QUESTION FOR BUSH SUPPORTERS

[tml12]

I was reading something the other day from someone who supports Bush and he said, "Bush is a good president because he doesn't raise taxes and he wants to bring democracy to the Middle East at any price" or something like that...

My theory is this:

If you support Bush's tax cuts, then you cannot support him spending $200 million there and $500 billion

[tml12]

I was reading something the other day from someone who supports Bush and he said, "Bush is a good president because he doesn't raise taxes and he wants to bring democracy to the Middle East at any price" or something like that...

My theory is this:

If you support Bush's tax cuts, then you cannot support him spending $200 million there and $500 billion

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(SORRY POST GOT CUT OFF)

...there in the name of Iraq or whatever... Yet, if you support Bush spending money like that, then you must not be in favour of tax cuts, etc. BECAUSE SOONER OF LATER AMERICANS WILL NEED TO PAY DOWN THE DEBT, right?

There seems to be great contradiction of "having cake and eating it too..." here, right???

[Shakeyhands]

now how are they supposed to answer that?

[dollar]

now how are they supposed to answer that? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

there is no answer

BUSH is as dumb as a door knob and it reflects how stupid Americans are to vote him into power

[tml12]

now how are they supposed to answer that? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for proving my point.

You know, all it would take is Grade 6 logic and not university-level ECON 200 to explain that but, then again...

[Montgomery Burns]

I was reading something the other day from someone who supports Bush and he said, "Bush is a good president because he doesn't raise taxes and he wants to bring democracy to the Middle East at any price" or something like that...

My theory is this:

If you support Bush's tax cuts, then you cannot support him spending $200 million there and $500 billion

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(SORRY POST GOT CUT OFF)

...there in the name of Iraq or whatever... Yet, if you support Bush spending money like that, then you must not be in favour of tax cuts, etc. BECAUSE SOONER OF LATER AMERICANS WILL NEED TO PAY DOWN THE DEBT, right?

There seems to be great contradiction of "having cake and eating it too..." here, right???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it is more of a case of Bush expanding domestic spending. It's not a conservative principle. The economy is doing well; the US took in $70 billion more tax revenues than they expected, but until Bush quits spending domestically like a Democrat, plus the cost of the war (although it want't cheap having them sit in the ME for 12 years straight "guarding" Saddam's Iraq), it will be difficult to reduce the debt. Bush signed that expensive Highway Bill, spent millions building a bridge in Alaska to link a few dozen people, bought New Orleans displaced new mobile homes, instead of a rent voucher for a few months free rent.

Compassionate Conservatism. Pfft.

[tml12]

I was reading something the other day from someone who supports Bush and he said, "Bush is a good president because he doesn't raise taxes and he wants to bring democracy to the Middle East at any price" or something like that...

My theory is this:

If you support Bush's tax cuts, then you cannot support him spending $200 million there and $500 billion

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(SORRY POST GOT CUT OFF)

...there in the name of Iraq or whatever... Yet, if you support Bush spending money like that, then you must not be in favour of tax cuts, etc. BECAUSE SOONER OF LATER AMERICANS WILL NEED TO PAY DOWN THE DEBT, right?

There seems to be great contradiction of "having cake and eating it too..." here, right???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it is more of a case of Bush expanding domestic spending. It's not a conservative principle. The economy is doing well; the US took in $70 billion more tax revenues than they expected, but until Bush quits spending domestically like a Democrat, plus the cost of the war (although it want't cheap having them sit in the ME for 12 years straight "guarding" Saddam's Iraq), it will be difficult to reduce the debt. Bush signed that expensive Highway Bill, spent millions building a bridge in Alaska to link a few dozen people, bought New Orleans displaced new mobile homes, instead of a rent voucher for a few months free rent.

Compassionate Conservatism. Pfft.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am glad you see my point. Bush may call himself a conservative, but he doesn't behave like one.

A true conservative calls for lower taxes and balanced budgets, criticizing their liberal opponents as being those who "tax and spend," putting the nation in debt and hurting the confidence of investors, who are usually not very liberal.

Yet, Bush seems to be worse than a tax and spend liberal. At least liberals TAX, then SPEND.

Bush is doing too much of the latter without enough of the former...something will have to give.

[Freshinit]

I think it is more of a case of Bush expanding domestic spending.  It's not a conservative principle.  The economy is doing well; the US took in $70 billion more tax revenues than they expected, but until Bush quits spending domestically like a Democrat, plus the cost of the war (although it want't cheap having them sit in the ME for 12 years straight "guarding" Saddam's Iraq), it will be difficult to reduce the debt.  Bush signed that expensive Highway Bill, spent millions building a bridge in Alaska to link a few dozen people, bought New Orleans displaced new mobile homes, instead of a rent voucher for a few months free rent.

Compassionate Conservatism.  Pfft.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Projected revenues estimated BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. It's this kind of propaganda that get's normal blue collar folk to vote for conservative Governments. The economy is on a downfall, and bush is going to leave a democrat to clean up the mess.

[tml12]

I think it is more of a case of Bush expanding domestic spending.  It's not a conservative principle.  The economy is doing well; the US took in $70 billion more tax revenues than they expected, but until Bush quits spending domestically like a Democrat, plus the cost of the war (although it want't cheap having them sit in the ME for 12 years straight "guarding" Saddam's Iraq), it will be difficult to reduce the debt.  Bush signed that expensive Highway Bill, spent millions building a bridge in Alaska to link a few dozen people, bought New Orleans displaced new mobile homes, instead of a rent voucher for a few months free rent.

Compassionate Conservatism.  Pfft.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Projected revenues estimated BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. It's this kind of propaganda that get's normal blue collar folk to vote for conservative Governments. The economy is on a downfall, and bush is going to leave a democrat to clean up the mess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is probably a bit of truth in that...they are even saying that the Virginia election 2005 went Democrat for the mere fact that Bush campaigned there for the Republican the day before...

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear tml12,

Yet, Bush seems to be worse than a tax and spend liberal. At least liberals TAX, then SPEND.

Bush is doing too much of the latter without enough of the former...something will have to give.

There is extensive debate on this matter under the thread "Greenspan Worried" http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3992

There are those (including Bush and Cheney) that believe deficit spending doesn't matter.

[August1991]

There are those (including Bush and Cheney) that believe defecit spending doesn't matter.

The spending matters - the deficit/surplus question doesn't.

There seems to be great contradiction of "having cake and eating it too..." here, right???

I'm sure that Bush would argue that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance... And I suppose the true cost of this war is the lives of too many that will never be lived.

Are Americans getting value when Bush makes a decision to spend money?

I thought Clinton was a better president if only because he stood up to the steel lobby.

[Montgomery Burns]

I was reading something the other day from someone who supports Bush and he said, "Bush is a good president because he doesn't raise taxes and he wants to bring democracy to the Middle East at any price" or something like that...

My theory is this:

If you support Bush's tax cuts, then you cannot support him spending $200 million there and $500 billion

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(SORRY POST GOT CUT OFF)

...there in the name of Iraq or whatever... Yet, if you support Bush spending money like that, then you must not be in favour of tax cuts, etc. BECAUSE SOONER OF LATER AMERICANS WILL NEED TO PAY DOWN THE DEBT, right?

There seems to be great contradiction of "having cake and eating it too..." here, right???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it is more of a case of Bush expanding domestic spending. It's not a conservative principle. The economy is doing well; the US took in $70 billion more tax revenues than they expected, but until Bush quits spending domestically like a Democrat, plus the cost of the war (although it want't cheap having them sit in the ME for 12 years straight "guarding" Saddam's Iraq), it will be difficult to reduce the debt. Bush signed that expensive Highway Bill, spent millions building a bridge in Alaska to link a few dozen people, bought New Orleans displaced new mobile homes, instead of a rent voucher for a few months free rent.

Compassionate Conservatism. Pfft.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am glad you see my point. Bush may call himself a conservative, but he doesn't behave like one.

A true conservative calls for lower taxes and balanced budgets, criticizing their liberal opponents as being those who "tax and spend," putting the nation in debt and hurting the confidence of investors, who are usually not very liberal.

Yet, Bush seems to be worse than a tax and spend liberal. At least liberals TAX, then SPEND.

Bush is doing too much of the latter without enough of the former...something will have to give.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Republicans finally tried to get serious about cutting spending (I think they realized how angry their base was over the Harriet Miers debacle), but now some idiot RINO Republicans are complaining about the spending cuts. If they would quit spending so much domestically, the costs of the war wouldn't be so bad. After all, it wasn't cheap keeping 100,000 soldiers at Iraq's border for a dozen years. And one can accept some debt. Look at how many decades Canada has been in debt.

If the Republicans don't start acting like a majority party, they might lose some seats in the 2006 mid-term election. You have to motivate your base. If you don't, they will either:

1) be lazy/unmotivated to bother and stand in line to vote, or

2) Protest non-vote..."I won't ever vote Democrat, but I'm not going to give my vote to the Republicans either".

[tml12]

Dear tml12,

Yet, Bush seems to be worse than a tax and spend liberal. At least liberals TAX, then SPEND.

Bush is doing too much of the latter without enough of the former...something will have to give.

There is extensive debate on this matter under the thread "Greenspan Worried" http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3992

There are those (including Bush and Cheney) that believe deficit spending doesn't matter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes I do remember that thread. It seems very HARD for me to believe that deficit spending doesn't matter.

Also, I would take the word of Greenspan over Bush and Cheney...the man is a conservative economic genious.

[tml12]

There are those (including Bush and Cheney) that believe defecit spending doesn't matter.

The spending matters - the deficit/surplus question doesn't.

There seems to be great contradiction of "having cake and eating it too..." here, right???

I'm sure that Bush would argue that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance... And I suppose the true cost of this war is the lives of too many that will never be lived.

Are Americans getting value when Bush makes a decision to spend money?

I thought Clinton was a better president if only because he stood up to the steel lobby.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Clinton was more fiscally conservative, if only because of the GOP revolution in 1994.

As Montgomery Burns put it at one point "compassionate conservativism pfft."

In other words, true conservatives do not spend like Bush.

[tml12]

I was reading something the other day from someone who supports Bush and he said, "Bush is a good president because he doesn't raise taxes and he wants to bring democracy to the Middle East at any price" or something like that...

My theory is this:

If you support Bush's tax cuts, then you cannot support him spending $200 million there and $500 billion

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(SORRY POST GOT CUT OFF)

...there in the name of Iraq or whatever... Yet, if you support Bush spending money like that, then you must not be in favour of tax cuts, etc. BECAUSE SOONER OF LATER AMERICANS WILL NEED TO PAY DOWN THE DEBT, right?

There seems to be great contradiction of "having cake and eating it too..." here, right???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it is more of a case of Bush expanding domestic spending. It's not a conservative principle. The economy is doing well; the US took in $70 billion more tax revenues than they expected, but until Bush quits spending domestically like a Democrat, plus the cost of the war (although it want't cheap having them sit in the ME for 12 years straight "guarding" Saddam's Iraq), it will be difficult to reduce the debt. Bush signed that expensive Highway Bill, spent millions building a bridge in Alaska to link a few dozen people, bought New Orleans displaced new mobile homes, instead of a rent voucher for a few months free rent.

Compassionate Conservatism. Pfft.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am glad you see my point. Bush may call himself a conservative, but he doesn't behave like one.

A true conservative calls for lower taxes and balanced budgets, criticizing their liberal opponents as being those who "tax and spend," putting the nation in debt and hurting the confidence of investors, who are usually not very liberal.

Yet, Bush seems to be worse than a tax and spend liberal. At least liberals TAX, then SPEND.

Bush is doing too much of the latter without enough of the former...something will have to give.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Republicans finally tried to get serious about cutting spending (I think they realized how angry their base was over the Harriet Miers debacle), but now some idiot RINO Republicans are complaining about the spending cuts. If they would quit spending so much domestically, the costs of the war wouldn't be so bad. After all, it wasn't cheap keeping 100,000 soldiers at Iraq's border for a dozen years. And one can accept some debt. Look at how many decades Canada has been in debt.

If the Republicans don't start acting like a majority party, they might lose some seats in the 2006 mid-term election. You have to motivate your base. If you don't, they will either:

1) be lazy/unmotivated to bother and stand in line to vote, or

2) Protest non-vote..."I won't ever vote Democrat, but I'm not going to give my vote to the Republicans either".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bush has it in his power to motivate his base, I don't see him as a lame duck YET.

Having said that, he is at a crucial point in his term. Right now, he seems about as inspired as an NHL coach who just lost the Stanley Cup.

My prediction? Drum up support around the people around you and look happy and confident to the outside world. Otherwise, it could be a long second term...

[Leafless]

tml12

Obviously you have no concern for world peace.

Are you saying the war in Iraq was avoidable?

In fact if it wasn't for the war in Iraq there would be a distinct possibilty that you would not be typing out your current post as the world could very well be paralized by terrorism out of control. ( Yes I know the two aren't related)

How can you even compare a necessary major expenditure (Iraq war) to domestic Conservative policies. The U.S. is a world leader of democracy and capitalism that backs the only real system that works.

I give George W. Bush and Americans in general a nine out of ten with their handling of the U.S. economy and providing safety and promoting world peace.

[tml12]

tml12

Obviously you have no concern for world peace.

Are you saying the war in Iraq was avoidable?

In fact if it wasn't for the war in Iraq there would be a distinct possibilty that you would not be typing out your current post as the world could very well be paralized by terrorism out of control. ( Yes I know the two aren't related)

How can you even compare a necessary major expenditure (Iraq war) to domestic Conservative policies. The U.S. is a world leader of democracy and capitalism that backs the only real system that works.

I give George W. Bush and Americans in general a nine out of ten with their handling of the U.S. economy and providing safety and promoting world peace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Leafless,

You must also be brainless. Where in anything that I wrote did I say or insinuate that I have no control for world peace? I supported Bush, all I wrote was that he needs and the Americans around him need to understand that there is a huge deficit south of the border right now that, eventually will need to be taken care of.

Again, I dare you to find one example of where I challenge world peace and I challenge the Iraq war.

I am only challenging ECONOMIC FISCAL POLICY...

tml

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Leafless,

Are you saying the war in Iraq was avoidable?

In fact if it wasn't for the war in Iraq there would be a distinct possibilty that you would not be typing out your current post as the world could very well be paralized by terrorism out of control. ( Yes I know the two aren't related)

There is very little evidence that Iraq was involved in any sort of terrorism. Some ties to the PLO and Arafat, (reputedly Iraq paid money to the families of suicide bombers after the fact) that's about it. (Although, admittedly, that is a bad thing).

WMDs possibly being supplied to terrorists? Nope, Iraq didn't have any.

There was much more evidence that certain other countries were aiding and abetting terrorists, including those from 9/11. Iraq was not on, or even near, the top of the list for centres of terrorism.

Perhaps you misspelled a word in your post. 'Distinct possibility' should have read 'distant' possibility. (very distant).

[Biblio Bibuli]

Perhaps you misspelled a word in your post. 'Distinct possibility' should have read 'distant' possibility. (very distant).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That reminds me of earlier today when I was looking for a good deal on a DVD player.

At the Costco online store I saw this Pioneer DVD-RT401 DVD/VCR combo model, and if you scroll down to "Features" you will see that it is an "Ultra slime design".

http://www.costco.ca/en-CA/Browse/Product....erPath=79*2158*

Is this a good feature to have?

On a serious note, what other DVD/VCR combo models would you recommend?

[Leafless]

theloniusfleabag

Can you prove to me Iraq did not possess WMD? Oh what -THEY didn't find any.

That's one hell of a big desert out there.

You don't have any proof either that the world would still be the same if the U.S. had not initiated an attack on Iraq. There are plenty of reports that Iraq was funding terrorist and training them in Iraq.

In fact simply by the intervention of other Arab countries fighting U.S. forces in Iraq it would seem good old Sadam had plenty of support despite being a murderous ruthless dictator.

I think the possibility of world disorder initiated by terrorist attacks would have been a very real possibilty if the U.S. had not intervened.

Can you prove there is not a present existing conspiracy against Christian capitalist from terrorist organizations like the Jihad?

[tml12]

theloniusfleabag

Can you prove to me Iraq did not possess WMD? Oh what -THEY didn't find any.

That's one hell of a big desert out there.

You don't have any proof either that the world would still be the same if the U.S. had not initiated an attack on Iraq. There are plenty of reports that Iraq was funding terrorist and training them in Iraq.

In fact simply by the intervention of other Arab countries fighting U.S. forces in Iraq it would seem good old Sadam had plenty of support despite being a murderous ruthless dictator.

I think the possibility of world disorder initiated by terrorist attacks would have been a very real possibilty if the U.S. had not intervened.

Can you prove there is not a present existing conspiracy against Christian capitalist from terrorist organizations like the Jihad?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[tml12]

theloniusfleabag

Can you prove to me Iraq did not possess WMD? Oh what -THEY didn't find any.

That's one hell of a big desert out there.

You don't have any proof either that the world would still be the same if the U.S. had not initiated an attack on Iraq. There are plenty of reports that Iraq was funding terrorist and training them in Iraq.

In fact simply by the intervention of other Arab countries fighting U.S. forces in Iraq it would seem good old Sadam had plenty of support despite being a murderous ruthless dictator.

I think the possibility of world disorder initiated by terrorist attacks would have been a very real possibilty if the U.S. had not intervened.

Can you prove there is not a present existing conspiracy against Christian capitalist from terrorist organizations like the Jihad?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course you know it is impossible to prove there isn't a Jihad against Christian Western capitalism.

But if you will attack fleabag and I for our views, I suggest you also be on the defensive. After all, things cannot be proven either way.

And I am still waiting for you to indicate how my views are a threat to world peace...

[Leafless]

tml12

Your post concentrates on the Bush adminstration as being fiscally irresponsible while trying to attend to world problems as well as appease their own domestic fiscal reponsibilties while in fact they should be commended.

Of course their going to run up a deficit when supporting a $500-billion dollar war, but why would you be critical of another countries deficit while your own country spends money on useless socialist initiatives like druken sailors.

You know very well to crticize the Bush administration fiscally at a time like this could point the finger at what could be interpreted as a senseless war initially.

You say you support the the U.S. and the Iraq war then I suggest you choose another topic rather one that tries to label the Bush administration as incompetent.

[tml12]

tml12

Your post concentrates on the Bush adminstration as being fiscally irresponsible while trying to attend to world problems as well as appease their own domestic fiscal reponsibilties while in fact they should be commended.

Of course their going to run up a deficit when supporting a $500-billion dollar war, but why would you be critical of another countries deficit while your own country spends money on useless socialist initiatives like druken sailors.

You know very well to crticize the Bush administration fiscally at a time like this could point the finger at what could be interpreted as a senseless war initially.

You say you support the the U.S. and the Iraq war then I suggest you choose another topic rather one that tries to label the Bush administration as incompetent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fair enough Leafless, I respect that post as being very fair with what I said.

I believe, as I stated when I started this thread, that I cannot understand why some American Bush supporters say "I don't care about X, Y, or Z, I just don't want my taxes raised, then they vote for Bush." My point is, Bush is not a fiscal conservative.

It seems to me, and you are certainly more than able to disagree, that if you support this Iraq war then you should support having your taxes raised to pay for it. Certainly to, as you put it, "crticize the Bush administration fiscally at a time like this could point the finger at what could be interpreted as a senseless war initially" is a fair logical conclusion. However, I never criticized the war directly, just the fiscal mismanagement and the underestimation of how much it would cost.

If you are going to support this war in the States, then you must be willing to pay for it. Early tomorrow, I will be going to Washington DC on a business trip. I really want to see what the opinions are down there. I will withold full judgement until I return.

Again, I do not criticize the war ITSELF, but the fiscal management of it...

[Guest eureka]

Can there seriously still be believers in the Iraq connection and the Bush war who are not called Montgomery Burns? Has much of the population of North America taken leave of its senses entirely?

Everything about the raison d'etre for the attack on Iraq has been proven false - and on these forums, too.

The world would be a different place indeed, Leafless, had the invasion of a non-belligerent country of Iraq not happened. Al Quaeda would not now be operating in an estimated 60 countries as independent cells. A number of Britons, Australians, Spaniards, Jordanians, might not be dead. A couple of thousand American soldiers might srill be alive and ten thousand or so others might not be crippled from their wounds.

A hundred thousand or so Iraqia might not have had to die and many tens of thousands more not condemned to an early death from the privations suffered and to be suffered for a generation to come.

And the oil crunch might not have jappened so soon.