The Case Against George W. Bush

this was compiled by someone i know very well. read it, THEN try to defend this travesty of an executive official (and i lose that term loosely here. . .)



The Case Against the

Re-Election of President George W. Bush –

By Clear and Convincing Evidence







Exhibit A -- Jobs



1. Bush has presided over the largest job loss in U.S. history since Herbert Hoover – 3.1 million jobs nationwide and 182,000 in N.C.

2. Contrast that with former President Clinton who created nearly 22.5 million jobs during his 8-year term.

3. The unemployment rate was only 3.9% when Bush took office. This past June, the jobless rate reached a 9-year high at 6.4%.

4. More than 9 million citizens are now unemployed with the average duration of unemployment being almost 20 weeks.





Exhibit B – Poverty



1. In 2001, 1.3 million more Americans slipped below the official poverty line ($17,960 for a family of four) -- the first increase in eight years.

2. The total percentage of people in poverty increased in 2001 from 12.1% to 12.4% and now totals 34.8 million.

3. The number of children in poverty rose by more than 600,000 during the same period to a total of 12.2 million.

4. In 2002, the number of families living in poverty increased more than 300,000 from 6.6 million in 2001 to almost 7 million. 5. More than 1.4 Americans lost their health insurance coverage in 2002.

6. Nearly 38% of those on Medicare have no prescription drug coverage and the cost of the 50 most frequently-used drugs by senior citizens increased by 7.8% in 2002.









Exhibit C –Bankruptcies



1. In the last two years, the U.S. has had the highest rate in the increase in bankruptcy cases in U.S. history -- increasing 23% since Bush took office.





Exhibit D – Stock Market



1. Between December 29, 2000 and the end of the third quarter of 2002, the stock market dropped 38% for a total loss of $6.65 trillion.

2. In 2002 alone, investors lost $2.8 trillion in the stock market.





Exhibit E – Spending



1. In 2000, under President Clinton, there was a $281 billion surplus in the federal budget. In 2003, Bush will preside over a $455 billion deficit – a negative turn-around of nearly $750 billion. Next year’s budget deficit is now projected to be $540 billion.

2. Even if you deduct non-military, non-defense spending, Bush oversaw a 6% increase in spending in 2002 and 5% in 2003.

3. This year, at the insistence of President Bush, the Republican-controlled Senate and House passed a $2.2 trillion budget which included major spending increases yet made substantial cuts in Medicaid assistance and in benefits to veterans.

4. Kevin A. Hassett in The National Review was quoted as saying, “Under the current Bush budget, federal spending will have increased by 19.6% for the first three years of his administration – 3 of the 5 biggest increases in spending in history have occurred during the first 3 years of the Bush administration; the other two occurred during World War II.”



Exhibit F – Tax Cuts



1. Bush’s “Jobs and Growth” Act which created major tax cuts should really be called the “Windfall for the Wealthy” Act.

2. 31% of taxpayers get no reduction in taxes.

3. An additional 48% get less than a $100 reduction in taxes.

4. Less than 10% of the benefits go to the bottom 80% of wage earners.

5. 75% of our senior citizens get absolutely no benefit.

6. The top 1% of taxpayers will receive an average tax cut of $30,127.





7. The average millionaire gets a $90,000 tax break.

8. Virginia Governor Mark Warner was quoted as saying, “So while the president pats himself on the back for cutting taxes, the hard reality is that his tax cuts end up simply passing the burden down to your state and local governments

9. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers predicted the passage of the tax cut would create 510,000 new jobs in 2003 and 891,000 jobs in 2004. Bush even said, “Tax relief is stimulating job creation all across the country.” But what has actually happened? There have been 225,000 workers laid off since Bush signed the bill into law this past May.





Exhibit G – Federal Deficit



1. In the last two years, Bush has amassed more national debt than which accrued from Presidents Washington through Carter COMBINED.

2. In the last two years, there have been 3 large, historic tax cuts. In the same two years, federal spending has increased by almost 20%. Trends like that do not a budget in the black make.

3. President Bush will preside over a $455 billion deficit this year and a projected $540 billion deficit next year.

4. The deficit for this year alone would entirely fund the State of North Carolina’s budget of $15 billion through the year 2033.

5. In 2001, Bush projected a $5.6 trillion surplus from 2001 through 2011. Instead, the President’s own Office of Management and Budget now foresees a $2.3 trillion deficitbetween now and 2011 even under a best-case scenario.

7. It is projected by most analysts that, under Bush, the national debt will increase by more that $3.7 trillion over the next decade (2004-2013). And if Bush and congressional Republicans extend tax cuts in 2005 at a cost of an additional $1.6 trillion, the deficit by 2013 will increase to $6.2 trillion.

8. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently said that the expanding federal deficit will result in a rise in interest rates and even more unemployment by forcing the government to compete with private companies for capital.

9. The Congressional Budget Office issued a warning in August of 2003 that if Bush’s policies remain in effect, baby boomers who begin retiring at the end of this decade will face either drastically higher taxes, severe spending cuts, or unsustainable levels of debt.





Exhibit H – Trade Deficits



1. Growing trade deficits are proof that the Bush administration’s free trade policies are not working. Under current trade laws proposed by Bush, companies are continuing to throw American workers on the street as they race to China, Mexico, and other countries in search of cheap labor. In addition to U.S. companies moving their operations overseas, imports are flooding into the U.S., a situation that has resulted in hefty losses of manufacturing jobs. With more imports and less exports, this trade deficit continues to rise and is now running at an annual rate of near $500 billion.

2. Since Bush took office, the U.S. has lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs – 16% of the entire manufacturing workforce.

3. Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) recently said that Bush is “out of touch” on trade policies.

4. Rep. Cass Ballenger (R-NC) recently said that Bush is “too wrapped up in Iraq” at the expense of workers at home.





Exhibit I – Iraqi War



1. Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO commander and possible Democratic presidential candidate, stated, “If Iraq is the centerpiece of the war on terrorism, it shouldn’t be

2. Bush used only two justifications for the Iraqi War – a clear connection to al Qaeda and WMD.

3. Connection to al-Qaeda? Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA), who was awarded a Silver and Bronze Star for his military service in Vietnam, has said, “The administration sold the connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war. There’s no connection. What you’ve seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends.”

4. WMD? Conservative columnist and former Republican presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan recently stated in The American Conservative, “President Bush launched America’s first pre-emptive war, but we have not found one single WMD . . . Did the intelligence fail us, or did Bush ‘cook the books’ to meet the recipe for an imperial war?”

5. The results? Again, Gen. Wesley Clark – “We’ve made America more engaged, more vulnerable, more committed, and less able to respond

6. Effect on War on Terror? Because the U.S. invasion was never embraced by doubtful allies, some observers feel that the invasion of Iraq may have even strengthened al-Qaeda by enhancing its appeal to Muslims living in the Gulf region and across the world because many Muslims now perceive the invasion as aggression against Islam and as an attempt to spread American influence.

7. If we invaded Iraq to “liberate its people from totalitarian rule”, why not invade Red China? If we invaded Iraq to “stop weapons of mass destruction from being in the hands of a dictator”, why not invade North Korea? If we invaded Iraq to “cut other ties to al-Qaeda”, why not invade Saudi Arabia?

8. The costs? Some experts say that over the next 5 years, our costs in Iraq will reach $300 billion at an average rate of $5 billion per month. To put it into perspective, $300 billion divided by 50 states divided by 100 N.C. counties equals $60 billion per county in North Carolina. Also, $300 billion divided by 300 million Americans equals $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.

9. Sen. Chuck Hager (R-NE) stated on September 6, 2003, just days before President Bush asked for another $87 billion for the War in Iraq, “I do think that this administration did a miserable job of planning in a post-Saddam Iraq.”





THE CONCLUSION



The 2001 Winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, George Akerlof, is quoted as saying, “This is the worst government the U.S. has ever had in its more than 200 years of history.”



I rest my case.
 
I hate statistics. They are never used for information purposes but only to try to make one side look bad. One could probably find similar statistics to prove the opposite. But I'm not American, so I really don't care.
 
uh kiyardo, this was never posted before. SOMEONE I KNOW WROTE THIS, so i doubt it has been on here before!

and if you would be so kind as to point out all the "lies" and "half-truths" that seem to be so apparent to you. . . else one might think that statement is worthless.
 
I don't believe that there's lies and half truths, and personally i believe it, i think it's fuckin' great. However, i'm going to show this to naysayers, rightists, and republicans i'm going to need the information on where these statistics were gotten from to prove that they haven't been concocted. A list of references, if you will. Ask your buddy for those, post 'em and i will be glad to spread this.around
 
SHouldn't this be called the Case against all politicians, they all are the same, they all play the same game, look into it. Republicans, Democrats=leeches of life.
 
This information could have been collated from anywhere, all this stuff is available to the public if they so desire to do a little research and investigation. It's very much in the vein of "stupid white men" (an awesome book that attacks basically everything about corporate america and your political system).

I fucken hate politics, it's just a bunch of pathetic old men still desperately trying to prove who has the most elongated penis. From a psychological viewpoint, politicians are historically some of the most fearful and insecure people around.
 
this is absurd. let us review the facts:
1.jobs-as the numbers have shown the jobless rate in america is quite substantial. thus the measure of the president is how he reacts to the given situation (ie unemployment and stagnant economy). his reaction was...
2.spending.
3.tax cuts.
2 and 3 are exactly what any macroeconomist would say to do in the current situation. this has been the understood methodology since keyenes, which is that the government has the ability to slow down a hot economy by raising taxes and cutting spending. likewise it can speed up a slow economy by lowering taxes and raising spending. or to put it another way, defecit spend when the economy is poor, and pay off the debt when the economy is good. the criticisms given are quite facile and childish, because they simply gripe against the current conditions rather than any particular policy implementation that bush has done. in many ways the extremely virulent criticisms against bush since his inaguaration has been rather childish in that it usually attacks something other than his policy. the only exception to that is really his stance towards iraq, which was only briefly mentioned in this particular critique of the bush administration, and not the main focus which was economic. in contrast, i would say that compared to the clinton presidence (rated at a C+), this particular administration would get a C, basically slightly worse than the abysmal clinton administration. ironically one of the lambasted categories (trade defecits) was largely enacted by clinton, namely NAFTA and the WTO. bush's largest legacy to free trade was enacting a tarriff on foreign steel. again, no critique of policy, only of the given conditions. chaff.
 
if that communist clark actually gets elected(and i seriously doubt it), i, unlike alec baldwin, really will leave the country. personally, i think the democrat with the best chance at the moment is howard dean. who if elected, will also prompt me to leave. next year im voting libertarian, i dont care who it is.
 
Black Winter Day said:
this was compiled by someone i know very well. read it, THEN try to defend this travesty of an executive official (and i lose that term loosely here. . .)

The Case Against the

Re-Election of President George W. Bush –
By Erroneus and Unconvincing Bantor


Exhibit A -- Jobs

1. Bush has presided over the largest job loss in U.S. history since Herbert Hoover – 3.1 million jobs nationwide and 182,000 in N.C.

2. Contrast that with former President Clinton who created nearly 22.5 million jobs during his 8-year term.

3. The unemployment rate was only 3.9% when Bush took office. This past June, the jobless rate reached a 9-year high at 6.4%.

4. More than 9 million citizens are now unemployed with the average duration of unemployment being almost 20 weeks.
Presidents don't "create jobs". They may aid in the process, but the economic situations are the major factor in the creation of jobs. Plus, your friends little 'case against' Bush conveniently ignores economic blows like 9/11, increased threats of terorism, and the coorporate scandels (All of which Bush had no control over. Clinton didn't create a single job. He presided over lies, purjery, obstruction of justice and political trickery. YOur friend forgot to mention the Contract For America, authored by the Republican Congress of 1994. Clinton may have signed some bills, but he certainly provided no plan for economic growth during the nineties. The growth we recieved during the that time was due to the Internet/technology boom, and the tax cuts of the 80s, thanks to Ronald Reagan, one of the greatest presidents of the last century.

Exhibit B – Poverty
1. In 2001, 1.3 million more Americans slipped below the official poverty line ($17,960 for a family of four) -- the first increase in eight years.

2. The total percentage of people in poverty increased in 2001 from 12.1% to 12.4% and now totals 34.8 million.

3. The number of children in poverty rose by more than 600,000 during the same period to a total of 12.2 million.

4. In 2002, the number of families living in poverty increased more than 300,000 from 6.6 million in 2001 to almost 7 million. 5. More than 1.4 Americans lost their health insurance coverage in 2002.

6. Nearly 38% of those on Medicare have no prescription drug coverage and the cost of the 50 most frequently-used drugs by senior citizens increased by 7.8% in 2002.

Exhibit C –Bankruptcies

1. In the last two years, the U.S. has had the highest rate in the increase in bankruptcy cases in U.S. history -- increasing 23% since Bush took office.
All may be true, but it still doesn't prove the 'case against Bush'. Remember the ecomic downturn actually began after March of 2000, and by the time Bush was sworn in America was heading for a recession. Hence, the first Bush tax cut.

Exhibit D – Stock Market
1. Between December 29, 2000 and the end of the third quarter of 2002, the stock market dropped 38% for a total loss of $6.65 trillion.

2. In 2002 alone, investors lost $2.8 trillion in the stock market.
And, who was in office on December 29,2000? I rest my case.
Exhibit E – Spending
1. In 2000, under President Clinton, there was a $281 billion surplus in the federal budget. In 2003, Bush will preside over a $455 billion deficit – a negative turn-around of nearly $750 billion. Next year’s budget deficit is now projected to be $540 billion.

2. Even if you deduct non-military, non-defense spending, Bush oversaw a 6% increase in spending in 2002 and 5% in 2003.

3. This year, at the insistence of President Bush, the Republican-controlled Senate and House passed a $2.2 trillion budget which included major spending increases yet made substantial cuts in Medicaid assistance and in benefits to veterans.

4. Kevin A. Hassett in The National Review was quoted as saying, “Under the current Bush budget, federal spending will have increased by 19.6% for the first three years of his administration – 3 of the 5 biggest increases in spending in history have occurred during the first 3 years of the Bush administration; the other two occurred during World War II.”
Most of this I agree with. The Deficit is out of control. Hopefully the spending in Iraq will be, and should be paid back to the US taxpayer with oil profits. Iraq has the second largest reserves in the world. Also, most of this new spending is for defense, which is much needed. Reagan spent a lot on the military as well. Because of this, the USSR fell, and the US is the only super power.

What Bush needs to do is propose decreased spending in Congress for extra-constitutional programs like the Dept. of Education, which educates no one. We need to abolish the NEA, and overhaul the IRS, and most government agencies. It's funny how the democrats and liberals want to cut spending on much needed defense, but will spend like crazy for social programs, most of which don't work and are sadly mismanaged.


Exhibit F – Tax Cuts
1. Bush’s “Jobs and Growth” Act which created major tax cuts should really be called the “Windfall for the Wealthy” Act.
Oh, should it? This statement is not even witty. The wealthy pay the majority of the taxes anyway. They are way overtaxed, and should not be punished for being rich. ALL of us work for someone who is rich. THEY are what makes this economy move. Don't bite the hand that feeds, or you may be aout of a job. Next.

2. 31% of taxpayers get no reduction in taxes.
This is blatently FALSE. Not only does everyine who pays income taxes get a reduction in taxes under the Bush tax cut, but even those who pay no taxes are getting rebate checks. This is unfair. They should get nothing.

3. An additional 48% get less than a $100 reduction in taxes.
And, WHY? Because they pay little to no income tax!!!

4. Less than 10% of the benefits go to the bottom 80% of wage earners.
HELLO!!! McFly (Knock's on the head ) Wake up. The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all the taxes.

5. 75% of our senior citizens get absolutely no benefit.
Do they pay income taxes? If they do, then this statement is false.

6. The top 1% of taxpayers will receive an average tax cut of $30,127.
That's right, because they are unfairly taxed. They make more money, they pay more in taxes disproportionatly. The rich pay over 35% of their income in taxes. The middle class and poor pay less than 25%. Next.

7. The average millionaire gets a $90,000 tax break.
Awww. Isn't that just sad? The average millionaire spends 39% of their income to the federal government.

8. Virginia Governor Mark Warner was quoted as saying, “So while the president pats himself on the back for cutting taxes, the hard reality is that his tax cuts end up simply passing the burden down to your state and local governments
Well, I'm a Virginian, and Warner was ecstatic about the Bush tax cut because part of Bush's plan provides BILLIONS of dollars for states. Virginia got about 30 million dollars. Even democrats know that tax cuts stimulate the economy so much that revenues actually increase into the Treasury. In 1988 after Reagan's tax cut, revenues DOUBLED.

9. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers predicted the passage of the tax cut would create 510,000 new jobs in 2003 and 891,000 jobs in 2004. Bush even said, “Tax relief is stimulating job creation all across the country.” But what has actually happened? There have been 225,000 workers laid off since Bush signed the bill into law this past May.
This was based off of Bush's original plan, which included the abolishment of the dividend tax. The Congress (which includes some Republican's) dramatically decreased the tax cut. The economy is improving and 2003 ain't over yet. But, the little tax cut we have is helping to improve the economy.


Exhibit G – Federal Deficit
1. In the last two years, Bush has amassed more national debt than which accrued from Presidents Washington through Carter COMBINED.

2. In the last two years, there have been 3 large, historic tax cuts. In the same two years, federal spending has increased by almost 20%. Trends like that do not a budget in the black make.

3. President Bush will preside over a $455 billion deficit this year and a projected $540 billion deficit next year.

4. The deficit for this year alone would entirely fund the State of North Carolina’s budget of $15 billion through the year 2033.

5. In 2001, Bush projected a $5.6 trillion surplus from 2001 through 2011. Instead, the President’s own Office of Management and Budget now foresees a $2.3 trillion deficitbetween now and 2011 even under a best-case scenario.

7. It is projected by most analysts that, under Bush, the national debt will increase by more that $3.7 trillion over the next decade (2004-2013). And if Bush and congressional Republicans extend tax cuts in 2005 at a cost of an additional $1.6 trillion, the deficit by 2013 will increase to $6.2 trillion.

8. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently said that the expanding federal deficit will result in a rise in interest rates and even more unemployment by forcing the government to compete with private companies for capital.

9. The Congressional Budget Office issued a warning in August of 2003 that if Bush’s policies remain in effect, baby boomers who begin retiring at the end of this decade will face either drastically higher taxes, severe spending cuts, or unsustainable levels of debt.
This is beacause of increased spending on military defense, much needed. And, increaed spending on social programs,, not needed. As I said before, get rid of the NEA, Dept. of Education, etc.

Exhibit H – Trade Deficits
1. Growing trade deficits are proof that the Bush administration’s free trade policies are not working. Under current trade laws proposed by Bush, companies are continuing to throw American workers on the street as they race to China, Mexico, and other countries in search of cheap labor. In addition to U.S. companies moving their operations overseas, imports are flooding into the U.S., a situation that has resulted in hefty losses of manufacturing jobs. With more imports and less exports, this trade deficit continues to rise and is now running at an annual rate of near $500 billion.

2. Since Bush took office, the U.S. has lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs – 16% of the entire manufacturing workforce.

3. Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) recently said that Bush is “out of touch” on trade policies.

4. Rep. Cass Ballenger (R-NC) recently said that Bush is “too wrapped up in Iraq” at the expense of workers at home.
Clinton was a free trader as well. Was he out of touch? Again, when did the economy start to decline? It was while Clinton was in office.
Exhibit I – Iraqi War
1. Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO commander and possible Democratic presidential candidate, stated, “If Iraq is the centerpiece of the war on terrorism, it shouldn’t be

2. Bush used only two justifications for the Iraqi War – a clear connection to al Qaeda and WMD.

3. Connection to al-Qaeda? Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA), who was awarded a Silver and Bronze Star for his military service in Vietnam, has said, “The administration sold the connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war. There’s no connection. What you’ve seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends.”

4. WMD? Conservative columnist and former Republican presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan recently stated in The American Conservative, “President Bush launched America’s first pre-emptive war, but we have not found one single WMD . . . Did the intelligence fail us, or did Bush ‘cook the books’ to meet the recipe for an imperial war?”

5. The results? Again, Gen. Wesley Clark – “We’ve made America more engaged, more vulnerable, more committed, and less able to respond

6. Effect on War on Terror? Because the U.S. invasion was never embraced by doubtful allies, some observers feel that the invasion of Iraq may have even strengthened al-Qaeda by enhancing its appeal to Muslims living in the Gulf region and across the world because many Muslims now perceive the invasion as aggression against Islam and as an attempt to spread American influence.

7. If we invaded Iraq to “liberate its people from totalitarian rule”, why not invade Red China? If we invaded Iraq to “stop weapons of mass destruction from being in the hands of a dictator”, why not invade North Korea? If we invaded Iraq to “cut other ties to al-Qaeda”, why not invade Saudi Arabia?

8. The costs? Some experts say that over the next 5 years, our costs in Iraq will reach $300 billion at an average rate of $5 billion per month. To put it into perspective, $300 billion divided by 50 states divided by 100 N.C. counties equals $60 billion per county in North Carolina. Also, $300 billion divided by 300 million Americans equals $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in the U.S.

9. Sen. Chuck Hager (R-NE) stated on September 6, 2003, just days before President Bush asked for another $87 billion for the War in Iraq, “I do think that this administration did a miserable job of planning in a post-Saddam Iraq.”
Wes Clark is a liberal democrat. Of course he would be against the war. The war in Iraq was not about WMD, in and of themselves. It was a about disclosure. Saddam didn't disclose the whereabouts of the weapons. He kicked insectors out. He has defied the International community for 12 years, and 17 UN resolutions. Everyone and their mother knows Saddam had WMD. The question is where are they now? They could be anywhere in a country the size of California. We were more than justified in invading Iraq, because Hussein posed a threat. There was and are La Qaeda operatives in Iraq. There may be no ties to 9/11, but who cares. Saddam hated us as much (if not more than) Al Qaeda. We saw the threat, we came to fight the war on their front, instead of an Iraqi with a suitcase of VX nerve gas in a NYC subway, and we kicked some Iraqi rear end. Next.

THE CONCLUSION
The 2001 Winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, George Akerlof, is quoted as saying, “This is the worst government the U.S. has ever had in its more than 200 years of history.”
George Akerlof? Who ever heard of him. Winning the Noble Prize on economics is no great honor. This guy sounds like a jealous Michael Moore. Listen to a real economist like Walter E. Williams.
I rest my case.
I proved my case.
 
Once again This fuckwit proves it is pointless to argue with him because he will not admit fault or liability. Never heard of someone? Then they're not important.

No justifaction for war? They hated us!(More now idiot)

An example of "An average millionaire" would be nice.

"Everyone and their mother knows Saddam had WMD"

Oh shit you've forgotten about that damn thing called PROOF. Maybe he kicke inspectors out because he felt that they did not have the right to search all over his country for something that he did not have.

The 30 miniute warning was bullshit. Everything about that "war" was propaganda and lies.

In a statistics related way-

Pointless wars started by clinton? - 0
Bush - 2 and counting.
 
Jimmy Hill said:
Once again This fuckwit proves it is pointless to argue with him because he will not admit fault or liability. Never heard of someone? Then they're not important.

No justifaction for war? They hated us!(More now idiot)

An example of "An average millionaire" would be nice.

"Everyone and their mother knows Saddam had WMD"

Oh shit you've forgotten about that damn thing called PROOF. Maybe he kicke inspectors out because he felt that they did not have the right to search all over his country for something that he did not have.

The 30 miniute warning was bullshit. Everything about that "war" was propaganda and lies.

In a statistics related way-

Pointless wars started by clinton? - 0
Bush - 2 and counting.
Yeah, if you would get your head out of your rear end you would know that in 1998 Clinton bombed Baghdad with more missiles and bombs than was used in the entire Gulf War of 1991. This was after the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq. Clinton's reasononing for attacking: Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear Weapon threats. The BURDEN of PROOF was on Saddam Hussein, not Bush, the UN or Britain. And, what are you talking about "30 Minute Warning" It was more like 12 Years and 17 UN Resolutions. Saddam had it coming to him long a ago. So, to call this war (and especially the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban) pointless is intellectually dishonest and based on your sheep like adherance to the liberal media.
 
kiyardo said:
Yeah, if you would get your head out of your rear end you would know that in 1998 Clinton bombed Baghdad with more missiles and bombs than was used in the entire Gulf War of 1991. This was after the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq. Clinton's reasononing for attacking: Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear Weapon threats. The BURDEN of PROOF was on Saddam Hussein, not Bush, the UN or Britain. And, what are you talking about "30 Minute Warning" It was more like 12 Years and 17 UN Resolutions. Saddam had it coming to him long a ago. So, to call this war pointless is intellectually dishonest and based on your sheep like adherance to the liberal media.

don't forget about clinton causing regime change in haiti through military force, as well as sending troops to the balkans. it seems to me that the tally should read:
bush-2
clinton-3
but then again i wouldn't call afghanistan a pointless war, and i don't know many politicians who would. perhaps bush is simply more clinton than clinton?
 
Saddam did have chemical weapons...ask the Kurds. however, did he still have them when we used them as an excuse to invade...that is still an open question, although it is looking increasingly unlikely.



ref Bush:

he got into yale strictly on name recognition and his father's prominence in the influential Skull and Bones society (which Dubya subsequently joined as well).

Dubya went to Phillips Academy in Andover MA, where by all accounts he was a lackluster student. his crowning achievement was being elected High Commissioner of Stickball. He ranked 114th out of 238 students.

So, you might ask, perhaps he had other sterling qualities which would make him desireable to Yale...

No. his athletic skills were unremarkable, and his musical talents consisted of participating in a rock and roll band as a clapper.

His SAT scores: verbal: 566, math: 640


Source: Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, The Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power, by Alexandra Robbins
 
I also like how he keeps referring to Reagan as the greatest president and kept quoting statistcs on things that Reagan did that were so great.

Let's not forget that inflation rates were the highest they've ever been during the Reagan adminstration and the economy was *gasp* plummeting just like it is now. Coincidence? I think not
 
Next_Profundis said:
Kiyardo-

I'm confused. You say the nobel prize for economics is 'no great honor' and that somehow invalidates Akerlof's quote. Which is complete crap.
Didn't say it invalidates his quote. His quote it's self is complete crap. If this guy was a true economist that was worth his salt, he would not blindly be blaming the Bush Administration for the economic woes, which began before Bush took office. 9/11 and the corporate scandels were not Bush's fault.


Anyways, Kiyardo, you seem to miss the point on a lot of issues. First of all our country is based on the tenet of a progressive tax system. People who enjoy the benefits of our society are not only obligated to give back more than the average person, but a greater amount proportionally.
Where did you get this from? The rich should not be punished for success, and are not OBLIGATED to do anything. Bill Gates recently gave 51 million dollars out of the goodness of his heart, not out of OBLIGATION. Rich people aren't as evil as you liberals claim they are.

And taxing millionaires and billionaires does NOT keep them from creating jobs as was proved in 1993 when Clinton increased taxes and had 7 subsequent years of prosperity and growth, even amidst the whines of Republican congressmen. Newt said "the tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession". Phil Gramm whined "We are buying a one-way ticket to recession". Nope, it didn't turn out that way.
Again, the growth we saw in the 90s can be attributed to the overwhelming boom of the technolgy sector, and the coupling of less government regulation and the massive tax cuts of the 80s. Clinton's tax increases didn't have a chance to affect the economy because of this until mid to late 2000, and even then, the DEMOCRATS were proposing tax cuts. If you remember recent history, it took 8-10 years to recover from the recessions that began during the CARTER administration. Reagan's tax cuts doubled treasury revenues in 1988.

Second you keep knocking education, like it was not mentioned in the Constitution. Seriously, what exactly do you think they mean in the passage "promote the general welfare"? And you say that the public school system "educates no one" which is a RIDICULOUS LIE, and you know it. Liar. Let me think of one example of someone who got educated in public schools.... hold on.... let me think for a second.... ohhh.... me.
Hello, McFly (Anybody in there?) "Public Education" is mostly funded by the states and local governments. The County I live in has a budget where 77% is ear-marked for education. Abolish the Dept. of Education - They educate no one. Tell me how the Department of Education promotes anything, much less welfare. And, promoting and providing for are two different things. Just because the Constitution promotes welfare does not mean it needs to fund it. Remember that in that same sentence the Constitution says to "provide for the common defense".

You claim that Reaganomics actually worked. HELLO, McFLY, YOU THERE? Supply side economics was never intended to work. Even David Stockman, Reagan's Financial Director admitted the point of supply side economics was to run huge deficits so they had an excuse to cut programs they didn't like. Unfortunately it got out of hand and even subsequent tax increases (Reagan did the largest tax increase in American history) failed to take us out of the red.
Reagan did raise some taxes on coorporations. I doubt very seriously it was the largest in history. It was a mistake. The other mistake Reagan made was trying to reason with the Democratic controlled Congress. Part of the compromise in 1981 when the cuts were proposed was that Congress could increase substantially their social programs. And, along with much needed defense spending, the deficit went out of control.

Another myth you claim to know something about is social spending. You say liberals are wasteful when it comes to social programs. Doesn't it bother you that more money is pumped into the average Republican controlled congressional district?
Yes, it does and it's indefensable. It needs to stop. Democrats AND Republicans are out of hand.

WHOOOOA. Let's get our facts straight here. We did not go to war because Saddam "kicked our inspectors out" or that he broke x numbers of UN resolution or the fact that he failed to give the location of weapons. The United States went to war on the case that Saddam Hussein possessed WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION according to various intelligence reports. I'm glad we got that straightened out. Bush COULD of made a case to go in on humanitarian grounds alone or ao number of ther reasons BUT BUSH DIDN'T. Understand? And we have lost an amazing amount of credibility as a result.
Uh, read my last post, I guess I'm going to have to repeat myself again. We went to war because Saddam Hussein has had Weapons of Mass Destruction, and we didn't know if he had them now or not. It was about disclosure. Hussein failed to disclose information about his weapons programs. THAT was what the war was about. We still need to find the weapons, but everyone and their uncle knows Saddam had them. All he had to do was prove he destroyed them. He didn't, so we went in and kicked his Republican Guard all over the desert. And, it makes you oh so mad, because we won that war in record time with very little casualties.
 
Next_Profundis said:
Can you even fathom how ridiculous you sound? If this guy were a true economist? He won the nobel prize for economics for christ sake. To the best of my knowledge that is the most prestigious award an economist can win.
Well if it's the same prize as the Nobel peace prize, it means nothing to me. Based on the statement the guy made, he is an idiot.


You're right, 9/11 was not Bush's fault. It was Reagan's "fuck everyone else" attitude and arrogance that sowed the seeds of hate in fanatics across the world. The far right also is to blame for giving the false impression that this is a christian nation. The fanatics are on a 'jihad' after all.
Reagan did fight terrorism. There were attacks such as Beirut, that he shyed away from, but He didn't shy away from Libya in 1986 did he? Clinton on the other hand did nothing substantial to fight the acts of war committed on American soil and at our embasies in 1998.

The corporate scandals may very well have been Bush's fault, at least a few of them may be. Remember Kenneth Lay of Enron? Or should I refer to him as "kenny boy" as Bush nicknamed him? He was George W. Bush's number one campaign contributor throughout Bush's career.
Kenneth Lay's Enron contributed to the Democratic Party as well. And, just because Bush may have known the guy doesn't mean he is a fault for corporate scandel. Look at Terry McCauliff's association with Global Crossing. Also, you must remember that Kenneth Lay has been indicted and Enron as we know it, is no more. So, Kenneth Lay didn't get away with anything.

You make a pretty vague point here. Through his 8 year term he was able to double revenues? Someone already pointed out that inflation rates were at their highest they ever had been under Reagan, so a doubling of revenues over eight years really isn't all that spectacular.
The
reason why it isn't spectacular is because of out of control spending by the Democratic Congress on social programs, not because of inflation. You still fail to admit the obvious fact that tax cuts WORK. Even most democrats understand this. Now, if you are in love with Hillary Clinton and other admited socialists, then I guess I can see how you might not understand this basic economic premise.

Didn't I already disprove this. I WAS EDUCATED IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM! And millions of others are too! Deal with it. And education DOES promote the general welfare. I guess you'd rather have an entire society with the qualifications to dig ditchs. Training people to become doctors, architects, chemists, lawyers, and teachers DOES promote the general welfare.
No, in fact you didn't disprove this! You, instead, fail to understand how government works. The education you received from public schools is mostly funded at the state and local level. EVERYTIME you come back with your little tyrade on this issue, you totally ignore what I've repeated TIME and TIME again. So, if we did away with the Dept. of Education, there would STILL BE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. *pauses waiting for this little fact to sink in*
Now, that we got that out of the way, maybe you'll understand that the credit that is much deserved in many of the public school teachers is not due to the federal government, who EDUCATES NOONE. Next.

Well you're wrong. In readjusted dollars Reagan did the largest tax increase in history. And did you not listen to what I said? The deficit was PLANNED. They WANTED to run a deficit. And you somehow magically didn't address the fact that David Stockman came out and admitted that supply side economics was a partisan sham.
Well, I don't know where you got your information, but I doubt very seriously THEY wanted to run a deficit on purpose. And, if you "readjust" dollars, you can make the statistics say anything you want. Democrats are famous for this in their class warefare rhetoric against the rich. Supply side economics is the brain child of Adam Smith, and it's hardly a sham. It works in capitalism and free markets, which you are a part of whether you like it or not. Now, I suppose you could move to Sweden where socialism runs amuck ans be in a liberal utopia.
Honestly, how can "everyone and their uncle" *know* he has weapons still? Do you have clairvoyance or something? Seriously, I'd like to know how you *know*.
Arghhh. Geez, you really need to really read my post before interpreting what you THINK I said. I never said he *has* WMD. I said "but everyone and their uncle knows Saddam had them." And, we KNOW this because of the 5,000 bodies of the Iraqi Kurds in 1988. And, of the Iranians who were gassed as well. Saddam has never disclosed proof that he has gotton rid of the WMD, so to protect our national interests we attacked, and rightfully so. Case closed.

Two hundred sixty-six casualites is a very little number? That seems like a pretty great loss of life to me, personally.
Well, then you need to go back and look at the casualties, including civillian of other wars. This war has dramtically less casualties, especially compared to other ground wars where there is a direct invasion/take over.
 
I find these facts believable, but unless you posted a bibliography there is no way of completely proving the validity of these statements.

But I for one am glad that I am Canadian and don't have a bulldog dictator with an IQ of 60 ruling my country like you americans do.

too bad Canada is just a pawn of the US though :(


Fuck this North American Bullshit, I'm moving to Sweden.