
I mean, it's such an obvious argument you feel no need to provide any evidence. And the nice little drug reference to automatically discredit his response before he makes it.
Congratulations! You've surpassed the idiocy that's already been posted today.
Dagonee
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Naw, I could never top you, Dag. Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:I mean, it's such an obvious argument you feel no need to provide any evidence. And the nice little drug reference to automatically discredit his response before he makes it.
No, the drug reference goes back to "delusional medication" that nfl implied anyone who doesn't believe him is taking, and I'm actually demanding that nfl back up his sweeping generality before expecting anyone to back it up.
If you damn my rhetoric, you may as well damn newfoundlogic's first, and even others' in this thread. Surprising that you're singling only my statements out.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Oh, wait, not so surprising: mine are the ones critical of Bush.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, yours are the ones that demonstrate your usual manipulative posting style.
[ October 21, 2004, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Even though I pointed out how everything I challenged on had to do with statements someone else used in their posts. Good form.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't care about the drug reference - not that wasn't in my original post. It's the subtle changing of others' posts that pisses me off. So I commented on that. Then you asked for a substantive response to your post, so I pointed out why it didn't deserve one.
Dagonee
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Even though I pointed out how I didn't change it? Good job. I think that from the first you were really just replying to me, rather than looking at what I was replying to. In essence, you were looking for things to yell at me about instead of looking at what I was scoffing at to begin with. Shame on you. At least Icarus made the single good point so far.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Nope. I was just cruising through. Even indirect control doesn't mean the same thing as influence. If it did, you wouldn't have bothered changing it, would you?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
I didn't change anything. George has plenty of indirect control, since direct control would be signing the state bills himself or directly ordering Jeb to do so. Since neither are realistic, I focused on the part that is not only far more realistic, but practical in terms of the duties of the governor with regard to federal fiscal policies to begin with, whether being related or not. The being related part just leaves a whole lot more fraternal influence on decisions, which I'd love to see someone debunk.
Still waiting for that explanation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, i'm waiting for yours. What indirect control does he have?
Does he go tell his mommy that Jeb isn't sharing?
Dagonee
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
You don't say to someone who just asked someone to prove what they said is true to prove it is not true. That is a weak attempt to divert away from the original incorrect statement.
Quantify the original statement made first, and then I will explain the ridiculousness of it. Otherwise, all I'll get is "straw man" this and "straw man" that. The onus is on newfoundlogic's claim.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't care about the substantive argument. I care about the tactics I described in my first post in this thread.
Dagonee
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:I don't care about the substantive argument.
<yoda> That is why you fail. </yoda>
When I hear nfl or you make a substantive argument for that ridiculous claim, I will address it with a substantive response. Until then, I will simply say, "prove it."
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:A clue to President Bush's Campaign Strategy
Donald Rumsfeld in the closet with weapons of mass destruction.
Hobbes
[ October 21, 2004, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Had you just said prove it, we wouldn't have had this conversation. Instead, you said, "You're wrong." Had you just said that, we still wouldn't have had this conversation.
Instead, you had to twist nfl's argument.
Dagonee
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Instead, you had to twist nfl's argument.
I did no such thing. I specified exactly where he was wrong. Had he said only "direct control," then there is little one could say. The scope of indirect control is so vast that I would love to see it explained how any president doesn't have such indirect control, let alone the current president having no indirect control over the state his brother is governor of.
You get points for trying, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Even indirect control implies the ability to achieve a specific desired result - "indirect" refers to the means.
Influence means the actions of the president will affect the state taxes paid in Florida. It implies no ability to achieve the specific desired result.
Dagonee
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Ic, I don't think it is a caricature, maybe a slight exaggeration. But its only a description of the extreme Democrats who are already reitterating their claims of cheating to preempt a GWB victory.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
You're arguing semantics now. You want it explicitly defined as one thing, even though I have laid out what I mean at your constant implications to the contrary. While I realize the main idea behind argument is to come to an understanding of definitions and work toward them from there, your abject refusal to allow any synonymous meaning exist between control and influence, even though they aresynonyms (2), is a pretty heavy indication that you have, in fact, no real argument, and are instead arguing against what I say not on the issue, but because it is me.
When you can get back to the subject, let me know. Until then, the challenge stands: prove it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If they meant the same thing, why did you feel the need to change the word? Because you were trying to recast the argument in a weaker light.
Dagonee
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Now you're attributing motive where there wasn't one. Ever hear of paraphrasing? You're sinking deeper into a rhetorical hole where just admitting you jumped without thinking would allow you to save face much easier.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Funny, that sounds like what you're doing.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, and as for attributing motive, you're the master at that.
You started it on the first page.
Dagonee
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
"I know you are, but what am I?"
Good going. Are you ever going to get back to the subject? I'm still waiting, since nfl has just posted without even addressing the challenge.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How many times to I have to say it:
I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE STUPID ARGUMENT ABOUT WHO HOW MUCH GEORGE BUSH AFFECTS STATE TAXES IN FLORIDA AND WHETHER HIS BROTHER IS ON OF THE REASONS.
Is that clear enough for you?
Dagonee
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
So, this is just a personal beef with me you have? In that case, keep me out of it. I don't feel like getting into petty fights over personality.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not about YOU. Despite your accusations of motive from the last page. It's about what I said it was about in my first post in the thread.
Dagonee
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Which I already addressed as being incorrect. Yet you won't let it go and insist on something being there that isn't. If it isn't about me, then you must have had a bad day and are just taking it out on me. Regardless, you are not even bothering with the subject.
Have a good night.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Please. you haven't even touched on it. You've danced around it. You've posted a link to a thesaurus. But you haven't dealt with the difference between indirect control and influence, specifically with regard to the difference between affecting something and achieving a desired goal.
Dagonee
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
You're demanding things be defined only as you define them. The world does not revolve around your personal definitions of what people say, nor is this a courtroom where your petty semantics has a place. If you're not going to address the subject, please leave me the hell alone.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Are we paying higher state taxes?
quote:The Bush program threatens to undermine funding for important public services and/or shift the burden of state taxation even further onto middle-and lower-income families--because virtually all of the endangered state revenues involve estate taxes and income taxes currently paid by the states' wealthiest taxpayers.
In terms of dollars, the largest revenue losses would (or could) be experienced by:
California: $2.7 billion in 2010 (pickup tax only).
Florida: $1.9 billion (pickup only).
Pennsylvania: $1.8 billion, including $521 million from the lost pickup tax and potentially $1,260 million in endangered supplemental inheritance tax.
New York: $1.5 billion (pickup only)
New Jersey: $1.2 billion, including $495 million from the lost pickup tax and potentially $655 million in endangered supplemental inheritance tax.
Texas: $832 million (pickup only)
Ohio: $733 million, including $522 million from the lost pickup tax and potentially $211 million in endangered supplemental inheritance tax.
I've seen CFTJ statements and reports cited by CNN articles before, but I'm not quite sure how objective CFTJ is. If you have more reliable sources I would love to read up on this subject.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Well, while the CFTJ isn't necessarily objective, they are pretty correct in their analysis of the states. However, their attribution to just Bush's plan is a little ham-handed, since it's not so much all Bush's fault as it is that he hasn't done anything substantial to help things. The tax breaks were allegedly supposed to stimulate spending and have a ripple effect leading to more job creation and healthier economic situations on the state and local level, but that didn't really happen. As it turns out, those individuals who received the larger tax breaks, meaning those who made much more discretionary income anyway and didn't immediately need to put the money into circulation at once. So, while there were some specific areas that saw growth, the economy still lingered and is even still not totally recovered from recession.
Some would argue the economy could easily slip back into recession, and whether they are correct or not, another recession would be more dangerous than the one we just got out of. So, that looming spectre is something we see argued on one side, typically the Democratic side, regarding the current administration's budgeting policies, which have had adverse ripple effects on state and local economies. Some alarming effects would be those on states surrounding New York, where a higher Homeland Security budget was promised but then the states wound up footing more of the bill than originally thought. The medicare fiasco from earlier this year also caused a bit of a stir, especially when the adminsitration's spinsters were caught trying to portray themselves as a news report giving fraudulent information. Things like that not only have effects on budgeting, but also on the largest contributor to recession: individual spending.
Did you know that the largest single cause of the recession is consumer spending? Government policies play into this by giving both the consumer and the supplier confidence in their policies by showing at least nominal results, which is why you'll hear two different stories from the same pool of information based on what political party they stand behind. On top of that, the popular "trickle-down" theory of economics has shown to be very lucrative for the business that makes roughly over $150,000 a year, but either negligible or even detrimental to the economic well-being of those in the lower income realms, though the middle class take the brunt far more than the lower classes do. It really is incredible to see how popular supply-side economic policy has become when the majority of economists and economics professors have been pointing out the flaws in it for the last 25 years.
Back to the recession, though. Do you know why it took three years to come out of it? Because even with the tax breaks, people were just too afraid to spend what they had, because they had no assurance that more would come in. This is where I personally think Bush made mistakes, though adjusting policies to have lightened spending in the ever-growing cabinet he ran and the increase in military budgeting could have eased that scare far more quickly and solved more economic problems. That would have meant less sabre rattling, though, and he was convinced that there were WMD in Iraq, regardless of the outcome. Would things have been different if we had to spend less on the war in Iraq? Maybe. Probably. I don't know for sure. The only sure thing is that there would have been more cash to funnel into domestic and economic problems.
The funny thing in states like California is that the inheritance tax, for instance, has not been given any breaks, while as it stands currently it would break the bank of anyone inheriting the assets of a business worth a net million dollars or so (not profit, but total assets... not difficult to have). The Bush administration has gradually been raising the ceiling of the allowance before taxation, but this has been slow in coming and will be a long time before it gets high enough for a business to remain in a person's family if the original proprietor dies.
Why am I darting all over the place with this? Because it's too simple to just go over the state revenues and blame one side or damn the other. This is a continual and complicated problem. My own opinion is that the "simple" answers Bush has given to the problem have done nothing to battle it. Kerry seems to have his plan based on those from the early 1990's, which have already shown to have had a reasonably significant return. Add to that the claim by Kerry that he would aim to reduce costs on the war on terror by bringing in nations America is currently in less than stellar diplomatic relations with, like those in the EU east of Britain and Spain, and the argument Kerry makes is sensible enough for me. However, that's because in this case I'm looking at it in terms of dollars and cents. I am somewhat ambivalent on the war on terror, but not when it comes to invading countries and footing the bill ourselves. I am for free trade, but not with nations who have known human rights abuses.
I might not agree with Bush with regard to economics on answering such issues, but I don't know that making the blame out to be completely in any one administration's hands is helpful for anything but a political campaign.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Assuming that the numbers are correct I'm still not sure how that raises state taxes.
quote: Forget that little fact? Been hitting the bottle yourself, eh? I really dare you to claim that the president has no influence with his brother. Please. I dare you to attempt to quantify such a ridiculous statement.
How do I "quantify" the fact that George exerts no control over Jeb? He has no reason to, he has no ability to when Jeb has clearly shown the tendency to put distance between himself and his brother. I suppose it is theoretically possible George really is going, "Mom, Jeb won't share!" and Barbara actually makes Jeb raise taxes to make George look good, but there's no reason to believe this, especially considering people notice when federal tax decreases are supplimented by state tax increases.
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
[/comic relief]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:How do I "quantify" the fact that George exerts no control over Jeb? He has no reason to, he has no ability to when Jeb has clearly shown the tendency to put distance between himself and his brother. I suppose it is theoretically possible George really is going, "Mom, Jeb won't share!" and Barbara actually makes Jeb raise taxes to make George look good, but there's no reason to believe this, especially considering people notice when federal tax decreases are supplimented by state tax increases.
You're being ridiculous. All George has to do is make sure Jeb can say things are going well to look good. Allowing the offshoring, which he has, inflating government job numbers, which he has, and doing the same palm-greasing tactics he does with all governors and senators by letting large businesses out of regulations and restrictions (in exchange for contributions) are all ways he can influence policy.
Just because you are childish about how you argue here does not mean everyone in politics must behave the same.
Go look up Jeb's relations with offshoring, which George has intentionally looked the other way for.
Go look up EPA and FDA changes in policy which have allowed more businesses to conduct themselves in ways they would be fined for 5 years ago.
Go look at the individuals who made the biggest lump sums from the tax cuts.
You will find a common thread, which George and Jeb Bush are only two who share in it (there are many more).
Of course, you will ignore this just like you will the 1.3 million more impoverished citizens of the US, the higher unemployment rate than 4 years ago, the deficit, the lower median income, the lower coverage of healthcare and the less protection by the FDA. Keep ignoring the parts that affect us in the long run, because tax cuts will save the day.
[ October 22, 2004, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Input on florida tax policies? No, but his actions certainly influence them, and influence them in ways that require either raising them (often not a (political) option, after all, our President told us that in times of economic prosperity, lowering taxes leads to more prosperity), lowering expenditures (often not an option, at least not to the degree necessary), or running a debt (often not an option).
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
"My shirt is green."
"Well your tie is orange therefore you must be wrong."
Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about how the fact that George and Jeb are brothers doesn't mean that George controls Jeb's tax policy and you start attacking them both using some incoherent argument about what I assume to be outsourcing jobs or possibly implied bribery. I would say your disproving a minor point, but you didn't even do that. I would say your argument goes along the lines of ad hominem and while you did call me childish not even that tactic makes sense.
[ October 22, 2004, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
[comic relief]
*Throws defenistraitor out of window.*
[comic relief]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Once again, I have smoked and drank myself into the delusional idea that the legislature, and not the executive branch, has the most power over budgets.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Rak, when the President presents a bill to congres, campaigns for a bill in congress, and in the home states of any representative who questions that bill, takes credit for a bill, and does everything he can to make sure that bill becomes a law, I find it difficult to say he was not the person responsible for that bill.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Defenestraitor, both the VPs look kinda cute. But man, the presidential candidates make for some ugly women.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I disagree. Cheney looks quite frumpy.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
<-----Me shuddering.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Yes, but he ALWAYS looks quite frumpy.
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
To keep with the original theme of this thread: Bush attacks Kerry on campaigning on fear...yet the Bush/Cheney issue ads and make statements that say basically if you elect Kerry then the Terrorists are going to attack us.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Frumpy but not scary. More middle-aged June Cleaver as compared to Kerry's freakish Judy Tenuta on high-dose steroids image.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
(I'm not scared by frumpy. I knows me some frumpy firsthand.)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But despite your feelings on the matter, your taxes are lower. Whether that's a good or bad thing, and whether or not the means by which it was done are good or not are another matter (personally, I think good to the first, bad to the second)![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
<-----Me shuddering.