OT: Wow...that'll fix things!

[ti_boi]

President George W. Bush's administration is considering an individual tax rebate of up to 800 dollars as a short term measure to help boost the sagging US economy, a media report said Friday.
The Republican leader was to unveil a fiscal stimulus plan later Friday, amid grim economic news that has united lawmakers and the Federal Reserve chief on the need to revive flagging US growth.

The White House has said Bush would propose policies, not dollar amounts, because details of the plan must be hammered out with the Democratic-controlled Congress.

"Privately, the White House has discussed its support for a tax rebate of as much as 800 dollars for individual taxpayers, more than double the 300 dollar rebate featured in a 2001 effort to spur economic growth," the Wall Street Journal said.

In a key concession to Democrats, the US administration appeared willing to accept stimulus legislation that does not include an extension of Bush's tax cuts, the Journal said.

Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, are suggesting they would be willing to suspend their own budget rules and accept a tax break without first figuring out how to pay for it, the Journal said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress would have an economy-boosting package ready by January 28, when Bush delivers his annual agenda-shaping State of the Union speech.

The two sides have been jolted into a bipartisan mood by the latest round of weak economic news and a downward spiral on Wall Street that prompted Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and others to talk up the need for swift action.

[Ray]

I guess he figures he can't screw things up any worse than he already has and this will make some people feel better about our predicament for an hour or two. I think we're just gonna have to ride this one out and hope its closer to the least-bad predictions than to the most-bad predictions. But I don't see energy cost coming down anytime soon, if ever, and our whole economy is dependent on cheap energy, so I tend toward the pessimistic. Get those practical bikes lubed and ready to use folks.

-Ray (he of the new car.......IDIOT!)

[Pete Serotta]

It would be interesting to hear what the Financial experts think such a "fix??" would do. You really have to love politics and the "quick" fix

[ericspin]

-Ray (he of the new car.......IDIOT!)

Ray, what gives? What do you mean by idiot. Don't like the new car?

[Tom]

Mr. Shovel? Meet Mr. Hole. Mr. Hole, meet Mr. Shovel.

[Fixed]

bro to little to late ? cheers


Dutch legend has it that there was once a small boy who upon passing a dyke on his way to school noticed a slight leak as the sea trickled in through a small hole. Knowing that he would be in trouble if he were to be late for school, the boy pocked his finger into the hole and so stemmed the flow of water. Some time later a passerby saw him and went to get help. This came in the form of other men who were able to effect repairs on the dyke and seal up the leak.
This story is told to children to teach them that if they act quickly and in time, even they with their limited strength and resources can avert disasters. The fact that the Little Dutch Boy used his finger to stop the flow of water, is used as an illustration of self-sacrifice. The physical lesson is also taught: a small trickle of water soon becomes a stream and the stream a torrent and the torrent a flood sweeping all before it, Dyke material, roadways and cars, and even railway tracks and bridges and whole trains.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Ray]

Ray, what gives? What do you mean by idiot. Don't like the new car?
No, GREAT car, no regrets there. I like it more and more all the time. I'm constantly amazed that a car that practical can be that much fun and that inexpensive to buy and operate.

It just seems like kind of a stupid time to buy a new one. On the one hand, it uses less gas than the old one so that will offset the increased cost of gas some. But I'll continue to drive little and hopefully drive less than I did before, so the expense of a new car seems somewhat stupid to take on at this point. Particularly given the direction the economy seems to be headed and possible income implications. Its not a serious problem - just the pessimist in me coming to the fore.

The optimist would consider it my own little economic stimulus package. Got to keep that money moving around!

-Ray

[ti_boi]

I agree with Ray....wholeheartedly...except we bought a new car this year too...it was 'my' idea...and I am completely and totally petrified about the economy...yet life goes on. This is my wife's car. She loves it. It is perfect, extra safe in it's construction and it carries my little girl around. PRICELESS. So when we heard about the stimulus package, we splurged on new rubber floor mats! :banana:

[fiamme red]

http://thenewyorkcrank.blogspot.com/2008/01/if-bush-republican-economy-has-been-so_17.html

But you can be certain the Bush Administration – said to be frantically working on an economic “fix” to save Republican rear ends in the next election – will compound the problem they’ve created by offering tax cuts for the rich as part of the fix.

Their theory (I suppose): “If you try it and it explodes in your face, try exactly the same thing again. Maybe this time it won’t explode in your face."

As they used to say back in the early Cold War days, when kids like me were taught to practice “escaping” a nuclear attack by jumping under our school desks with our arms over our heads, “Duck and cover.”

[avalonracing]

Hmmm, maybe if we weren't spending $270 million a day in Iraq... (YES, PER DAY!) :crap:

[sspielman]

......Meet Mr. Hole.....

....you forgot the first part of his last name......

[BdaGhisallo]

Economically, consumers suffering through difficult times tend to treat payments such as this mooted rebate as a windfall and tend to stock it away, rather than spend it. Consumers, generally being very rational with their personal economics, need to note a permanent change in their circumstances to make a change in their spending habits. For this reason, a tax cut, rather than a one time rebate, is far more likely to have the desired stimulant effect on the economy.

I think Bush is trying a rebate since it's better than nothing, since he knows the chances of getting a tax cut past the democratic Congress range from slim to none.... and slim just left.

[myette10]

Politicians earn a living by getting elected. The greatest politician who can't get themselves elected poured your hot chocolate at Dunkin Donuts this morning. Not successful strategists mind you, politicians. These guys have to be likable, charismatic, in touch with their constituents, and generally not to offensive. Add to that the most important element... being well connected and well funded.

Did I miss anything that would make a politician more successful?

Ok... Think of someone you know who has those qualities in spades. Now think of someone who that person would consider as possessing those qualities in spades. That is to say this individual is the best connected, most liked, over the top charismatic person who is electable on a national stage.

Is this the same person you want steering the nation's economy? Drawing conclusions and making decisions about what will and won't work? Give me some nerdy bean counter with a penchant for abacus collecting for that one please. How about setting foreign policy? Show me the international business man with contacts on six continents and a team that knows the political-economic geography of the East Jipeepee.

Our President should be the ultimate program manager. A person who can assign tasks to the right individuals without consideration of party lines or special interests, hold those people accountable for their work, implement their recommendations and then give them credit for a job well done. It shouldn't be someone who wants to slap a few dumb smiles on people's faces when they tear open an $800 "economic rescue" check.

I've already spent the money by the way.

[1centaur]

I am not quite sure what all the angst on this thread is about. Fed Rate cuts have 9-12 month (according to Fed insiders) or 12-18 month (according to investors) lag times before helping the economy (they help mostly psychology in the short-term). Tax rebates (or equivalent) are a frequently tried adjunct to Fed policy to stop consumers from staying home in the interim and killing GDP. Nobody is claiming that fiscal stimulus like this will make working class people rich, but there is widespread belief by economists that some combination of psychological and arithmetic boost to the economy comes predictably from moves like the one today.

If one were going to create policy to increase GDP more steadily and reliably over a longer period, cutting tax rates on big taxpayers (allowing more dollars to be put at risk or into consumption) and accelerating depreciation schedules would be the way, but of course you can never again cut tax rates across the board because by definition that would be a give away to the rich, I believe I have heard somewhere. Thus every tax cut must be skewed to the poor and every tax increase must be skewed against the rich, forever more. Rather than play that ridiculous game, better to do a one-time stimulus (presumably skewed to the more highly consuming poor) and hope Fed policy kicks in a few months later.

[BdaGhisallo]

I always find it interesting that it is held that giving tax cuts is couched as a gift to the rich. I also find it perplexing how difficult it seemingly is to some that tax cuts must, by definition, go to those who actually pay them. Those that pay greater taxes will get a greater tax cut. That is seen by many to be anathema.

It's always illuminating to look at the actual share of taxes paid by different sectors of the tax base. From this page:

http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm

All numbers are 2001 tax year data.

The top 1% of earners pay 33.9% of the taxes, despite only earning 17.5% of total gross income.

The top 5% pay 53.3% of all taxes, yet earn only 32.0% of all income.

Conversely, the bottom 50% of earners pay only 4.0% of the total tax take, yet earn 13.8% of the total gross income!

That doesn't seem so fair does it?

[Richard]

The bugaboo in your (and the IRS') figures is that this is "adjusted" gross income. THose in the top write down huge portions of gross to get there. It is also true that somewhere near 90% of wealth is controlled by about 5% of the population in this country.

[Kevan]

those 8 c-notes will take care of my daughter's college books which are so grossly overpriced it staggers the imagination.

Dang kids... I geet this close [ ] to a new frame and they come and pinch my money away agin.

The good news...as you get older, a year blows by REAL fast. Maybe not fast enough in some cases.

[norman neville]

The bugaboo in your (and the IRS') figures is that this is "adjusted" gross income. THose in the top write down huge portions of gross to get there. It is also true that somewhere near 90% of wealth is controlled by about 5% of the population in this country.

besides 'adjusted' income, the table showed 'income' taxes, not all taxes. all those 'other' taxes get paid by the folks that work for a living and enjoy life in the lower and middle classes.

yum.

[shinomaster]

I'd spend it all at bikenashbar.com

[fiamme red]

I'd spend it all at bikenashbar.comhttp://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=600081&subcategory=60001034&brand=&sku=21240&storetype=estore&estoreid=1173&pagename=Estore%20by%20Subcat%3A%20Components%20Cl oseouts%2DRoad%20Cranks

Could this crank have originally cost $550? That's just nuts atmo.

[fiamme red]

.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . because it's just one giant BAND-AID.

Then they're putting that band-aid over that hole in the dyke and going back out to the golf course.

What surprise me is that Bernanke is signing onto this. Or seems to be. Flydhest must be on vacation! . . . :p

BBD

[Avispa]

President George W. Bush's administration is considering an individual tax rebate of up to 800 dollars as a short term measure to help boost the sagging US economy, a media report said Friday.
The Republican leader was to unveil a fiscal stimulus plan later Friday, amid grim economic news that has united lawmakers and the Federal Reserve chief on the need to revive flagging US growth....

Oh, I thought that (the bold) happened a long, long time ago. In 1913 if I am not mistaken!

..A..

[bigbill]

Jimcav should change the price on all his bikes to $800. They would go like hotcakes.

[ti_boi]

If everybody spent the $800 on a new bike....then I would say MY GOD GW IS A GENIUS!!!!!!!

[Viper]

Like I told my rich Democratic sister (from the 2001 rebate) when Bush offered the tax rebate, "Make fun of it? It worked, the economy took off post-9/11. The recession turned around, that recession he INHERITED from President Clinton. Also, if you wanna make fun of the tax rebate, be noble, shut up, take the money and give it to a charity."

Also, FYI...Democrats jumped on this bandwagon back in 2003, read here:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ZSaFLzXNYysJ:query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html%3Fres%3D9901EED71739F936A15752C0A965 9C8B63+2001+bush+tax+rebate+effects&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=25&gl=us





.

[LegendRider]

Economically, consumers suffering through difficult times tend to treat payments such as this mooted rebate as a windfall and tend to stock it away, rather than spend it. Consumers, generally being very rational with their personal economics, need to note a permanent change in their circumstances to make a change in their spending habits. For this reason, a tax cut, rather than a one time rebate, is far more likely to have the desired stimulant effect on the economy.

I think Bush is trying a rebate since it's better than nothing, since he knows the chances of getting a tax cut past the democratic Congress range from slim to none.... and slim just left.

According to the figures I read today, when Bush cut taxes in 2001, 1/3rd of folks saved it and 2/3rds spent it within days. The rational agent is good in theory, but in practice most Americans are short-sighted - look at credit card debt, massive ARM mortgages, etc.

[avalonracing]

Like I told my rich Democratic sister (from the 2001 rebate) when Bush offered the tax rebate, "Make fun of it? It worked, the economy took off post-9/11.
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ZSaFLzXNYysJ:query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html%3Fres%3D9901EED71739F936A15752C0A965 9C8B63+2001+bush+tax+rebate+effects&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=25&gl=us
.


The economy took off because we went to get the weapons of mass destruc... I mean to free the Iraq peopl... I mean to get them before they get us.

It also was because people used their homes as ATMs. Boy, I hope there will never be any repercussions from that. Uh yeah...

The only people who are are doing really well as a whole from "W" policies are oil execs and "defense" contractors.

How in the hell can you still support that guy????? I mean, seriously, is there a single positive thing he as done? (Other than keep himself in shape)

[ti_boi]

The economy took off because we went to get the weapons of mass destruc... I mean to free the Iraq peopl... I mean to get them before they get us.

It also was because people used their homes as ATMs. Boy, I hope there will never be any repercussions from that. Uh yeah...

The only people who are are doing really well as a whole from "W" policies are oil execs and "defense" contractors.

How in the hell can you still support that guy????? I mean, seriously, is there a single positive thing he as done? (Other than keep himself in shape)


I suppose that doing well is a good yardstick for satisfaction if you can also ignore the environment....the evaporation of the middle class.....the continued exportation of mfg jobs overseas......and the overall disintegration of personal privacy....yeah, Bush has been great!



Below..............that "giant sucking sound"....made famous by Ross Perot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g48hGrSsOPo

[Viper]

The economy took off because we went to get the weapons of mass destruc... I mean to free the Iraq peopl... I mean to get them before they get us.

It also was because people used their homes as ATMs. Boy, I hope there will never be any repercussions from that. Uh yeah...

The only people who are are doing really well as a whole from "W" policies are oil execs and "defense" contractors.

How in the hell can you still support that guy????? I mean, seriously, is there a single positive thing he as done? (Other than keep himself in shape)

Who benefited from the Iraqi War? Israel. Who is begging us to knock out Iran? Israel. Also, please state where I support, "This guy"? I am defending a sitting President who did many things very well. I...unlike many here...am not jaded, biased or with a bleeding heart and my mind is indeed open.

The main thrust is this and it's a big fyi: if Bill Clinton or Al Gore or John Kerry was in office from 2000 till today, many on this board would declare, "How great the Iraqi War was, is and will be" and etc, this...this is my maint point here.

[ti_boi]

Who benefited from the Iraqi War? Israel. Who is begging us to knock out Iran? Israel. Also, please state where I support, "This guy"? I am defending a sitting President who did many things very well. I...unlike many here...am not jaded, biased or with a bleeding heart and my mind is indeed open.

The main thrust is this and it's a big fyi: if Bill Clinton or Al Gore or John Kerry was in office from 2000 till today, many on this board would declare, "How great the Iraqi War was, is and will be" and etc, this...this is my maint point here.


Hey tiny writer......the zionist influence has been a constant through many administrations....possibly our only ally in the region....as for Iraq....that war is over right? Mission Accomplished!

[Viper]

Hey tiny writer......the zionist influence has been a constant through many administrations....possibly our only ally in the region....as for Iraq....that war is over right? Mission Accomplished!

Either donate your $800.00 to Israel or hand it over to me. Heck, we give Israel $3-9B a year, I could use the eight hundred bucks. If you don't want it, give it to me. I'll either buy Belgian beer or donate it to the people of Palestine.

1967:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1199964891995&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull




.

[avalonracing]

"This guy"? I am defending a sitting President who did many things very well.

The main thrust is this and it's a big fyi: if Bill Clinton or Al Gore or John Kerry was in office from 2000 till today, many on this board would declare, "How great the Iraqi War was, is and will be" and etc, this...this is my maint point here.

Please, tell me what was done well? Losing our credibility in the world? Running up a huge deficit? Helping to make Exxon/Mobil in the most profitable company in history (while giving them tax breaks)? Seriously though... What has he done well?

And if Gore would have been in office I would not be supporting the war with Iraq... Because there wouldn't be one.

[ti_boi]

Either donate your $800.00 to Israel or hand it over to me. Heck, we give Israel $3-9B a year, I could use the eight hundred bucks. If you don't want it, give it to me. I'll either buy Belgian beer or donate it to the people of Palestine.

1967:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1199964891995&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull




.


Viper, I got a kid, nuff said.
So I actually spend my money on things like tuition and dance lessons...not star trek action figures.....

At the cost you quoted above Israel seems like a bargain....Iraq will cost $1 Trillion -- do the math.

[Viper]

Viper, I got a kid, nuff said.


Great. Then you'll get $1,600.00 in a tax rebate. :) Charity starts at home and if you don't want the Bush Tax Rebate, please send it to me.




.

[ti_boi]

Great. Then you'll get $1,600.00 in a tax rebate. :) Charity starts at home and if you don't want the Bush Tax Rebate, please send it to me.




.

$1600

It's already spent....have a kid some day...you'll see.

But first you'll need to meet a girl that will let you touch her.... :banana:
Btw -- we lost way more than that in the market this week alone...........DOW 8500!
Which is a direct result of what.........................? Bush policies? Oh no. Not Bush policies....why it was the force.

[Viper]

$1600

It's already spent....have a kid some day...you'll see.

So then you do approve, endorse and votefor the Bush Tax Rebate! Nice to know your vote can be bought. Me? I plan on donating, helping kids who really need the help:

http://www.cfsrf.org/




.

[ti_boi]

So then you do approve, endorse and votefor the Bush Tax Rebate! Nice to know your vote can be bought. Me? I plan on donating, helping kids who really need the help:

http://www.cfsrf.org/




.

Bless You.

[soulspinner]

Please, tell me what was done well? Losing our credibility in the world? Running up a huge deficit? Helping to make Exxon/Mobil in the most profitable company in history (while giving them tax breaks)? Seriously though... What has he done well?

And if Gore would have been in office I would not be supporting the war with Iraq... Because there wouldn't be one.


Better stated than I could have +1

[norman neville]

I am defending a sitting President who did many things very well. I...unlike many here...am not jaded, biased or with a bleeding heart and my mind is indeed open.


what in the name of holey heck did president retard boy do well? name one thing?

okay, the republican machine was able to steal two close elections in a row, but that's not him, that was them.

what one thing?

well...

i am convinced that the viper character is a joke who will say anything to get attention, more rush than hannity, who is a true-believer sub-grade moron. where is don ferrous lately? who was that guy going to ant-artica? somebody has a bunch of time and wants to see how stupid they can make this fake character sound.

at least, i hope so, since the other possiblity is just too pathetic to believe.

hell, we got a fake guy accepted into college, so why not here?

[capybaras]

what in the name of holey heck did president retard boy do well? name one thing?

There is one thing (and only one) : extended daylight savings time :banana:

[A.L.Breguet]

$

[norman neville]

There is one thing (and only one) : extended daylight savings time :banana:

him? doubt it. probably can't spell it, let alone explain it. probably some coolie did it.

[paczki]

him? doubt it. probably can't spell it, let alone explain it. probably some coolie did it.

Dude all he had to do was point at the sun, let out a happy sound, and raise his arms in delight.

[capybaras]

Dude all he had to do was point at the sun, let out a happy sound, and raise his arms in delight.

wow! And here I thought I had nothing in common with him. I learn so much on this forum!

[Ahneida Ride]

Hmmm, maybe if we weren't spending $270 million a day in Iraq... (YES, PER DAY!) :crap:

It's frns, not dollars. frn = fed reserve note

frns are created outa thin air to sustain goverment debt ....

If we payed for war thru taxes and not inflation (frn dilution) .....
well ... let's just say things would be a bit different.

A fiat $$ supply is needed to support continuous warfare.
It's warfare's lifeblood.
Stop the frn supply and guess what?

National debt is approaching 9 Trillion ......

But don't worry ... Be happy ! :) :rolleyes:

[capybaras]

Viper, I got a kid, nuff said.
So I actually spend my money on things like tuition and dance lessons...not star trek action figures.....

At the cost you quoted above Israel seems like a bargain....Iraq will cost $1 Trillion -- do the math.

Bush is a disaster but being a parent doesn't make you better than anyone else.

[93legendti]

It would be interesting to hear what the Financial experts think such a "fix??" would do. You really have to love politics and the "quick" fix

By ANDREW TAYLOR and DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
30 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - President Bush, acknowledging the risk of recession, embraced about $145 billion worth of tax relief Friday to give the economy a "shot in the arm. "

Bush said such a growth package must also include tax incentives for business investment and quick tax relief for individuals. And he said that to be effective, an economic stimulus package would need to roughly represent 1 percent of the gross domestic product — the value of all U.S. goods and services and the best measure of the country's economic standing.

"There is a risk of a downturn," the president said in his remarks at the White House.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, speaking after Bush's remarks, said 1 percent of GDP would equate to $140 billion to $150 billion, which is along the lines of what private economists say should be sufficient to help give the economy a short-term boost.

Paulson said the largest part of the stimulus package would be targeted to individual taxpayers. One Republican official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bush was hoping to target about $100 billion toward individuals and about $50 billion toward businesses.

The president and Congress are scrambling to take action as fears mount that a severe housing slump and painful credit crisis could cause people to close their wallets and businesses to put a lid on hiring, throwing the nation into its first recession since 2001.

Bush said that Congress and the administration need to settle on a temporary economic package that could be implemented quickly to "keep our economy growing and create jobs." While Bush focused on taxes, Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress have been working on a package that would also include extending and perhaps increasing unemployment benefits and a temporary increase in food stamps.

"Letting Americans keep more of their money should increase consumer spending," he said.

Bush outlined several criteria for the package to meet: It must be "big enough to make a difference in an economy as large and dynamic as ours," it must be built on "broad-based tax relief," it must take effect right away but be temporary, and it must not include any tax increases.

Specifically, he called for tax incentives for businesses, including small companies, to make new and major investments this year. "Giving them an incentive to invest now will encourage business owners to expand their operations, create new jobs and inject new energy into our economy in the process," Bush said.

He also called for tax relief for individuals — probably to come in the form of one-time rebates. But he did not say how much money Americans would get to keep or the amount of other tax incentives that could be in the package. Nor did Bush detail how the nation would pay for such a plan.

"Americans can spend this money as they see fit: to help meet their monthly bills, cover higher costs at the gas pump, pay for other basic necessities," he said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has talked of a package totaling $100 billion or more. House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio spoke of a bill in the range of $100 billion to $150 billion. Aides have said Bush does not believe the stimulus spending should be offset — or paid for — by any tax or spending changes elsewhere. Some deficit hawks want this but isn't expected to be part of any package.

Speaking for about seven minutes, Bush called passing a growth package "our most pressing economic priority." But he also used his announcement to defend his tax cuts, which are set to expire unless the Democratic-led Congress opts to extend them.

He acknowledged Americans' fears of an economic downturn.

"The economy's still creating jobs, though at a reduced pace," he said. "Consumer spending is still growing, but the housing market is declining. Business investment and exports are still rising, but the cost of imported oil has increased."

He said his advisers and many outside experts expect that the U.S. economy will continue to grow over the coming year, but at a slower rate than the past few years.

"Continued instability in the housing and financial markets could cause additional harm to our overall economy and put our growth and job creation in jeopardy," he said.

Bush said markets rise and fall, and there are times when swift, temporary action by the government can help ensure that market fluctuations do not undermine the economy. "This is such a moment," he said.

"We're in the midst of a challenging period," Bush said. "And I know that Americans are concerned ... But our economy has seen challenging times before. It is resilient."

Bush has gone down the tax rebate road before. Back in 2001, he added refunds of up to $300 per individual and $600 per household as a recession-fighting element of the tax cut plan that had been the centerpiece of his 2000 campaign.

Economists said a reasonable range for tax cuts in the new package might be $500 to $1,000. A White House plan is looking at rebates of up to $800 for individuals and $1,600 for married couples.

Bush first signaled his support for the approach of income tax rebates for people and tax breaks for business investment in a conference call Thursday with bipartisan congressional leaders.

Democratic congressional leaders agree that tax relief should be in the package, but are working on a broader measure that would also include aid targeted to the poor and unemployed.

White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said there are many ways to get quick agreement. Bush chose to lay out "principles" with few specifics to the American people now, while bipartisan negotiations with Capitol Hill are taking place privately. The White House feels Bush was out of the mix for too long, because he was away for eight days in the Mideast while Democratic leaders talked almost daily about the need to stimulate the economy — and how.

The White House scheduled Bush to talk about a stimulus package twice on Friday. After the Roosevelt Room appearance, he left for a visit at a Frederick, Md., manufacturing plant.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080118/ap_on_go_pr_wh/economy_stimulus_245

Hillary's plan totals only $70 Billion in relief, so I can see why people are upset with Pres. Bush's plan.

If it becomes law, the Dem controlled Congress will have to sign off, so I can see why people are upset.

[ti_boi]

Good Jobs Are Where the Money Is

By BOB HERBERT
Published: January 19, 2008

I think of the people running this country as the mad-dashers, a largely confused and inconsistent group lurching ineffectively from one enormous problem to another.

They’ve made a hash of a war that never should have been launched. They can’t find bin Laden. They’ve been shocked by the subprime debacle. They’re lost in a maze on health care.

Now, like children who have eaten too much sugar, they are frantically trying to figure out how to put a few dollars into the hands of working people to stimulate an enfeebled economy.

They should stop, take a deep breath and acknowledge the obvious: the way to put money into the hands of working people is to make sure they have access to good jobs at good wages. That has long been known, but it hasn’t been the policy in this country for many years.

Big business and the federal government have worked hand in hand to squeeze the daylights out of working people, stripping them (in an era of downsizing and globalization) of much of their bargaining power while ferociously pursuing fiscal policies that radically favored the privileged few.

My colleague at The Times, David Cay Johnston, took a look at income patterns in the U.S. over the past few decades in his new book, “Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You With the Bill).”

From 1980 to 2005 the national economy, adjusted for inflation, more than doubled. (Because of population growth, the actual increase per capita was about 66 percent.) But the average income for the vast majority of Americans actually declined during that period. The standard of living for the average family has improved not because incomes have grown, but because women have gone into the workplace in droves.

The peak income year for the bottom 90 percent of Americans was way back in 1973 — when the average income per taxpayer (adjusted for inflation) was $33,001. That is nearly $4,000 higher than the average in 2005.

It’s incredible but true: 90 percent of the population missed out on the income gains during that long period.

Mr. Johnston does not mince words: “The pattern here is clear. The rich are getting fabulously richer, the vast majority are somewhat worse off, and the bottom half — for all practical purposes, the poor — are being savaged by our current economic policies.”

His words are echoed in a proposed stimulus plan currently offered by the Economic Policy Institute in Washington. (The plan is available on its Web site, epi.org.) Stressing that any stimulus package should be “fair,” the authors of the institute’s proposal wrote:

“The distribution of wages, income and wealth in the United States has become vastly more unequal over the last 30 years. In fact, this country has a more unequal distribution of income than any other advanced country.”

Economic alarm bells have been ringing in the U.S. for some time. There was no sense of urgency as long as those in the lower ranks were sinking in the mortgage muck and the middle class was raiding the piggy bank otherwise known as home equity.

But now that the privileged few are threatened (Merrill Lynch took a $9.8 billion fourth-quarter hit, and the stock market has spent the first part of the year behaving like an Olympic diving champion), it’s suddenly time to take action.

There is no question that some kind of stimulus package geared to the needs of ordinary Americans is in order. But that won’t begin to solve the fundamental problem.

Good jobs at good wages — lots of them, growing like spring flowers in an endlessly fertile field — is the absolutely essential basis for a thriving American economy and a broad-based rise in standards of living.

Forget all the CNBC chatter about Fed policy and bargain stocks. For ordinary Americans, jobs are the be-all and end-all. And an America awash in new jobs will require a political environment that respects and rewards work and aggressively pursues creative policies designed to radically expand employment.

I’d start with a broad program to rebuild the American infrastructure. This would have the dual benefit of putting large numbers of people to work and answering a crying need. The infrastructure is in sorry shape. New Orleans comes to mind, and the tragic bridge collapse in Minneapolis.

The country that gave us the Marshall Plan to rebuild postwar Europe ought to be able, 60 years later, to reconstitute its own sagging infrastructure.

There are also untold numbers of jobs and myriad societal benefits to be reaped from a sustained, good-faith effort to achieve energy self-sufficiency. Think Manhattan Project.

The possibilities are limitless. We could create an entire generation of new jobs and build a bigger and fairer economy for the 21st century. If only we were serious.

[Viper]

1). what in the name of holey heck did president retard boy do well? name one thing?

2). okay, the republican machine was able to steal two close elections in a row, but that's not him, that was them.

3). i am convinced that the viper character is a joke who will say anything to get attention, more rush than hannity, who is a true-believer sub-grade moron. where is don ferrous lately? who was that guy going to ant-artica? somebody has a bunch of time and wants to see how stupid they can make this fake character sound.


By the numbers, it's reality-check time for Mr. Norman Neville.

1). "President retard" eh? Is that your best debating skillset? Learn it from Havard eh? Come on, calling the man a retard only shows you're filled with hate, a Bush-hater and you'd never SEE anything good the man did. You = biased, a hater and closed-minded.

2). "Stole two close elections" hmm? Granted, 2000 was close, but 2004? Bush crushed Kerry, Bush won and it kills you. I think you have no leg to pedal on when you speak of "Two close elections", please define with actual math, facts, figures how 2004 was 'close'. The fact you even think that both elections were "close" and "stolen" shows how much Lefty Kool Aid tm* you've consumed in your lifetime; there's two sides to the brain yo, the left side...and the right side.

3). "Viper is a joke...more Rush than Hannity", lol NN. I'm much more Quint when I say to you, "Well it (your simpleton attack) proves one thing, Mr. Neville. It proves that you wealthy college boys don't have the education enough to admit when you're wrong." The only funny thing here is a yet another personal attack from a fellow forumite whose hate for Bush has him frothing from a mouth that's too big.

Go grab some rope, see if you can tie a proper bowline, sheep shank or trumpet knot.

[capybaras]

By the numbers, it's reality-check time for Mr. Norman Neville.

1). "President retard" eh? Is that your best debating skillset? Learn it from Havard eh? Come on, calling the man a retard only shows you're filled with hate, a Bush-hater and you'd never SEE anything good the man did. You = biased, a hater and closed-minded.

2). "Stole two close elections" hmm? Granted, 2000 was close, but 2004? Bush crushed Kerry, Bush won and it kills you. I think you have no leg to pedal on when you speak of "Two close elections", please define with actual math, facts, figures how 2004 was 'close'. The fact you even think that both elections were "close" and "stolen" shows how much Lefty Kool Aid tm* you've consumed in your lifetime; there's two sides to the brain yo, the left side...and the right side.

3). "Viper is a joke...more Rush than Hannity", lol NN. I'm much more Quint when I say to you, "Well it (your simpleton attack) proves one thing, Mr. Neville. It proves that you wealthy college boys don't have the education enough to admit when you're wrong." The only funny thing here is a yet another personal attack from a fellow forumite whose hate for Bush has him frothing from a mouth that's too big.

Go grab some rope, see if you can tie a proper bowline, sheep shank or trumpet knot.

I don't know what you are talking about and I probably disagree. But it's OK if you don't have a baby.

[paczki]

Bush crushed Kerry, Bush won and it kills you.


That's just false: "Although Bush received a majority of the popular vote: 50.73% to Kerry's 48.27%, it was, in percentages, the closest popular margin ever for a victorious sitting President" Courtesy of Wikipedia, where I get all my information.

[Viper]

That's just false: "Although Bush received a majority of the popular vote: 50.73% to Kerry's 48.27%, it was, in percentages, the closest popular margin ever for a victorious sitting President" Courtesy of Wikipedia, where I get all my information.

But what's your point, really? It's a circular conversation, lefties crying out that Bush stole two elections? Come on! Or that Bush barely won in 2004? Come on! In 1992 Clinton did not win above the 50% mark (he had 43%), Bush did in 2004!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992

In 1996 Clinton did not win above the 50% mark (he had 49.3%), Bush did in 2004!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1996

It just kills the Left that Bush won in 2004, it crushed them...they thought, "For sure, we got him this time" and they lost! They still cry/whine about it. FYI, not since 1984 has a President received more than 50% of the vote...and President Bush did that in 2004. It was a huge topic in the days/months after the Election (how soon we forget).

You guys are stuck in 1999.

Space 1999 atmo.

It's 2008...focus on your next Candidate.

[paczki]

But what's your point, really? It's a circular conversation, lefties crying out that Bush stole two elections? Come on! Or that Bush barely won in 2004? Come on! In 1992 Clinton did not win above the 50% mark (he had 43%), Bush did in 2004!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1992

In 1996 Clinton did not win above the 50% mark (he had 49.3%), Bush did in 2004!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1996

It just kills the Left that Bush won in 2004, it crushed them...they thought, "For sure, we got him this time" and they lost! They still cry/whine about it. FYI, not since 1984 has a President received more than 50% of the vote...and President Bush did that in 2004. It was a huge topic in the days/months after the Election (how soon we forget).

You guys are stuck in 1999.

Space 1999 atmo.

It's 2008...focus on your next Candidate.

You seem nice enough, nothing personal, but that's just rhetoric and you know it. No viable third part candidates in that election, etc. But honestly I don't really care, I like to ride my bike. Gotta hit the rollers.

[norman neville]

By the numbers, it's reality-check time for Mr. Norman Neville.

1). "President retard" eh? Is that your best debating skillset? Learn it from Havard eh? Come on, calling the man a retard only shows you're filled with hate, a Bush-hater and you'd never SEE anything good the man did. You = biased, a hater and closed-minded.

2). "Stole two close elections" hmm? Granted, 2000 was close, but 2004? Bush crushed Kerry, Bush won and it kills you. I think you have no leg to pedal on when you speak of "Two close elections", please define with actual math, facts, figures how 2004 was 'close'. The fact you even think that both elections were "close" and "stolen" shows how much Lefty Kool Aid tm* you've consumed in your lifetime; there's two sides to the brain yo, the left side...and the right side.

3). "Viper is a joke...more Rush than Hannity", lol NN. I'm much more Quint when I say to you, "Well it (your simpleton attack) proves one thing, Mr. Neville. It proves that you wealthy college boys don't have the education enough to admit when you're wrong." The only funny thing here is a yet another personal attack from a fellow forumite whose hate for Bush has him frothing from a mouth that's too big.

Go grab some rope, see if you can tie a proper bowline, sheep shank or trumpet knot.

unimpressed...

by your nonsense.

one, gwb is retarded, probably made worse by his excessive and most likely continuing drinking and coke usage. harvard is only sounds impressive until you actually go there and see that harvard and yale and brown and princeton and the rest of the 'elite' schools have no more intelligent students as a percentage of the total than any other random college. wealthier students, yes. better connected students, yes. better educated students, yes in many cases, but smarter or harder-working? no.

i don't hate retard-boy, except in the sense of the ugly policies and horrible crimes against humanity committed during his administration.

and, yes, i am biased against stupidity, but i am anything but closed-minded. quite the opposite, in fact.

two, florida was won by gore and ohio was won by kerry. close enough to steal, which is what they watch for, but it is still a crime.

three, if you attempt to say you are more of true-believer idiot instead of whorish carnival barker, well, then, good luck with that.

i noticed that you couldn't name one thing president retard-boy did well?

funny, that.

i still think you're kidding though, rush.

[ti_boi]

He can't name an achievement......




































because there are none.

[norman neville]

He can't name an achievement......




































because there are none.

when you consider the gargantuan wealth of the country, the power, the diversity, the potential.

yet all the us can do for 8 long years is sink deeper into collapse at home and spread death around the world.

the waste of the 'american century' will be seen as one of history's greatest tragedies, for it is not likely that the brain power and material wealth along with the ability to project ideas as well as military force around the world will be present in any one nation ever again.

oh, well. it will be for the better.

btw, is it really a personal attack to contend someone is a whorish carnival barker and not really a brain-dead true-believer?

[Viper]

when you consider the gargantuan wealth of the country, the power, the diversity, the potential.

yet all the us can do for 8 long years is sink deeper into collapse at home and spread death around the world.

the waste of the 'american century' will be seen as one of history's greatest tragedies, for it is not likely that the brain power and material wealth along with the ability to project ideas as well as military force around the world will be present in any one nation ever again.

oh, well. it will be for the better.

btw, is it really a personal attack to contend someone is a whorish carnival barker and not really a brain-dead true-believer?

1). I don't have to name any one or two great things President Bush did. If you are a poltical thinktank/firm and want to pay me for my services, I might oblige.

2). Yeah, maybe you're right, I'm just dumb (LOL). At least I have my looksmo.

3). My Carl Strong is getting painted soon. I have pegged the following folks to take their Bush Tax Rebate and send it to me:

A). Ti Boi
B). Norman Neville

You guys are awesome, I'm most gracious. :banana:

PS. Name .0000000000001 great things Nancy Pelosi has done, or the Democratic Senate (which polls lower than Bush LOL).

EPO, steroids...botox?





.

[norman neville]

1). I don't have to name any one or two great things President Bush did. If you are a poltical thinktank/firm and want to pay me for my services, I might oblige.

2). Yeah, maybe you're right, I'm just dumb (LOL). At least I have my looksmo.

3). My Carl Strong is getting painted soon. I have pegged the following folks to take their Bush Tax Rebate and send it to me:

A). Ti Boi
B). Norman Neville

You guys are awesome, I'm most gracious. :banana:

PS. Name .0000000000001 great things Nancy Pelosi has done, or the Democratic Senate (which polls lower than Bush LOL).

EPO, steroids...botox?





.


why the heck would i say np has done anything useful in congress? it doesn't make any sense, rush. gwb is still a tard.

[Viper]

why the heck would i say np has done anything useful in congress? it doesn't make any sense, rush. gwb is still a tard.

He's so dumb that he:

1). Defeated John Kerry in 2004
2). Embarrassed Al Gore in the 2000 Debates
3). Will go to bed tonight and wake up as President of the United States
4). Chose a VP who embarrassed John Breck Boy Edwards in 2004

Read Gore's 'How Bush Spanked Me in Debates':

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/29/opinion/29gore.html





.

[norman neville]

1). I don't have to name any one or two great things President Bush did. If you are a poltical thinktank/firm and want to pay me for my services, I might oblige.

2). Yeah, maybe you're right, I'm just dumb (LOL). At least I have my looksmo.

3). My Carl Strong is getting painted soon. I have pegged the following folks to take their Bush Tax Rebate and send it to me:

A). Ti Boi
B). Norman Neville

You guys are awesome, I'm most gracious. :banana:

PS. Name .0000000000001 great things Nancy Pelosi has done, or the Democratic Senate (which polls lower than Bush LOL).

EPO, steroids...botox?





.


rush: how does it follow that if bush is tard and a war criminal, then democrats in congress must be my idols? that's inane.

fwiw, congress always polls super-low. folks hate congress, think it sux, but they love THEIR congressmen for the most part and think they don't suk too hard or bite.

but, i'm sure you know that since it's well-known and rush only pulls out the old schtick about the prez being more popular than congress when the crowd out front is especially drooly-looking, right rush?

[norman neville]

He's so dumb that he:

1). Defeated John Kerry in 2004
2). Embarrassed Al Gore in the 2000 Debates
3). Will go to bed tonight and wake up as President of the United States
4). Chose a VP who embarrassed John Breck Boy Edwards in 2004

Read Gore's 'How Bush Spanked Me in Debates':

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/29/opinion/29gore.html





.

1? no.

2? even christopher hitchens, before he devolved into a neocon freak, said that bush in the debates was like cruelty to animals, and he wished that gore would just put him out of his misery. so, you don't have the big guns on your side, rush.

3: gwb isn't really president of anything, since he's too stupid to do anything but cut a line. you're right, though, he does get the perks without any of the work.

4: if lon chaney embarassed je, it was only because edwards would love to be that close to the big consulting money.

come on, rush, you can do better. it does get old after a while, though, right? you get tired selling the same bs night after night to the marks. it's okay, we understand rush.

[ti_boi]

Geez Viper.................name just one success this President has had over his two terms in office...And 'being President' doesn't really count.

Can you imagine the performance review....Yes, I count having the job as my success this year, followed by slow nods from your supervisor...and a pink slip a week later.

Name One program that counts as a 'win' for us Tax payers. I'm open minded. If you can think of something let us know. :rolleyes:

[Dekonick]

Why am I even reading this?

1600.... Hmm.......

Buy stock now the DOW is DOWn?

Perhaps...

[LegendRider]

what in the name of holey heck did president retard boy do well? name one thing?

I'll name two: Alito and Roberts. (that should set him off...)

[ti_boi]

I'll name two: Alito and Roberts. (that should set him off...)


I'm not sure I follow. Justices? Are these programs or success stories? By what measure?

[norman neville]

I'll name two: Alito and Roberts. (that should set him off...)

i'm not sure that picking two obscenely unqualified men to be rubber-stamped onto the supreme court counts as a sucess. there are a billion lawyers in the world; not all of them are dumber than ann coulter.

(but retard-boy'll nod at all of 'em if the lickspittles bring 'em in.)

he could very well have nominated half of a potato chip and a cat turd for the court and been closer to a 'win'.

[Viper]

I'll name two: Alito and Roberts. (that should set him off...)

LOL, they can't even see two things Bush has done, let alone one.

September 30th, 2005, "John Glover Roberts Jr. was sworn in yesterday as the 17th chief justice of the United States, enabling President Bush to put his stamp on the Supreme Court for decades to come, even as he prepares to name a second nominee to the nine-member court."

^ is what the left feared...and lost. Senate? White House? LOL. This justice gig is where it's atmo.

atmo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/29/AR2005092900859.html

[ti_boi]

LOL, they can't even see two things Bush has done, let alone one.

September 30th, 2005, "John Glover Roberts Jr. was sworn in yesterday as the 17th chief justice of the United States, enabling President Bush to put his stamp on the Supreme Court for decades to come, even as he prepares to name a second nominee to the nine-member court."

^ is what the left feared...and lost. Senate? White House? LOL. This justice gig is where it's atmo.

atmo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/29/AR2005092900859.html


You still haven't answered the question Viper. I am starting to question your intellect.

[norman neville]

LOL, they can't even see two things Bush has done, let alone one.

September 30th, 2005, "John Glover Roberts Jr. was sworn in yesterday as the 17th chief justice of the United States, enabling President Bush to put his stamp on the Supreme Court for decades to come, even as he prepares to name a second nominee to the nine-member court."

^ is what the left feared...and lost. Senate? White House? LOL. This justice gig is where it's atmo.

atmo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/29/AR2005092900859.html

to put your mark of medocrity and soft-headedness onto the justice system for decades to come. come on, rush, how's that good?

[ti_boi]

to put your mark of medocrity and soft-headedness onto the justice system for decades to come. come on, rush, how's that good?


Perhaps he wants these in every restroom. Right beside his 'be happy rebate check'....for mortgaging his non-existent children's future.

[michael white]

you guys know what your moms said: if you can't say something good about a president, don't say nothin at all . . .

[paczki]

I'll name two: Alito and Roberts. (that should set him off...)

Remember a certain appointment that didn't work out, a Harriet something or other... :)

[ti_boi]

you guys know what your moms said: if you can't say something good about a president, don't say nothin at all . . .

Why are you threatened by criticism of a government leader?

[LegendRider]

to put your mark of medocrity and soft-headedness onto the justice system for decades to come. come on, rush, how's that good?


Reminds me of that joke about arguing on the internet.

[ti_boi]

Reminds me of that joke about arguing on the internet.


A good web argument can be incredibly educational.....I am still waiting to be enlightened on this topic though. It has yet to happen.

[Viper]

President Bush gets elected in 2000. He collaborates with his brother, the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush. It took them many years and lots of red tape, but on February 8th, 2005, Season One of 'Miami Vice' is released on enhanced DVD.

If the man did nothing else but push Alito and Roberts through the Supremo Court while putting Vice on DVD for all of society to enjoy, I'm okay with that. What you don't get is that...bringing back Vice brings with it...Reagan; thinking of Miami Vice, watching it...it is impossible NOT to recall and remember President Reagan. Don't think so? I'd say 1/3 of all episodes poked at Reagan, the government and his hairdoo.

Tiboi and Norman, please take your Bush tax rebate and buy me this:

http://www.entertainmentearth.com/prodinfo.asp?number=MZ26000A

[ti_boi]

Dood. Has Bush done anything for the country? Besides taking frequent vacations.

[Grant McLean]

President Bush gets elected in 2000. He collaborates with his brother, the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush. It took them many years and lots of red tape, but on February 8th, 2005, Season One of 'Miami Vice' is released on enhanced DVD.


The soon to be proposed tax rebate is really designed
to economically stimulate the sales of the complete box set.
Coincidence that the packaging looks like a florida ballot box?
I think not...

-g

[Viper]

The soon to be proposed tax rebate is really designed
to economically stimulate the sales of the complete box set.
Coincidence that the packaging looks like a florida ballot box?
I think not...

-g

For you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUQLIrEe7Gc

(crank it up atmo). :) If every American buys the 'Definitive Boxset', while walking to and from the store (not driving) it will fire up the economy.

[ti_boi]

For you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUQLIrEe7Gc

(crank it up atmo). :)


The replica Ferrari and the car he is chasing...the 70's vette have the same drivetrain. http://www.vetteweb.com/features/vemp_0611_miami_vice_ferrari/index.html

[Viper]

The replica Ferrari and the car he is chasing...the 70's vette have the same drivetrain. http://www.vetteweb.com/features/vemp_0611_miami_vice_ferrari/index.html

That was a huge topic in 85', was the black car truly a Ferrari? It was an internet rumor before the internet was even around atmo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oyepfeT67Q



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajFAzn0GnYQ


.

[ti_boi]

That was a huge topic in 85', was the black car truly a Ferrari? It was an internet rumor before the internet was even around atmo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oyepfeT67Q



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajFAzn0GnYQ


.


This thread needs some Eagles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_5U-Mu0yqg

[avalonracing]

Now don't get distracted... I still want to hear from Viper what good Dubya has done?

Hey Viper, good job sneaking a Reagan reference in, I know you guys like to do this anytime that you can. I don't know why though. But don't you get distracted either name two things "W" has done that is good for the USA or for the world. No, selling the Saudi weapons does not count as good.

[LegendRider]

A good web argument can be incredibly educational.....I am still waiting to be enlightened on this topic though. It has yet to happen.

True, but with Norman throwing around ad hominem insults, the chance of an edifying discussion are nil.

[BdaGhisallo]

I predict that history will judge George W Bush far more favorably than he is being judged today. I think it will be similar to how Truman was treated. He was derided as a fool and a warmonger who was trumping up the threat posed by the Soviets after the end of WW2, by folks who were tired of war or wanted to bury their heads.

History has given him great credit for the Truman Doctrine, recognizing the threat, and for putting into place a strategy to counter it.

[Ray]

I predict that history will judge George W Bush far more favorably than he is being judged today. I think it will be similar to how Truman was treated. He was derided as a fool and a warmonger who was trumping up the threat posed by the Soviets after the end of WW2, by folks who were tired of war or wanted to bury their heads.

History has given him great credit for the Truman Doctrine, recognizing the threat, and for putting into place a strategy to counter it.
As much as it pains me, I have to be open to this possibility regarding foreign policy. I certainly like Reagan's foreign policy now more than I did at the time. But I think the key is not just recognizing the threat (pretty hard to miss) but putting an effective strategy in place to counter it. I cannot believe (at this point) that Bush's strategy will prove to have been effective. If we'd just gone into Afghanistan and really focussed on that job, we had the world behind us, including a good part of the Muslim world. But by going into Iraq, I think he completely blew it out of the water. In addition to now occupying a country that we have NO idea what to do with, to making the situation there no better (and arguably worse - which is a hell of a feat!) than before our invasion, and by horribly pissing off the ENTIRE Muslim world and much of the rest of it, I don't think he's done anything to reduce the quantity or intensity of Islamic terrorism. And likely made it much worse. At the very least, worse than it would have been if we'd have stuck to Afghanistan and the edge of Pakistan and then only gone into any other places where there was a demonstrable reason.

I actually hope to hell I'm wrong and he's proven right, but I'm not going to vote for anyone who still thinks the surge was a good idea (despite its limited military success) and recommends staying in Iraq for another 100 years based on all that I know today. McCain is the only of the current batch of Republicans I could have seen myself voting for, but with his approach to Iraq, I'll even hold my nose and vote for Hillary over him if he gets the nomination. Hoping for Barack, but I'm not optimistic.

Oh, and in terms of DOMESTIC policy, btw, I can't believe Bush will be seen by history as anything other than an unmitigated disaster. Reagan still looks pretty frickin' bad on domestic policy too, except for starting the discussion about welfare reform, which he deserves some credit for. But his environmental record, the record deficits, etc, there's just no upside to.

-Ray

[avalonracing]

by horribly pissing off the ENTIRE Muslim world and much of the rest of it, I don't think he's done anything to reduce the quantity or intensity of Islamic terrorism. And likely made it much worse.
-Ray

Too true.
Many people support their political party like it is a hometown sports team. They like them no matter what and for no real reason other than familiarity. But this is serious... Bush isn't a coach who blew the big game... He has screwed up the world. Permanently.
US credibility will not be recovered... Hundreds of thousand of Iraqis have lost their lives and their children will hate us forever. Thousands of Americans have lost their lives and many thousand more have lost limbs, thousands of Americans have lost careers (that will never) return to off-shoring that will continue the spiral to generations of poverty and crime. The rape of the environment will plague us indefinitely...
If history judges W as anything less than worst President ever it is because of the support of the simple-mind, un-enlightened and ill-informed people who still support him.

[BdaGhisallo]

I would agree with you on Bush's domestic achievements. They have been few and far between. History always seems to judge presidents primarily on their foreign policy successes or failures. This is due to the fact that this is the one area that they have almost sole control over. Getting things done domestically involves working closely with, and often being held hostage to, the whims of Congress, all of whom have their own ideas of what should be done, and have the power to stonewall a president that doesn't share their vision. Afterall, the Senate is made up of one hundred men and women who all see a future president when they look in the mirror each morning!!

And whatever you think of the Surge, it is a military success. A year ago, who could have imagined that Anbar Province would now be a mostly peaceful area about to be handed back to the Iraqis?

Did Roosevelt have any idea what would be done with Japan or Germany when he took the US into WW2? I don't imagine he even deigned to think that far ahead. Even after the war ended, the US and its allies had problems with the Werwolfs in Germany who refused to accept that it was over and harassed the occupying forces.

The US handed over sovereignty to Iraq fifteen months after the invasion. Yet in Japan, arguably a more advanced society governmentally at the time than Iraq was in 2004, did not regain its full sovereignty from the occupying US forces until 1952, and didn't hand back the island of Okinawa until 1972!

And, yes, the US will have forces in Iraq for a long time to come. Afterall, the US still has forces in Germany and Japan, and they have long since returned to peaceful times with little threat of conflict with their neighbours.

As for "losing" muslim support over Iraq, think about what that invasion and the subsequent nascent Iraqi democracy means to the other arab nations in the area. Suddenly their people can see a democratic alternative to the despotic regimes they currently suffer under. What would happen to those arab leaders if their people suddenly yearned for those same freedoms. Look at what they did to quash the Arab Spring in Lebanon back in '05.

And think about why Bush was so warmly received in many arab capitals on his recent trip through the Middle East. Could it be that the US is the only thing putting any kind of check on Iranian ambitions for regional hegemony? The arab rulers fear the shia Iranians and they want the US to help them. They may heap scorn on US foreign and military policy and bloviate but when push comes to shove, they know that the US will protect them and save their regimes.

And look what has happened in Europe of late. You have a new wave of elected leaders repudiating their predecessors anti-American stances and not only getting on board with Bush and the American policies, but actually pushing the rhetoric a little harder than the US even is regarding Iran.

So yes, Bush has not been all great in all areas, but he has recognised the threat and appreciates that war was declared on the US when the Iranians stormed the embassy back in 1979. This is not a struggle that will end when he leaves the White House exactly one year from now. This will go on for many years and will occupy the efforts of many presidents to come.

[JohnS]

If we'd just gone into Afghanistan and really focussed on that job, we had the world behind us, including a good part of the Muslim world. But by going into Iraq, I think he completely blew it out of the water. In addition to now occupying a country that we have NO idea what to do with, to making the situation there no better (and arguably worse - which is a hell of a feat!) than before our invasion, and by horribly pissing off the ENTIRE Muslim world and much of the rest of it, I don't think he's done anything to reduce the quantity or intensity of Islamic terrorism.

-Ray
Great analysis.

[Viper]

I predict that history will judge George W Bush far more favorably than he is being judged today. I think it will be similar to how Truman was treated. He was derided as a fool and a warmonger who was trumping up the threat posed by the Soviets after the end of WW2, by folks who were tired of war or wanted to bury their heads.

History has given him great credit for the Truman Doctrine, recognizing the threat, and for putting into place a strategy to counter it.

+1

[soulspinner]

Too true.
Many people support their political party like it is a hometown sports team. They like them no matter what and for no real reason other than familiarity. But this is serious... Bush isn't a coach who blew the big game... He has screwed up the world. Permanently.
US credibility will not be recovered... Hundreds of thousand of Iraqis have lost their lives and their children will hate us forever. Thousands of Americans have lost their lives and many thousand more have lost limbs, thousands of Americans have lost careers (that will never) return to off-shoring that will continue the spiral to generations of poverty and crime. The rape of the environment will plague us indefinitely...
If history judges W as anything less than worst President ever it is because of the support of the simple-mind, un-enlightened and ill-informed people who still support him.


Bam! Beautifully said and true as I see it... :p

[Ray]

And whatever you think of the Surge, it is a military success. A year ago, who could have imagined that Anbar Province would now be a mostly peaceful area about to be handed back to the Iraqis?

As for "losing" muslim support over Iraq, think about what that invasion and the subsequent nascent Iraqi democracy means to the other arab nations in the area. Suddenly their people can see a democratic alternative to the despotic regimes they currently suffer under. What would happen to those arab leaders if their people suddenly yearned for those same freedoms. Look at what they did to quash the Arab Spring in Lebanon back in '05.

I agree that the surge has been a military success. Gates and Petraus should have been running the show up front. But I still am not optimistic about the potential for political reconciliation among the factions in Iraq. Hey, I hope I'm wrong. If Iraq comes up roses and other Arab countries start to benefit from the example, I'll be among the first to reconsider my opinion of Bush, like I have of Reagan. But we're going to largely be out of there within the next couple of years no matter who gets elected - even McCain. And if all hell breaks loose after that happens, as I'm afraid it will, I hope you'll reconsider as well.

-Ray

[JohnS]

I'm not sure the Surge will be a success. I think the bad guys are just laying low until things get back to normal.
All those thugs kidnapping and killing people in "Iraqi Army and police unifroms" aren't using stolen uniforms. They are soldiers freelancing in their spare time.

[Ray]

I'm not sure the Surge will be a success. I think the bad guys are just laying low until things get back to normal.
All those thugs kidnapping and killing people in "Iraqi Army and police unifroms" aren't using stolen uniforms. They are soldiers freelancing in their spare time.
I remember reading accounts of the stuff Patreus's units were doing in terms of counter-insurgency EARLY in the war, when everything else was going to *****, and he was having some incredible sucesses, in the limited areas where he was in charge. He was taking an approach kind of like community policing, getting his guys to interact with the locals and earn their trust, and was doing well with it. So, while I agree that it's not likely to hold together after we pull out (for a number of reasons, including the bad guys laying low), it's the best approach we've tried. And if we hadn't pretty much let the entire country get trashed before we started, this wouldn't be near the disaster it is today.

I still think Iraq was a bad idea, even if we'd done it right. After all, we could have set the SAME effective example for the rest of the Arab world with the successful democratization of Afghanistan, which we were well on our way to when we diverted to Iraq. And not have earned the ire of everyone else in th meantime. But Iraq has a lot more oil than Afghanistan and if you don't think that was a big part of it, you're just not paying attention.

-Ray

[1centaur]

I still think Iraq was a bad idea, even if we'd done it right. After all, we could have set the SAME effective example for the rest of the Arab world with the successful democratization of Afghanistan, which we were well on our way to when we diverted to Iraq. And not have earned the ire of everyone else in th meantime. But Iraq has a lot more oil than Afghanistan and if you don't think that was a big part of it, you're just not paying attention.-Ray

The crux of the Iraq war question is whether Bush believed for reasonable reasons in the WMD story. The oil rationale for war makes no sense - the arithmetic is wrong. Oil is fungible, and would get fed into world supply one way or another, making prices whatever they were going to be even if Iraq were inclined not to provide oil to the US. On WMD, if Bush believed the intelligence and went to war and they actually had been on the verge of being able to supply WMD to terrorists then he would have been very right and Obama would have been very wrong. Turns out there were no WMD and so the fact that one can create a case that the intelligence case for WMD was suspect implies to those already inclined in that direction that Bush went to war for other reasons and lied to the American public. Of course, many of those critics said the same thing BEFORE the war started and with less insight into the reality than Bush had from the CIA. Preconceptions are preconceptions, and often have little to do with the truth. My best guess is that Bush was stirred up by the Cheney wing to be inclined to believe the intelligence and that some others would not have been (probably including me), but we must all ask ourselves if we were President and getting it wrong could have dire consequences for Americans at home, what would we have done with the same CIA reports on our desk?

The only way oil was a big part of the decision to go to war was that oil created such wealth in that country that state-sponsored weapons development was highly credible. No analysis of likely oil prices ex-Iraq's supply would have forecasted $100 oil when we went to war; we did not go there to "protect our access to oil" or to boost oil company profits. We may have gone there with a longer-term thought of stabilizing oil supplies from the Middle East in general, which would be a reasonable rationale given the alternative, though highly regrettable nonetheless.

[Ray]

My best guess is that Bush was stirred up by the Cheney wing to be inclined to believe the intelligence and that some others would not have been (probably including me), but we must all ask ourselves if we were President and getting it wrong could have dire consequences for Americans at home, what would we have done with the same CIA reports on our desk?

We may have gone there with a longer-term thought of stabilizing oil supplies from the Middle East in general, which would be a reasonable rationale given the alternative, though highly regrettable nonetheless.
I think these are the two key points. What Bush knew and when he knew it (or what he knows NOW) are open questions. But clearly Cheyney and his guys knew how limited the intel was and cooked the books to support what they wanted to do for whatever reason. I don't know what I'd have done if I was president, but I'd like to hope I'd ask a WHOLE LOT more tough questions that Bush is reported to have asked.

In terms of oil, I agree that world markets determine price and availability. But the idea of stabilizing oil supplies from the middle east had to be a big one. Our buddies in Saudi Arabia already didn't like Iraq and feared the Shiite control of Iran. I think our actions in Kuwait and Iraq were all about stabilizing the situation for the Saudis (along with selling them more weapons). But it backfired when it gave Iran even more leverage than they had already. Now the Saudis are even more nervous, oil supplies are less stable, the prices are higher than ever (due, at least partly, to our involvement).

The bottom line is there were and are no easy answers in that part of the world. It is a highly complicated set of issues that doesn't benefit from black and white thinking. And Bush sure appears to be a VERY black and white thinker. I think that's a big part of the problem and why I seriously doubt that history will vindicate him.

-Ray

[BdaGhisallo]

Bush isn't a coach who blew the big game... He has screwed up the world. Permanently.

Permanently? Whatever else, he must surely go down as the most powerful person in the history of the time if he can do that - all by himself.

How do beliefs like that square with the meme that Bush is an idiot who is too stupid to do anything without **** Cheney whispering in his ear?

How can someone who is apparently so stupid, manage to hoodwink and overpower the good intentions of the multitudes of folks around the world who are, I assume, trying to better the world? How has he been able to hoodwink and outmanouever his political opponents in Washington that are all so intellectually superior to him?

He's gotta be the saviest and most intelligent dumb*ss idiot I have ever heard of!!

[shoe]

for the first time in out history we may very well see a woman or a black man as president due to our current state of affairs..something i never would have imagined. i like the idea of change in this country..i feel we have gone into a dark turn for this country...things seem uncertain and shaken a bit...maybe it can be through this that better ideas can come forth. i am not terribly optimistic of the us political system but i'd like to hope we can turn the corner and head down a better road...i am usually embarrassed at my lack of knowledge of political events that take place in this country..i find it like staring into the sun...we cannot just believe the blips we hear given to us..it is a layered complex system..name calling each others candidates seems as if it accomplishes nothing really...except close mindedness....we do need to realize that it is a large system that is hard to have it work together..i'm not sure how .. i would like to see better leadership...i feel like their has been carelessness...the fact that we are at war and people are being killed is truly tragic. we have isolated ourselves when we had an opportunity to do this in a more global manner....how we can live in a time when killing one another is acceptable is baffling...some of my customers have been wounded veterans....these are young people protecting our country with their lives...none of us truly seem sure for what...killing has gone on since the dawn of time and i know that but we are just perpetuating disaster for ourselves by isolating ourselves in this situation...today i had the pleasure of spending a couple of hours in the woods riding my bike .alot of us are fortunate....but we need to be aware of our future....and that of our friends and family..and of our country.. i would truly like to be able to go overseas and not be embarressed by the actions of my country for once....i think i just needed to vent and ramble......dave

[MadRocketSci]

He's gotta be the saviest and most intelligent dumb*ss idiot I have ever heard of!!

to paraphrase obiwan kenobi:

"Who's dumber? The dumba$$ or the dumba$$ who votes for him?"