Taxes & Budget Thread:7-24-05 Idiot Democrat proposes 25% Internet Tax to protect Children from seeing Porn

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fornax

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
6,866
0
76
I wonder if this woman is something like Jumana Hanna, a prostitute, con artist and a role model for Paul Wolfowitz, the Washington Post and assorted senators.
 

HeaterCore

Senior member
Dec 22, 2004
442
0
0
I don't know a damn thing about this woman, and I'm suspicious of anything the Bushies do right off the bat, but I think there's a little qualitative difference between trying to overthrow Saddam and trying to overthrow, say, the Swedes. Is there a better/worse reason for being murdered by Saddam? Are the North Koreans justified in offing dissidents as they see fit?

-HC-
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
I like the arrogant wink and nod to some audience member (probably Ollie North or someone similar) and then straight into a silly subject, AIDS....The man simply has no class. The Republican slogan should be: "We're proud, we're Republicans, and we have no class"
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
The state of the union address is usually quite irrelevent. Clinton gave speeches and promised the kitchen sink, the brooklyn bridge, peace in the middle east and sainthood for bleeding heart liberals. None of this ever came to pass. So dont pay too much attention to the President's Speech. The best of good intentions are seldom put into place.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: arsbanned
I like the arrogant wink and nod to some audience member (probably Ollie North or someone similar) and then straight into a silly subject, AIDS....The man simply has no class. The Republican slogan should be: "We're proud, we're Republicans, and we have no class"
Kinda skinny/balding man? I believe that was Chertoff (new Homeland Security nominee...the one who suppressed evidence of abuse and torture against John Lindh)
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
State of Union address hits 5-year rating low
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117917377?categoryid=14&cs=1
TV viewers were not drawn to President Bush's speech on Wednesday as ratings for the State of the Union address were the lowest in five years.

President Bush's first State of the Union address of his second term attracted 40% of the available primetime audience Wednesday night, making it the least-watched such speech in five years.

According to Nielsen estimates, the seven English-language broadcast and cable nets airing the address live (9-10:03 p.m. ET) combined for 38.32 million viewers, while Spanish-language outlets Telemundo and TeleFutura attracted an additional 1.05 million.

The combined audience of 39.37 million viewers is down nearly 10% from last year's 43.41 million and off sharply from Bush's prior two State of the Union addresses -- 62.06 million in 2003 and 51.78 million in 2002. State of the Union crowd is the smallest since President Clinton's final address in 2000 (31.48 million).

As for the nine minutes of analysis on each of the nets (10:03-10:12 p.m.) prior to the Democratic response, NBC's Brian Williams-led coverage led the way with 8.4 million viewers, according to Nielsen. ABC and Peter Jennings placed second (7.23 million), followed by Fox's broadcast stations (6.37 million, boosted by a huge "American Idol" lead-in), Fox News Channel (6.35m) and the Dan Rather-led CBS coverage (5.7 million).

For its two hours of coverage, Fox News reported an audience of roughly 5 million viewers, crushing CNN (just over 1 million) and MSNBC (716,000). MSNBC edged CNN in adults 25-54 (330,000 to 312,000 viewers), while Fox beat both cablers with 1.6 million.

On the entertainment side Wednesday, "American Idol" dominated from 8 to 9 p.m. (10.9 rating/29 share in adults 18-49, 26.17 million viewers overall). Getting a boost from a lack of entertainment choices at 9 was the WBthe WB's rookie drama "Jack & Bobby" (1.4/3 in 18-49, 3.12m), which added 1.3 million viewers week to week.
Date in print: Fri., Feb. 4, 2005, Los Angeles
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: daveshel
I won't be watching. There will be no new information dispensed: I've heard it all too many times. I will be busy studying for my next MCP exam, in an attempt to keep my skill sets ahead of the things hiding around the next economic corner.

Hey, good luck with that :) The MCP's are easy, I'm sure you won't have any trouble. Now what's *pathetic* though, is A+...oh my god what a joke. Totally explains why people always complain about lousy computer service at places like Best Buy :)

Jason
 
Feb 3, 2001
5,156
0
0
Originally posted by: Crimson
The best part about the speech will be knowing that Kerry had his speech written, and all the LLL on this board all had his speech written in their heads before the election. They dreamed of this day, KNOWING it would come, that Kerry would get up there and FINALLY take power from that idiot Bush.. They would have bet their lives on it..

Oops.. the 'idiot' won...

4 more years.. 4 more years.. 4 more years..

THINK about that during the speech.. how someone so dumb just bitchslapped your candidate. Imagine is the Republicans put up a 'smart' candidate? You would have lost 75-25.

Sad, really. An opponent as pathetic as Bush and the Dems picked the WORST of their 4 possible candidates at the Primaries. Absolutely astonishing.

Jason
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91

Did Benedict Bush mention anything about the state of our economy? You would think a President who saw a net loss of jobs during his four years (while the population of working-aged people increased by, presumably, 6.5 million) and who barely acknowledged it and failed to do anything about it would automatically lose the election. (In the meantime, many of the "jobs" that were not lossed represented lost middle class jobs being replaced by low wage temp jobs. A "job" is not a "job", but the unemployment numbers don't reflect that.) I bet Bush said that, "The econom is good and getting goodah," and that unemployed Americans should retrain (for non-existent jobs), eat cake, and take Prozac.

That's our president--lots of excuses, massive job losses.

If anyone's interested in a "Fire George Bush" shirt or button, you can find them at my CafePress shops:

http://www.cafepress.com/firegeorgebush

I also have a print condemning Ohio for re-electing this bozo:

http://www.cafepress.com/ohioretards

(Believe it or not, I actually sold two of the Ohio shirts, probably to disgruntled Kerry voters.)
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Sad, really. An opponent as pathetic as Bush and the Dems picked the WORST of their 4 possible candidates at the Primaries. Absolutely astonishing.
Jason

I wonder if the Democrats wanted to lose. Really. It's not as though the employment market was going to improve under either candidate since neither would do anything to fix our economic problems (job losses caused by foreign outsourcing, the use of foreign work visas (H-1B, L-1) and a decreasing quality of life (higher welfare costs and higher costs for land and resources) caused by illegal immigration and legal mass immigration).

So, why not let the Republicans preside over the nation's dire economic straights and let the Republicans take the blame for all of it? George Bush's legacy will be that of one the nation's worst presidents--the president who presided over the start of the transformation of the United States from the world's wealthiest country with a thriving middle class to that of another worthless third world country.

Paul Craig Roberts has a great op-ed along these lines:

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/colossus.htm

It should be noted that the Democrats are very much at fault for our economic problems too. It's not as though they oppose illegal immigration, mass immigration, foreign work visas, and foreign outsourcing that much more than the Republicans. Perhaps America's middle class needs a new political party?
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
I disagree... I think the Dems picked their best candidate, but they're all terrible, and lost just like all of them would have (even Leiberman would have lost easily because if people were going to vote for him, they might as well keep Bush). The Dems are in the middle of nowhere without a map or a clue. After building huge hopes in the midterms, 2002, they crashed and burned and dropped a load in their pants in disbelief. 2004 rolls around and they lose even more... and going bonkers all the while. Look at them put Dean in charge, listen to "respected" people like Moyers, look at Kerry (is there something that says presidential losers must become unhinged and delirious as is the case with the past few?), watch the people on P&N... they're practically in a state of panic -no, hysteria- it's quite the fascinating meltdown. In their current state, I cannot see how they'll mount a reasonable comeback anytime soon.

Bush's speech was adequate. I support his SS plan- in general, what I know anyways. Of course when Clinton stood up in his SOTUS and called SS a broke system that needed fixing, Dems stood and applauded. There's just an emotional hatred for Bush by some, and it's all very French-like: arrogant brats angry they don't have the power. Some are angry at the Iraqi woman and dead soldier's parents inclusion, and will find any details they can to try and paint a negative picture. That is the essence of why they suck. They talk about "class"... I mean, ANYTHING is trumped up to fuel their hate. They bring in authentic emotion to show a personal connection with what's going on, and it's just ripped as is Bush's imperfect manner and speaking, although that's what some people actually like about him: he's a real human being with genuine emotions. If only he had the suave persona of Bill Clinton, who could bit his lower lip and spout tears on demand, because the Dems sure seem to love style over substance.

There's been 3 democratic elections in the middle east area, and we're continuing on the long, sometimes difficult road to overcoming some serious world problems. The Liberals will be dragged along kicking and screaming like children, but luckily there's strong people who can make the tough decisions for them. This is turning out to be a repeat of the latter half of the cold war where the Libs bitched, moaned, fought tooth and nail, screamed and cried about how bad the US was and excusing the actions and ideas of our enemies. Slammed in the face with reality, these people showed no shame or acknowledged their beliefs to be ridiculous... they simply lurked in the shadows waiting for the next big conflict to rise up again and play the fool once more. Today these same leftover "cold war" hucksters and the next generation of ignorant weaklings wail about virtually everything they can, but once again they will be proven fallacious and end up on the wrong side of history when America pulls this world through another dangerous time.

 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Did Benedict Bush mention anything about the state of our economy? You would think a President who saw a net loss of jobs during his four years (while the population of working-aged people increased by, presumably, 6.5 million) and who barely acknowledged it and failed to do anything about it would automatically lose the election. (In the meantime, many of the "jobs" that were not lossed represented lost middle class jobs being replaced by low wage temp jobs. A "job" is not a "job", but the unemployment numbers don't reflect that.) I bet Bush said that, "The econom is good and getting goodah," and that unemployed Americans should retrain (for non-existent jobs), eat cake, and take Prozac.

That's our president--lots of excuses, massive job losses.

If anyone's interested in a "Fire George Bush" shirt or button, you can find them at my CafePress shops:

http://www.cafepress.com/firegeorgebush

I also have a print condemning Ohio for re-electing this bozo:

http://www.cafepress.com/ohioretards

(Believe it or not, I actually sold two of the Ohio shirts, probably to disgruntled Kerry voters.)

Good post! Definately ignore the fact that Bush's first term was Clinton's economic plan and recession. Don't mention 9/11. And definately don't look at our unemployement rate and economic growth during that time, because comparing it to past performance or the performance of other industrialized countries during that time wouldn't make your point. Nope you're learning good... just twist whatever numbers are convenient and ride the wave!
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: cwjerome
I disagree... I think the Dems picked their best candidate, but they're all terrible, and lost just like all of them would have (even Leiberman would have lost easily because if people were going to vote for him, they might as well keep Bush). The Dems are in the middle of nowhere without a map or a clue.

I agree, especially with the "middle of nowhere without a map or a clue" part.

I actually like some of Bush's foreign policy, though I don't understand why he went after relatively secular Iraq and not the religious nations Iran and Syria, which have a track record for sponsoring terror. It might be because of his own belief in religious mythology. ("How could fellow god-fearing religious mystics support something as bad as terrorism? I don't see how Muslims could ever support terrorism").

My beef with Bush is in the area of economics. I don't blame him for all of our problems and he certainly isn't the cause of all it. The Democrats deserve a huge amount of blame, too, but we should be able to expect far more from our President than his just blaming the other guy, ignoring the existence of the nation's economic problems, and doing nothing. Under his neglectful lack of leadership, this nation is on its way towards becoming a third world country. A small percentage of the populace will be wealthy, owning almost all of the capital and means of production, and the vast bulk of the populace will be poor, its employment market having been merged into impoverished third world employment markets abroad. If Bush really supports capitalism, then why is he allowing our economy to be merged with socialist and communist economies abroad? It doesn't make any sense.



 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: cwjeromeGood post! Definately ignore the fact that Bush's first term was Clinton's economic plan and recession. Don't mention 9/11. And definately don't look at our unemployement rate and economic growth during that time, because comparing it to past performance or the performance of other industrialized countries during that time wouldn't make your point. Nope you're learning good... just twist whatever numbers are convenient and ride the wave!

Regarding 9/11, it hurt our economy, but it wasn't the key factor.

As far as our unemployment rate goes, the unemployment rate is not an indicator of job quality and thus does not really provide much information about the job market. In other words, a "job" is not a "job". There is a huge difference between a solid middle class job that requires a college education and a part time poverty wage job. It's possible that the nation may have lost solid middle class jobs and replaced them with lower wage part-time jobs. Also, the unemployment rate does not count people who are unemployed but no longer looking for work (as far as the government's statisticians are concerned) nor does it count people who retired early and involuntarily.

In other words, there is a huge difference between 4% unemployment with 5% underemployment and 4% unemployment with 25% underemployment.

Under George Bush, the nation suffered a net loss of jobs, saw middle class jobs replaced by low wage and part-time jobs (which don't count as losses in the unemployment numbers), and in the meantime, presumably the nation's population of working-aged people increased by 6.5 million people. [In the decade of the 1990's the US suffered the largest population increase in American history, increasing a third world rate of 32.7 million people over the ten years of the 1990's. Assuming a similar rate of population growth during Bush's four years, and assuming that half of the growth represented a net increase in the working age population, you get 32.7 million / divided by 10 years x multiplied by 4 years / divided by 2 = about 6.5 million]

So, while the nation was losing jobs during Bush's presidency, the nation needed to gain 6.5 million new jobs, many of them solid middle class jobs, merely to keep pace with population growth.

So what does Bush do? He offers the upper middle class and the wealthy--groups of people who did not suffer during the recession yet profitted from lower costs for goods and services (provided by illegal immigration, foreign work visas, and foreign outsourcing) at the expense of other Americans who lost jobs--tax cuts! In reality, there were NO tax cuts because the tax cuts resulted in an increase of the national debt which means we'll have to pay taxes tomorrow for "tax cuts" today.

I agree with you that the Democrats are also heavily responsible for our nation's current predicament. I oppose both parties and hope for the creation of an effective moderate capitalist-nationalist third party founded on the principle of pursuing Americans' rational selfish interests. However, that is not going to happen. Instead we will continue on our path towards becoming a third world country. We'll allow our nation's population to continue to balloon via mass immigration and illegal immigration, which strains the nation's environment and increases the costs for natural resources and land (which decreases quality of life and raises prices), and we'll continue to merge our labor market with the billions of impoverished people in the third world, decreasing the percentage of the value added during the act of production that American laborers get to keep as income (lowering wages faster than any price decreases).

But that's what happens when a nation's populace becomes dumbed down and loses the ability to use reason and logic and to engage in independent thought. You cannot maintain a first world standard of living without the use of the mind. If immigration and foreign outsourcing were not going to do us in, the American people would find something else--religious theocracy or socialism--whatever--to ruin the economy. In the present case, Americans have decided to merge themselves with the third world, and that will come with an averaging out of standards of living, mostly a decrease.

<Sigh.> What happened to the America I grew up in where economic opportunity abounded and we could expect increasing quality of life?



 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Instead we will continue on our path towards becoming a third world country.

We'll allow our nation's population to continue to balloon via mass immigration and illegal immigration, which strains the nation's environment and increases the costs for natural resources and land (which decreases quality of life and raises prices), and we'll continue to merge our labor market with the billions of impoverished people in the third world, decreasing the percentage of the value added during the act of production that American laborers get to keep as income (lowering wages faster than any price decreases).

But that's what happens when a nation's populace becomes dumbed down and loses the ability to use reason and logic and to engage in independent thought. You cannot maintain a first world standard of living without the use of the mind.

If immigration and foreign outsourcing were not going to do us in, the American people would find something else--religious theocracy or socialism--whatever--to ruin the economy. In the present case, Americans have decided to merge themselves with the third world, and that will come with an averaging out of standards of living, mostly a decrease.

<Sigh.> What happened to the America I grew up in where economic opportunity abounded and we could expect increasing quality of life?

I thought I was the only Kooky Loon in here. Welcome to the club.
 

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,982
10
81
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: Crimson
The best part about the speech will be knowing that Kerry had his speech written, and all the LLL on this board all had his speech written in their heads before the election. They dreamed of this day, KNOWING it would come, that Kerry would get up there and FINALLY take power from that idiot Bush.. They would have bet their lives on it..

Oops.. the 'idiot' won...

4 more years.. 4 more years.. 4 more years..

THINK about that during the speech.. how someone so dumb just bitchslapped your candidate. Imagine is the Republicans put up a 'smart' candidate? You would have lost 75-25.


Isn't Republican and smart a oxymoron ?
That's genius! :disgust:
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Did Benedict Bush mention anything about the state of our economy? You would think a President who saw a net loss of jobs during his four years (while the population of working-aged people increased by, presumably, 6.5 million) and who barely acknowledged it and failed to do anything about it would automatically lose the election. (In the meantime, many of the "jobs" that were not lossed represented lost middle class jobs being replaced by low wage temp jobs. A "job" is not a "job", but the unemployment numbers don't reflect that.) I bet Bush said that, "The econom is good and getting goodah," and that unemployed Americans should retrain (for non-existent jobs), eat cake, and take Prozac.

That's our president--lots of excuses, massive job losses.

If anyone's interested in a "Fire George Bush" shirt or button, you can find them at my CafePress shops:

http://www.cafepress.com/firegeorgebush

I also have a print condemning Ohio for re-electing this bozo:

http://www.cafepress.com/ohioretards

(Believe it or not, I actually sold two of the Ohio shirts, probably to disgruntled Kerry voters.)
I'm waiting for the: Bush, the Propaganda President shirts :)
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Good read on the Iraqi woman, conjur. I'm waiting for the media to pick up on it. Whether they do or not, it's just another example of 'misleading'.
 

judasmachine

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2002
8,515
3
81
god is going to kill us all. us that don't believe are going to hell for being non believers, and the believers are going for hubris.

EDIT: Wrong thread, please disregard.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Infohawk
How about we unsticky this mofo?

Should leave it as Official Bash Bush thread for the next 4 years.

Only fair wih Rush, Hannity and the P&N Radical Right mashing the noses in of the Left Losers every chance they get and then some.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
2-12-2005 Bush Lays Out Details on Spending Cuts on Friday So Cuts Would Get Least Amount of Press Coverage

The document was released late Friday, a time that administrations of both parties have picked for years to deliver unpopular news, because of Saturday's newspapers and news broadcasts have the week's smallest audiences.

Eliminate Amtrak

Consolidating job-training programs

Reductions include cuts totaling $2.5 billion from agriculture

$690 million from health and $470 million from housing.

End the Small Business Administration's $15 million micro-loan program because it costs taxpayers yearly $1 for each $1 lent.

Eliminate $496 million in educational technology state grants to free more money for higher priority programs that focus on student achievement and show clearer results.

Cut half of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership

Cut one-third of the Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education Payment Program

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
GOP wary of adding to rising U.S. debt
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/spend14e_20050214.htm
WASHINGTON -- Stung by sticker shock, congressional Republicans are struggling to embrace President George W. Bush's ambitious and expensive agenda while avoiding the economic and political pitfalls of massive new debt.

The numbers speak for themselves: Ten-year cost projections are $2.2 trillion to overhaul Social Security, $724 billion for the Medicare drug benefit, $1.1 trillion to make tax cuts permanent, and untold billions to secure Iraq and Afghanistan beyond this year.

Republicans, who control both houses of Congress, are responding with a slew of suggestions, from raising taxes and delaying some of the president's proposals to cutting spending more deeply.

In the Senate, Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is proposing an increase in the $90,000 salary cap that is subject to payroll taxes in order to pay for new personal investment accounts as part of a Social Security overhaul. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, wants to delay any move to make Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax reductions permanent.

With their aversion to raising taxes, reluctance to cut popular programs and desire to meet Bush's goals, Republicans may end up unable to contain costs. Even if they trim spending on 150 programs as Bush has proposed, the resulting $20-billion savings would be dwarfed by his big-ticket items.

The deficit -- which the White House projects at $390 billion in fiscal year 2006 -- is making some Republicans think twice about Bush's attempt to overhaul Social Security. The president's plan to allow workers born since 1950 to place some of their payroll taxes in private investment accounts would cost taxpayers about $2.2 trillion in its first 10 years of full operation, according to Social Security's trustees.

Bush's budget doesn't account for the costs of the war in Iraq beyond 2005. It also doesn't factor in any correction to the alternative minimum tax, a provision of the tax code that, left unchanged, will force up to 30 million taxpayers to pay higher taxes by 2010.

Some fear that the long-term financial consequences of future liabilities could damage the political health of the Republican Party.

"Here's the danger for the party: The $43-trillion unfunded liability is going to show up here soon," Graham said. "The party who'll suffer the most ... would be us," because Republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility, he said.

Graham has proposed covering the costs of overhauling Social Security by raising the cap on payroll taxes while lowering the current 12.4-percent wage-tax rate -- which is split between employers and workers -- on income below $90,000.

Voinovich, a deficit hawk, is ready to oppose any effort to make the tax reductions permanent.

Looking for areas to cut spending will preoccupy Congress for the next few months.

"We're going to have to figure out a way to live within the numbers," said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
Ah, so, those 150 program cuts amount to a mere $20 billion. It's much better we appropriate $86 billion in additional funds for Bush's 21st century experiment in capitalistic colonialism.