Bush thread:9-5-07 President Bush notified of nuclear mistake, 6 armed nuclear missles flown over U.S. by mistake

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Him and his minions have been spending like drunken sailors the last 6 years and now he asks the new kids on the block to quit it?

Fvk him and the horse he rode in on.

1-3-07 Bush urges Congress to sharply cut pork spending

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday he'll submit a five-year budget proposal that will balance the federal budget by 2012 and called on Congress to sharply cut back on costly pet projects hidden in spending bills.

"It's time to set aside politics and focus on the future," Bush said in the Rose Garden after a meeting with his Cabinet

"Congress has changed," Bush said. "Our obligations to the country haven't changed."
So you complain about the old guard but it is Ok for the new guard to perform the same way?

Is it wrong for the Republicans to salt the budget with pork but OK for the Dems.

Wrong is wrong. Excusing wrong because of color is just as bad.


Yeah, it's wrong. Yet, Bush saying this is like the wolf telling the hens not to eat meat.

See, the big thing now is that they know they have f'd up badly, so they are looking to point the finger at the Dems in any way possible.

For a guy to increase our national debt 50% in 6 years after being handed a balanced budget and then to lecture somebody else on fiscal responsability is beyond stupid.
Yes it is stupid. However, should because of the Bsuh track record Congress continue to follow the same path; or should they take some leadership back and start doing what is good for the country?

If the Dems want to show that they are different, then do what should be done; not do the opposite of what Bush is asking.

 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Him and his minions have been spending like drunken sailors the last 6 years and now he asks the new kids on the block to quit it?

Fvk him and the horse he rode in on.

1-3-07 Bush urges Congress to sharply cut pork spending

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Wednesday he'll submit a five-year budget proposal that will balance the federal budget by 2012 and called on Congress to sharply cut back on costly pet projects hidden in spending bills.

"It's time to set aside politics and focus on the future," Bush said in the Rose Garden after a meeting with his Cabinet

"Congress has changed," Bush said. "Our obligations to the country haven't changed."
So you complain about the old guard but it is Ok for the new guard to perform the same way?

Is it wrong for the Republicans to salt the budget with pork but OK for the Dems.

Wrong is wrong. Excusing wrong because of color is just as bad.

:music: violin :music: :laugh:

Let's just hope they know a little more about economics than Dave... otherwise we're f*cked.

Oh really, do you have a Yacht?

So what is it Dave? You're just a poor working-schmuck who's being abused by the rich Republicans? Or are you a rich oil-loving corporate baron?

Different story for every day I guess, Dave :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0

So Bush/the GOP are saying to the Dem's, "Don't do what we did, do what's right"???

Then one can only come to the conclusion that they knew what they was doing was wrong all along, but that they just didn't care. The GOP hypocrisy knows no bounds.

It all depends on whose bull is being gored, doesn't it. All of a sudden the GOP has went from telling us that deficeits don't matter to telling the Dem's to be fiscally responsible. LMAO!
 

crownjules

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2005
4,858
0
76
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Oh really, do you have a Yacht?

MAKE SOME SENSE FOR ONCE, PUH-LEASSSSEEEE!

I know I'm asking too much. This just makes no sense whatsoever. Next time I'm asked on a test to explain economic principles, I'm going to reply that I own a BMW. According to Dave, that is a valid answer that asserts my superior mastery of the subject.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: jrenz
So what is it Dave? You're just a poor working-schmuck who's being abused by the rich Republicans? Or are you a rich oil-loving corporate baron?

Different story for every day I guess, Dave :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You didn't answer the question.

Also ask anyone here, they will tell you I am converting the engines. I have one engine torn down now (starboard) in process of modernizing it.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Heh. Charrison at his disingenuous best. Those at the top do pay a higher percentage of federal income taxes than in the past. That is, however, at a much lower rate on much larger incomes while getting a bigger % of total income...

Exquisitely deceptive, particularly considering that the total tax rate for all taxpayers in the top 40% is near equal-

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/american_income_taxation.htm

Yeh, like Steven Colbert says, facts have a Liberal Bias...
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: jrenz
So what is it Dave? You're just a poor working-schmuck who's being abused by the rich Republicans? Or are you a rich oil-loving corporate baron?

Different story for every day I guess, Dave :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You didn't answer the question.

Also ask anyone here, they will tell you I am converting the engines. I have one engine torn down now (starboard) in process of modernizing it.

What does that do with you owning it? Your response implied that you're financially successful, yet in every other post you claim that you're a nomad joe-schmuck who's been repressed by the evil corporate republicans and you won't have any money to retire on.

I suppose hypocrites aren't very good at keeping their lies straight, at times ;)
 

jrenz

Banned
Jan 11, 2006
1,788
0
0
Those at the top do pay a higher percentage of federal income taxes than in the past. That is, however, at a much lower rate on much larger incomes while getting a bigger % of total income...

So what you're saying is that we should punish the rich, right? For having all that money?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: jrenz
So what is it Dave? You're just a poor working-schmuck who's being abused by the rich Republicans? Or are you a rich oil-loving corporate baron?

Different story for every day I guess, Dave :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You didn't answer the question.

Also ask anyone here, they will tell you I am converting the engines. I have one engine torn down now (starboard) in process of modernizing it.

What does that do with you owning it? Your response implied that you're financially successful, yet in every other post you claim that you're a nomad joe-schmuck who's been repressed by the evil corporate republicans and you won't have any money to retire on.

I suppose hypocrites aren't very good at keeping their lies straight, at times ;)

I'm working on owning it.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
He was calling for Congress to give him a line-item veto during his 'bi-partisanship' speech today.

Good luck with that one, chief. :roll:
 

Uhtrinity

Platinum Member
Dec 21, 2003
2,259
202
106
When Clinton was president the Supreme Court ruled it Unconstitutional, and if he really wanted it why didn't he just have his Republican Congress pass it when he had the chance?. Now as far as Bush asking Congress to cut Pork, he is very hypocritical doing this. However I feel Congress should do something to limit Pork, but not because Bush asked for it
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. Charrison at his disingenuous best. Those at the top do pay a higher percentage of federal income taxes than in the past. That is, however, at a much lower rate on much larger incomes while getting a bigger % of total income...

Exquisitely deceptive, particularly considering that the total tax rate for all taxpayers in the top 40% is near equal-

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/american_income_taxation.htm

Yeh, like Steven Colbert says, facts have a Liberal Bias...

So you prefer tax rates that stifle investment so you can soak the rich. However if is easy to show that lower taxes allows the goverment to more taxes out of the rich because money moves in the economy rather than looking for tax shelters.

I am sorry you cant handle this economic truth.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: jrenz
Those at the top do pay a higher percentage of federal income taxes than in the past. That is, however, at a much lower rate on much larger incomes while getting a bigger % of total income...

So what you're saying is that we should punish the rich, right? For having all that money?

That sums it up. Taken to the extreme, Sweden is a good example, the investor class just left. This economy did not recover until tax rates were substantially lowered. The rich left in order to not get soaked and conman man was the one that got hurt.

This is something that many people dont get, the weathy are voluntary tax payers. They have the means and ability to skirt any tax law to avoid being soaked, even it means leaving a country to avoid it tax laws. Make tax laws that attract the wealthy and money will come from all over the world. Recently the US changed its tax laws to allow US companies to repatriate money earned in foreign countries at 10% rather than the typical 30% plus. This substantially increased the amount of tax multinational paid. People like jhnn would have rather kept it high and collected only a small fraction of what came in at 10%.


Like many things, careful for what you wish for as you just might get it.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: jrenz
Those at the top do pay a higher percentage of federal income taxes than in the past. That is, however, at a much lower rate on much larger incomes while getting a bigger % of total income...

So what you're saying is that we should punish the rich, right? For having all that money?

That sums it up. Taken to the extreme, Sweden is a good example, the investor class just left. This economy did not recover until tax rates were substantially lowered. The rich left in order to not get soaked and conman man was the one that got hurt.

This is something that many people dont get, the weathy are voluntary tax payers. They have the means and ability to skirt any tax law to avoid being soaked, even it means leaving a country to avoid it tax laws. Make tax laws that attract the wealthy and money will come from all over the world. Recently the US changed its tax laws to allow US companies to repatriate money earned in foreign countries at 10% rather than the typical 30% plus. This substantially increased the amount of tax multinational paid. People like jhnn would have rather kept it high and collected only a small fraction of what came in at 10%.


Like many things, careful for what you wish for as you just might get it.

The wealthy are voluntary taxpayers???? LMAO, that's a load of crap and everyone knows it.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
1-23-2007 CBS Poll Puts Bush Approval Rating at 28% -- ABC Poll Finds Him Most Unpopular President Since Nixon

A new ABC/Washington Post poll finds President Bush with the highest disapproval rating among the public since Richard Nixon on the eve of leaving office in 1974.
=================================================

Pretty much sums it up, only the diehard BushCo fans of P&N are holding the current President up.

Without P&N he'd have a zero rating.

Hell without P&N you'd have nowhere to post your inane bullsh!t.

 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Thankfully there is a sane Congress in charge that won't let him. GOP would have rubber stamped morgaging this country to the hilt.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
From Charrison--

So you prefer tax rates that stifle investment so you can soak the rich. However if is easy to show that lower taxes allows the goverment to more taxes out of the rich because money moves in the economy rather than looking for tax shelters.

and from jrenz-

So what you're saying is that we should punish the rich, right? For having all that money?

No, and No. What I am saying is that the US currently has an extremely low tax rate on the largest incomes, well beyond the point of diminished returns. We can safely and easily raise rates on the very highest incomes w/o negative repercussions, to rates competitive with other first world nations.

The whole supply-side trickle-down deception is based on deficits and false attribution of cause and effect. Lower tax rates for the wealthy don't change the total amount of money in circulation, they merely redirect it into the segment of the population where the velocity of money is the slowest, actually reducing total cash flow... It takes massive deficits to counter that effect, and to provide the proper illusion of prosperity.

The effects of such policy in a balanced budget scenario would be disastrous, given the enormous cuts in govt spending required to achieve that balance while maintaining very low taxes for those at the top. Just the way it is- when you want money, you can only get it from those who have it. And you can take it as taxes, or borrow it, with the latter only being a temporary solution, actually exacerbating the problem...

And the effects of extreme concentration of wealth into the hands of a very few warp our political process in ways that are truly nefarious. They can buy and sell "conservative" politicians with ease, simply because the price, to them, is really very low, and can afford to finance uber-right thinktanks to formulate and disseminate their message- that it's only "fair" to let them take it all, turn the US into just another third world economy... complete with unlimited inheritance of unearned wealth-

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2182

Their efforts wrt income taxes have been very much the same, only more successful...

 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
There is so much left out about this article Im not even gonna post it. Lets just say another "dave" thread...
 

catnap1972

Platinum Member
Aug 10, 2000
2,607
0
76
Originally posted by: senseamp
Thankfully there is a sane Congress in charge that won't let him. GOP would have rubber stamped morgaging this country to the hilt.

Oh they'll still try for it...their attempt to Grover Norquist the country is far from finished.
 

TheRyuu

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2005
5,479
14
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
2-5-2007 Bush proposes litany of 1.9 Triilion in tax cuts

President Bush asked Congress on Monday to slash taxes by $1.9 trillion

I hope the new Congress doesn't go through with that one :p

Last thing we need to do now is cut taxes (as much as I hate to say it).
We should try and level off the taxes (no increase/decrease) and try and DECREASE our spending (in any way possible).

This does not include passing a $2.9 Trillion Budget...

I don't care how it's only up 4.4% (or w/e it is).

Why not take the $700 billion (or w/e it is) for the Iraq war and put it toward something more useful.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Bush Fear and Terrer Speech #211407

Terrer Terrer Terrer

We know Iranians are there and we will deal with them.

We have a comprehensive plan to deal with Iran.

Nooklea Nooklea Nooklea

Chapter 7 UN Resolution Chapter 7 UN Resolution Chapter 7 UN Resolution

Message to Iranians - Your leaders are Terrer Terrer Terrer

Bush Policy - Iranians must get my message