Who is Smarter? - Bush Administration vs. Hollywood group
Thread Starter
Moderator
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 21,573
Likes: 0
Originally posted by Odysseus
The Bush administration is much smarter. That is how they are able to minipulate, decieve, and lie to the American public and convince you and other closed minded conservatives not to question what you are told. They know how to advance their own interests and get you to sacrifice your own in the process. It's ingenious.
The Bush administration is much smarter. That is how they are able to minipulate, decieve, and lie to the American public and convince you and other closed minded conservatives not to question what you are told. They know how to advance their own interests and get you to sacrifice your own in the process. It's ingenious.
I need sleep...
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally posted by Odysseus
The Bush administration is much smarter. That is how they are able to minipulate, decieve, and lie to the American public and convince you and other closed minded conservatives not to question what you are told. They know how to advance their own interests and get you to sacrifice your own in the process. It's ingenious.
The Bush administration is much smarter. That is how they are able to minipulate, decieve, and lie to the American public and convince you and other closed minded conservatives not to question what you are told. They know how to advance their own interests and get you to sacrifice your own in the process. It's ingenious.
I need sleep...
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally posted by Odysseus
I don't think anybody on this board makes enough money to benifit from republican politics.
I don't think anybody on this board makes enough money to benifit from republican politics.
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
From: Newville PA
Originally posted by DVPGSR
If you hold a job and want to make more money you benefit from Republican politics. And if you are a person that ever plans on inheriting something from a person that dies, or plan on getting married you too will benefit from Republican politics.
If you hold a job and want to make more money you benefit from Republican politics. And if you are a person that ever plans on inheriting something from a person that dies, or plan on getting married you too will benefit from Republican politics.
Supply side economics only benifits the insanely wealthy. Even Bush 41 called it "Voodoo Economics" How big was your tax cut?
With republican politics, you will be lucky to even find a job. Regan's, Bush41's and Dubbya's economic policies have all led to high unemployment rates. That means that more people compete for the same jobs. This forces wages down. Why should a company pay 50k a year when they know there are people out there willing to do the job for 30k.
Education funding is always lower under republican leadership. Less education usually means lower pay.
Remember, the definition of conservative is: The political position that advocates for the preservation of established beliefs practices and institutions.
High unemployment and less accessable education are republican stratagies to preserve. In this case, the established socioeconomic power structure.
As for inheitance. The change in the tax only allows the extremely wealthy to pass down hundreds of of millions of dollars without paying tax. This is unlikely to affect you in any way. It is only another method of preserving the socioeconomic power structure.
Lastly, I am married. I just filed my taxes. The standard deduction for a married couple filing jointly is $7850, still less than the standard deduction for a single unmarried person $4700, which would be$9400 if we were not married and just living together
The marrage penalty has not changed.
They Lie. Not about getting a hummer in the oval office, but about things that affect the lives of others.
I need sleep...
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally posted by Odysseus
Not true.
Supply side economics only benifits the insanely wealthy. Even Bush 41 called it "Voodoo Economics" How big was your tax cut?
With republican politics, you will be lucky to even find a job. Regan's, Bush41's and Dubbya's economic policies have all led to high unemployment rates. That means that more people compete for the same jobs. This forces wages down. Why should a company pay 50k a year when they know there are people out there willing to do the job for 30k.
Education funding is always lower under republican leadership. Less education usually means lower pay.
Remember, the definition of conservative is: The political position that advocates for the preservation of established beliefs practices and institutions.
High unemployment and less accessable education are republican stratagies to preserve. In this case, the established socioeconomic power structure.
As for inheitance. The change in the tax only allows the extremely wealthy to pass down hundreds of of millions of dollars without paying tax. This is unlikely to affect you in any way. It is only another method of preserving the socioeconomic power structure.
Lastly, I am married. I just filed my taxes. The standard deduction for a married couple filing jointly is $7850, still less than the standard deduction for a single unmarried person $4700, which would be$9400 if we were not married and just living together
The marrage penalty has not changed.
They Lie. Not about getting a hummer in the oval office, but about things that affect the lives of others.
Not true.
Supply side economics only benifits the insanely wealthy. Even Bush 41 called it "Voodoo Economics" How big was your tax cut?
With republican politics, you will be lucky to even find a job. Regan's, Bush41's and Dubbya's economic policies have all led to high unemployment rates. That means that more people compete for the same jobs. This forces wages down. Why should a company pay 50k a year when they know there are people out there willing to do the job for 30k.
Education funding is always lower under republican leadership. Less education usually means lower pay.
Remember, the definition of conservative is: The political position that advocates for the preservation of established beliefs practices and institutions.
High unemployment and less accessable education are republican stratagies to preserve. In this case, the established socioeconomic power structure.
As for inheitance. The change in the tax only allows the extremely wealthy to pass down hundreds of of millions of dollars without paying tax. This is unlikely to affect you in any way. It is only another method of preserving the socioeconomic power structure.
Lastly, I am married. I just filed my taxes. The standard deduction for a married couple filing jointly is $7850, still less than the standard deduction for a single unmarried person $4700, which would be$9400 if we were not married and just living together
The marrage penalty has not changed.
They Lie. Not about getting a hummer in the oval office, but about things that affect the lives of others.
As for current unamployment rates you cannot contribute that to Bush 43...I work in the computer field, I do what most dot-coms did. You know the companies that fell under leaving millions of computer techies unemployed. Many of my friends lost jobs, took cuts in pay, lost benefits from working in those companies. Something that was already on the downturn when Bush 43 was elected. And Bush has done everything possible to get more jobs created...eventhough liberals love to criticize his every move to do so. By eliminating the tax on dividends it allows for investors to invest in more companies by buying stock, which then in turn allows the companies to improve their products, grow, upgrade infrastructure, which in turn leads to the creation of jobs.
As for the death penalty that Bush wants to do away with it is not just the uber-wealthy that benefit. For example if your parents had accumulated $1million after-tax dollars over the course of their lifetime and left it all to you...when they die you would get about $500,000. Doesn't seem fair that money that has already been taxed once gets taxed again just because you die. And this is not only cash...many small family businesses are affected in the same way and when the tax burden is placed on a business, and not cash, the heirs cannot pay and have to sell the business just to pay the tax because their parents died. Right...real fair because we know it is only the extremely wealthy that own small family businesses.
And as for the marriage penalty Bush also advocates doing away with that. Wouldn't you like that $9800 standard deduction?
I think Bush's policies are pretty much straight forward and unlike most recent Presidents, is upfront and hones with the American people. And liberals hate him for that because the American people love it!
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
From: Newville PA
WHERE ARE THE RESULTS? He is trying and trying, but things get worse and worse. Like father like son. The same policies that did nothing for the average American in the 1980's are doing nothing again today.
"By eliminating the tax on dividends it allows for investors to invest in more companies by buying stock, which then in turn allows the companies to improve their products, grow, upgrade infrastructure, which in turn leads to the creation of jobs."
What? The bottom line is THEY MUST SELL MORE PRODUCT TO TURN HIGHER PROFIT. If they do not, earnings expectations will not be there and stock values will decline. CONSUMPTION DRIVES THE ECONOMY, not supply and infrastructure. You need more people cabable of consuming more goods and services. Yes, investment leads to equipment emprovement and more technology, but that ususlly means less human employees. Yes, investment will lead to greater marketing efforts. But, they are still competing for the same disposable income.
Tax cuts need to be given to the people who will spend it. This will cause companys to need to produce more goods to keep up with demand, which will require more employees. This needs to be done slowly in order to avoid inflation, but this is how jobs get created. Then when you have more jobs available than people to fill them, it is companies that compete for good employees. Not employees competing for jobs. It is this that rases wages, which pumps more money in to the economy, requiring more goods and services, then more production, then more jobs, then more employees, then higher wages....
Money spirals up. It does not trickle down. Every dollar you spend, a portion of that ends up going to the stock holders, if the company is profitable. Supply side, trickle down economics is a scam. It has not worked in the past, and it is not working now
Again, where are the results? I guess when Bush gets voted out next year, and someone else comes in and turns this mess around, that is when we will see the results. Then you will be crediting Bush.
Just once I would like to see a republican take responsability for his choices and actions. When ever something goes wrong, it's someone eleses fault. "the war is going as expected but any problems are due to Iraqies not fighting fair" " the economic problems are because of 9-11, because of bill clinton" They are always right never wrong, so selfrightous. Not even capable of making a mistake, a bad call. However, when something good happens, they are always the first to leap up and take credit. But now isn't that what our society has become? People scapegoating others for their own mistakes and taking creadit for the hard work of others. We have the republican role model to thank for that.
"By eliminating the tax on dividends it allows for investors to invest in more companies by buying stock, which then in turn allows the companies to improve their products, grow, upgrade infrastructure, which in turn leads to the creation of jobs."
What? The bottom line is THEY MUST SELL MORE PRODUCT TO TURN HIGHER PROFIT. If they do not, earnings expectations will not be there and stock values will decline. CONSUMPTION DRIVES THE ECONOMY, not supply and infrastructure. You need more people cabable of consuming more goods and services. Yes, investment leads to equipment emprovement and more technology, but that ususlly means less human employees. Yes, investment will lead to greater marketing efforts. But, they are still competing for the same disposable income.
Tax cuts need to be given to the people who will spend it. This will cause companys to need to produce more goods to keep up with demand, which will require more employees. This needs to be done slowly in order to avoid inflation, but this is how jobs get created. Then when you have more jobs available than people to fill them, it is companies that compete for good employees. Not employees competing for jobs. It is this that rases wages, which pumps more money in to the economy, requiring more goods and services, then more production, then more jobs, then more employees, then higher wages....
Money spirals up. It does not trickle down. Every dollar you spend, a portion of that ends up going to the stock holders, if the company is profitable. Supply side, trickle down economics is a scam. It has not worked in the past, and it is not working now
Again, where are the results? I guess when Bush gets voted out next year, and someone else comes in and turns this mess around, that is when we will see the results. Then you will be crediting Bush.
Just once I would like to see a republican take responsability for his choices and actions. When ever something goes wrong, it's someone eleses fault. "the war is going as expected but any problems are due to Iraqies not fighting fair" " the economic problems are because of 9-11, because of bill clinton" They are always right never wrong, so selfrightous. Not even capable of making a mistake, a bad call. However, when something good happens, they are always the first to leap up and take credit. But now isn't that what our society has become? People scapegoating others for their own mistakes and taking creadit for the hard work of others. We have the republican role model to thank for that.
Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
From: Toledo, OH
Originally posted by Odysseus
Just once I would like to see a republican take responsability for his choices and actions. When ever something goes wrong, it's someone eleses fault. "the war is going as expected but any problems are due to Iraqies not fighting fair" " the economic problems are because of 9-11, because of bill clinton" They are always right never wrong, so selfrightous. Not even capable of making a mistake, a bad call. However, when something good happens, they are always the first to leap up and take credit. But now isn't that what our society has become? People scapegoating others for their own mistakes and taking creadit for the hard work of others. We have the republican role model to thank for that.
Just once I would like to see a republican take responsability for his choices and actions. When ever something goes wrong, it's someone eleses fault. "the war is going as expected but any problems are due to Iraqies not fighting fair" " the economic problems are because of 9-11, because of bill clinton" They are always right never wrong, so selfrightous. Not even capable of making a mistake, a bad call. However, when something good happens, they are always the first to leap up and take credit. But now isn't that what our society has become? People scapegoating others for their own mistakes and taking creadit for the hard work of others. We have the republican role model to thank for that.
I hardly agree with much of what you have to say, or at least where you place your blame, but i will concede amongst your short-sided babble there are some valid points. The problem is you've taken a handful of arguable points and diluted them with dribble and unfounded attacks on people you simply don't agree with. The principles of a democracy foster some of the things you complain about, there is a very very small chance we will ALL approve of our ELECTED officials. I, for example, generally vote republican but there are some underlying beliefs within the party's platform i not only disagree with but actually view with some measure of disgust. However when the duty to vote calls I select what i occasionally feel are the lesser of two evils.
As for your thoughts on economic policy since when did success start being viewed with such contempt. Should we penalize those who find profitable endeavors with an undue or excessive tax burden? Should we adopt socialist ideals so regardless of your competence or ambition you are rewarded with equal wages, taxation, and no rewards for greater work?
Should we all cast democracy aside and get in the breadline? Or should elect folks like Ralph Nader and let them cripple our industries with unbending restraints, let us commute in our electric cars outfitted with more airbags than a balloon factory, and tuck us in at night because they feel we can't manage even that for ourselves.
