If Bush is reelected, by the time 2008 rolls around... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rodney · 10-01-2004, 01:48 PM

Interested in hearing everybody's point of view. In my personal view, after four more years of the Bush Administration's poor decisions, the bolts will be popping out of America so dramatically that even the most accomplished liar (what else is a spin doctor, really) couldn't make it look pretty.

But, that's just me. I'm interested in what others think.

Jesus Pimp · 10-01-2004, 01:54 PM

Get ready for the apocalypse..

Halx · 10-01-2004, 01:54 PM

Quick. If you don't support these views with actual meaningful content, this thread will be closed and dismissed as trolling. Get to it. You have 30 minutes.

james t kirk · 10-01-2004, 01:54 PM

Here's what will happen in my opinion.

If Bush gets re-elected, it will be about a year before the wheels start coming off the wagon. Slowly, but surely, his stupidity and the arrogance and corruption (yes, corruption) of his administration will become painfully aparent.

By the end of his second term, he will be roundly detested and his "legacy" will be that of a fool.

JMHO

Rodney · 10-01-2004, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

Quick. If you don't support these views with actual meaningful content, this thread will be closed and dismissed as trolling. Get to it. You have 30 minutes.

It's a poll. I want people's opinions. Really. I didn't realize that the message came up before the poll. Am I a bad boy?http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...ply&p=1440420#

I'd have been happy to post the poll without my own opinion, but frankly that wouldn't be fair. Still, this poll is not about me, it's about everybody, and I honestly want to know what people's expectations are of George Bush, especially those whose political opinions are different than my own liberal ones.

You're free to do what you want, Halx... I really don't respond well to deadlines.

Lebell · 10-01-2004, 02:06 PM

Dismissing the issue of whether or not Bush is a terrible president, the United States has had terrible presidents before and we come out of it more or less fine.

That is one of the results of having a system of checks and balances combined with a maximum of 8 years in office.

ObieX · 10-01-2004, 04:25 PM

Judging by what's been going on so far I went with C. I'd go with D but i dont want to be disappeared. Hold on, someone's at the door...

mjw · 10-01-2004, 06:43 PM

If Bush get's re-elected, then we're going to have 4 more years of more of the same, which in my opinion is pretty good. The real problem comes in 2008, when Mrs. Hillary Clinton runs for president. That woman terrifies me. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a female president, hell I think that's along the lines of change that should be happening, just not Hillary.

rukkyg · 10-01-2004, 07:43 PM

Karl Rove wouldn't definitly doom the Republican Party to lose in 2008. As such, he will make sure his policies are approved by at LEAST 40% of the conservatives that the conservative pollsters poll.

djtestudo · 10-01-2004, 08:31 PM

I voted for B, although I really belive it will be in the middle of A and B.

The problem is that so many people just hate Bush in general that no matter what he does there is no way they will agree with him.

I think the REAL question becomes, who runs in 2008 and how does the Bush Administration's policies over eight years affect them? But that's probably a whole other thread

SecretMethod70 · 10-01-2004, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Dismissing the issue of whether or not Bush is a terrible president, the United States has had terrible presidents before and we come out of it more or less fine.

That is one of the results of having a system of checks and balances combined with a maximum of 8 years in office.

Precisely. I voted B

Meier_Link · 10-01-2004, 08:39 PM

By the time 2008 rolls around, if Bush is still in office, we'll be lucky if there aren't sanctions against US. Seriously, the international community will only put up with so much unilateral action and breeding of hate before it has to save face and not look like we're pushing them around.

Locobot · 10-01-2004, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Dismissing the issue of whether or not Bush is a terrible president, the United States has had terrible presidents before and we come out of it more or less fine.

That is one of the results of having a system of checks and balances combined with a maximum of 8 years in office.

Checks and balances from whom? The republican controlled House and the republican controlled Senate don't seem likely to take on this role anytime soon. Or are you suggesting violent revolt?

Lebell · 10-02-2004, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

Checks and balances from whom? The republican controlled House and the republican controlled Senate don't seem likely to take on this role anytime soon. Or are you suggesting violent revolt?

They may be Republican controlled, but they are not under the control of the President.

When they (and the Supreme Court) are, then we can start to talk armed revolt.

Esen · 10-02-2004, 03:18 PM

By th etime 2008 comes around we will be starting to realy benefit from his policies.

Most of the hardships we have been feeling lately have been the trees of the Cinton administration.

It really surprises me that people forget that many of the decisions that Presidents make take time to actually be felt.

People also forget that it took The terroists years and years to plan the 9/11 attacks. Clinton was the president for a large portion of those years yet people blame Bush who only had 1 year in when the terror strikes had happened.

By giving the tax breaks that Bush has given he has given the business owners a chance to rebuild their companies instead of falling and hurting from the type of tax hikes that Kerry would give.

Everyone keeps on saying the lower classes ( i'm prolly considered lower- middle class on the lower side )need the tax breaks more then the upper middle class.

Who do you think the upper middle class are? they are the ones who pay our salaries and negotiate our medical benefits. Bush is giving these people the chance to substain these businesses so others can have jobs.

After the attacks so so many jobs have been lost and yet our country is still strong and still has a chance to grow.
I think that by the time 2008 comes around Bush will have the economy stronger.

He has not backed down on his foreign policy decisions and I admire him for it.

Political game plans can take years and years to be executed.
If you have a plan that starts getting kinks in the middle do you give up on the plan and lose everything? no you adjust to the situation stay on course and keep your eyes on the goal.

I think in 2008 we will be fine.

Anyhow this is just my opinion and I am only a regular citizen. I may be wrong. I guess we will see in 4 years.

roachboy · 10-02-2004, 03:25 PM

i do not think bush will win the next election.

4 more years of this particular mode of incompetence should leave considerable amount of damage to be repaired in all sectors--except perhaps for that important index of the common weal: the heightened enjoyment index which takes as its base polls of the top 1% of the grotesquely skewed distribution of wealth in america. this index corrleates the emotional fluctuations of very wealthy respondents when asked about how the feel about the income they have been able to keep from tax breaks and devote to luxury goods.

since it is only this economic group that would be free in any meaningful sense after four more years of bushworld, it only makes sense to gear indices of the common good toward those who, for the right, really matter.

reframing reality is what the right does best.
and this would be a great way to totally ignore the consequences of bush economic non policies, international non policies, etc etc etc...

all of which is why i dont think he will win in november.

guy44 · 10-02-2004, 06:34 PM

Chauncey, I appreciate your input, but allow me to answer some of your points.

Quote:

By th etime 2008 comes around we will be starting to realy benefit from his policies.

Most of the hardships we have been feeling lately have been the trees of the Cinton administration.

It really surprises me that people forget that many of the decisions that Presidents make take time to actually be felt.

[snip]

I think that by the time 2008 comes around Bush will have the economy stronger.

[snip]

Political game plans can take years and years to be executed.
If you have a plan that starts getting kinks in the middle do you give up on the plan and lose everything? no you adjust to the situation stay on course and keep your eyes on the goal.

I think in 2008 we will be fine.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that the economic policies of a president can only be examined in the years immediately following his first four years. There is some truth to that, of course; you can't realistically measure all of the impacts of an economic policy immediately after it is passed. Nonetheless, you claim both that Bush's economic policies will prove themselves by his 8th year in office. You ALSO claim that any economic problems the country faces are caused by Clinton's economic policies. Yet by Clinton's 8th year, this country prospered by like never before in its history. So what is it: do economic policies prove themselves within 8 years, or can they have longer-range consequences, as you claim Clinton's did? I'm not going to argue the point too much, but frankly, your argument for Bush's economic policies so far is,

1. Things suck now, but you can't hold him accountable for it yet, the logic of which means that no president could ever be held accountable for his first four years of economic policy, and

2. Businesses need money to give us jobs. But his tax cuts actually went to rich individuals, who have little reason to spend that on creating jobs. And by the way, the average job created during Bush's time has paid $9,000 less than the jobs that were lost. Bush is the first Prez since Hoover to LOSE jobs. Also, businesses that were given money have largely outsourced or gone overseas, as Bush has done nothing to stop them. There are other arguments, but it is tough to list them all here...

You also say that "kinks" in policy execution mean that you just keep on going and ignore them. Well, excuse me, but since when? Are we to IGNORE any problems in policy from the President, and just keep going forward without rethinking or reexamining the policies themselves? Were you saying that when Clinton ran policies you disagreed with, just ignore problems and keep on going? That Clinton shouldn't be held accountable at the time because you can't possibly understand the true consequences of his policies until later? Bush's economy has lost jobs, wages are lower, social security is in trouble, Homeland Security, according our own commissions (9/11) is woefully underfunded, Afghanistan is a an uncompromised mess, Iraq is a quagmire in which the U.S. is universally despised and the country is churning out new terrorists, etc. etc. Need I go on? Should we IGNORE these problems?

Quote:

He has not backed down on his foreign policy decisions and I admire him for it.

Too bad they were, just about every single one, the wrong decisions. Why is not changing course after making a mistake admirable?

Your arguments, except for the tax cut statement, have no specifics. They boil down to, well, the economy may be in the toilet and our foreign policy doesn't work, but I admire the Prez for not changing his failed policies.

Man.

Paq · 10-02-2004, 09:22 PM

Yeah, i've never EVER understood why "Staying the course" was touted as SUCH leadership qualities....I'm sorry, but if you hopelessly fucked up, admit it, correct it, move on, people will forgive...hell, lincoln basically shoveled through bad idea after bad idea until something/someone worked....nothign wrong with that.

Flyguy · 10-02-2004, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halx

Quick. If you don't support these views with actual meaningful content, this thread will be closed and dismissed as trolling. Get to it. You have 30 minutes.

Tell me about it. I got a 24 hour ban for expressing my opinion caue I didn't agree with a bush supporter. Go figure.

Esen · 10-03-2004, 04:37 AM

Well, you are right, maybe I am counting on his benefits too soon. we will not feel all of his decisions for a while.

I should have specified that Presidents do have policies that take long term and others that happen in a shorter time frame. I didn't acknowledge that sorry.

Don't get me wrong I do not think that is Bush is a Peach I know that he has his problems as a leader. but overall yes I stick by what I said.

And of course we lost jobs any president in this situation would have still had a country losing jobs.
We had an attack on our largest business and financial institution in the country.
Not just an attack, both buildings just wiped off the face of the earth.

That attack caused a huge huge chain.
Do you think that after all those people lost their jobs that raising taxes would have been a great thing for them? We were trying to rebuild ourselves getting temporary jobs untill we can find a better one. Would have someone raising taxes like Kerry probaly would have helped us? Bush cut those taxes, and helped us get on our feet a little bit.

Sure I know Bush is not the greatest, but Kerry?

How is his foreign policy failing?
We are helping build a democratic coountry in Iraq, That does not happen over night.
And we are bringing in main Terrorists all of the time.

I also sometimes think about what if Bush left Iraq the way it was.
Do you really think that this world would have been safer?
There are great odds that if they had weapons of mass destruction that they could have moved them to other countries. or even could have been funding them in other countries.
Saddam was a proven enemy and it was proven during the investigations that he did have contact with terroists.
What was the nature of that contact? I have no Idea they could have been discussing recipe's for stuffed artichokes.

I apologize if I am getting to deep into the conversation with not much knowledge above what I am posting.

I can stop now

guy44 · 10-03-2004, 10:14 AM

Chauncey - it's OK, I just want to correct a few misunderstandings.

On the economy, the 9/11 attacks had little to do with the recession. They didn't help, but the reality is that it started on Black Monday, well before 9/11. I also agree - to a very limited degree - that a small tax cut, targeted towards lower-middle class individuals and small businesses, would possibly provide a beneficial stimulus to a dormant economy. The real problem is that the tax cut was enormous, and barely went to the lower and middle class or small businesses at all. It went overwhelmingly to the rich, who have little incentive to invest in capital ventures despite low interest rates in this economy. That money went into their pockets, not into expanding businesses, providing jobs, or increasing salaries.

Bush's military ventures have been incredibly expensive, soon to approach the $200 billion mark for Iraq alone. Think of taxes like this: when Bush came into office, the government was spending $99 a year while enjoying a tax revenue of $100 dollars a year. Bush's tax cut meant that now the country was only getting a tax revenue of $95 a year, despite still spending $99 a year. After the military expenditures of Afghanistan and Iraq, the government was still only getting $95 dollars a year (a number that won't increase because the money went into the pockets of the rich, not into stimulating new business growth) but paying $105 dollars a year. So the government, which used to have a surplus of $1, now has a deficit of $10. This has all sorts of negative consequences, from the devaluation of the dollar to the excess purchasing of U.S. bonds by foreign investors from places like China.

As with Saddam, it has been shown over and over again that he was not a threat to the United States. He had already disarmed - there were no weapons of mass destruction. The U.N. weapons inspectors, first led by Ritter and then by Blix, were extraordinarily succesful. Also, documents showing the Iraq was attempting to acquire uranium from Niger were forged by an Italian named Rocco Martino, as has been reported in various newspapers. His nuclear program was non-existant. Secondly, Saddam did not have any contact with terrorists. I don't know if you got your information from Fox News or whatever, but there was no contact between Saddam and terrorists. The closest there was was an exploratory meeting between an al-Qaeda member and a Saddam official which went poorly and resulted in no cooperation at all between the two. Osama bin Laden repeatedly called Iraq an enemy of al-Qaeda. The only place there could have been terrorists in Iraq was in the very northeast, a region Saddam had no control over and was actively fighting against.

Is the world safer? Well, Iraq used to be a contained dictatorship with no WMD and NO ties to terrorists. Now, Iraq is the world's hottest terrorist breeding ground, as Islamist terrorist organizations have taken hold there where they can fight the U.S. troops on a daily basis. There are 80 attacks against U.S. troops a day. No ethnic group in Iraq wants the U.S. there, and in fact coalitions between the formerly mutually antagonistic groups have been formed in order to drive out Western forces. Iraqis are joining terrorist groups in droves in order to get rid of the U.S.

Iraq has BECOME the greatest terrorist breeding ground in the world, a great threat to the U.S., whereas before it was decidedly benign.

Edited for grammer...

SecretMethod70 · 10-03-2004, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyguy

Tell me about it. I got a 24 hour ban for expressing my opinion caue I didn't agree with a bush supporter. Go figure.

Bans of any sort are not handed out with consideration of political opinion. In fact, if they were, the "conservatives" of the board would get in trouble a considerable amount more, taking into account that there are only a few (literally) conservative moderators.

Anyways, bans are handed out not for the opinion expressed, but the way in which it is expressed. Personal attacks of ANY KIND are not accepted at all and those are what leads to a ban.

I'm stating this here so that everyone can see it because it is an important point.

And now back to your regurlarly scheduled thread. If you have any questions or comments, PM me.

Lebell · 10-04-2004, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyguy

Tell me about it. I got a 24 hour ban for expressing my opinion caue I didn't agree with a bush supporter. Go figure.

To reiterate what SecretMethod said, it wasn't your opinion that got you a 24 hour ban, it was how you chose to express it.

Stompy · 10-05-2004, 08:19 AM

I chose the last one, because personally that's what I'd like to see happen!

omega2K4 · 10-05-2004, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james t kirk

Here's what will happen in my opinion.

If Bush gets re-elected, it will be about a year before the wheels start coming off the wagon. Slowly, but surely, his stupidity and the arrogance and corruption (yes, corruption) of his administration will become painfully aparent.

By the end of his second term, he will be roundly detested and his "legacy" will be that of a fool.

JMHO

Ditto, I think the same would happen if he got re-elected.

dy156 · 10-05-2004, 12:25 PM

Hate to say this, but I think a whole lot depends on Iraq and the people there, more than it depends on Bush's actions. I think it's very possible that Iraq eventually becomes like Turkey, and with lots of bases there, the US and the middle east as a whole are in a far better position, and Bush goes down in history as having great foresight. On the other hand, if things continue as they are, and we pull out of Iraq, history will probably not treat W. very kindly. Four more years may not be enough to tell though. Russia was "free" more than a decade ago, but is still struggling with democracy.
There are other foriegn policy issues too. (None of which were really addressed in the last debate.) We have great relations with Japan, and their economy is finally alive and kicking. China and India are kinda important too. No one remembers how Bush and his foriegn policy team got us out of the crash-landed listening plane while maintaining good relations with the Chinese. Mark my words, China will become more and more important in the next four years.
What effect Bush's actions in regard to America's economy have will be very difficult to tell, just as they are today. The nation prospered under Clinton, and hasn't under Bush 41 or 43. But was that because of their actions, or the economic cycle, or did it prosper under Clinton because of Bush 41's policies and decisions? There are so many variables to the economy and world affairs that it is impossible to tell what effect Bush's actions in the next four years will have on either.

Sippy · 10-06-2004, 04:31 PM

Bush is gonna win. The national polls just don't matter. If you look at the Electoral map Bush is clearly ahead.

Even if Kerry did win I expect the status quo in any event. Mess continues in Iraq. More confilict in places like Iran and Syria. North Korea becomes more and more threatening. Pakistan is threatend by islamic radicals. China takes tougher stance towards Taiwan and U.S. Economy continues a slow steady course with some bumps in the road such as high oil prices and slow job growth.

Worst case: Israeal bombs Iran. PAkistan has radical coup prompting U.S. bombing of Pakistani nuclear capability. Sub-continent erupts. U.S. joins Israel fight in Iran and Syria. U.S. moves towards all out war economy and draft. North Korea bombs Japan and S. Korea. China bombs Taiwan and threatens U.S. WWIII.

bacon_masta · 10-06-2004, 06:12 PM

policies....failure....'nuff said

william · 10-06-2004, 06:33 PM

Bush said many things before his election that he proved to be not true (anyone remember his promise to lower gas prices?). I'm against him, not for what he says, but for the way he (does'nt) say it. Oh - by the way, how are things in Iraq?

gerbilking · 10-06-2004, 08:20 PM

I don't know if anyone over there cares about an Aussie's opinion, but I can only pray that Kerry wins (or more specifically, anyone but Bush wins) because Bush's policies have been disastrous for all involved. It certainly doesn't help that my government under John Howard has been Bush's lapdog, but then again, he's hopefully going down this Saturday.

sailor98 · 10-07-2004, 06:00 AM

I believe there is little doubt that the election season is fueling the idea that Bush has not been effective. I believe the facts are to the contrary and that he will be remembered for a couragous fight against terror, bringing an economy back from the damage inflicted during the Clinton years and 9/11, and as a champion of freedom.

summerkc · 10-10-2004, 12:38 PM

This president will continue to be divided right down the middle as to whether he is doing a good job or not. No one will be swayed from being pro-abortion to pro-life, pro-Iraq war, anti-Iraq war, etc. IMO if you chose anything other than option B you are just blinded by the hatred of one side or the other.

The economy is not as good, or as bad, as any one says, as is true for the Iraq war and healthcare.

The reason I believe in Bush is his vision of where he wants to take the country and the rest of the world. I believe that he truly has the country's best interests in mind, and was the reason he because president in the first place.

The reason why I don't like Kerry is the opposite. I feel that he is running for president not because he wants to help the country, but further his own career, the democratic party, and to boost his own ego. He seems to think that being popular with the american people and, even worse, the citizens of the world is more important than his own convictions and idealology. When you are president you can't go by what the people think is right at the time, you have to go by what you have always believed is right for the country.

In the long run, like 15 years down the road, I think that Bush's presidency will be judged a success in the same way that Reagan was. He will be seen as the president that brought us through a war, and left democracy in a place that was thought to be impossible to leave it in.

View Poll Results: If Bush is reelected, in the year 2008
His domestic and foreign policies will be generally regarded as successful.	26	18.57%
Status quo: his success is arguable, but 40-50 percent of the electorate have some trust	28	20.00%
His policies are failures, and he's too stubborn to change, causing political gridlock	66	47.14%
One way or the other, he won't make it to 2008.	20	14.29%
Voters: 140. You may not vote on this poll

10-01-2004, 01:48 PM	#1 (permalink)
Rodney Observant Ruminant Location: Rich Wannabe Hippie Town	If Bush is reelected, by the time 2008 rolls around... Interested in hearing everybody's point of view. In my personal view, after four more years of the Bush Administration's poor decisions, the bolts will be popping out of America so dramatically that even the most accomplished liar (what else is a spin doctor, really) couldn't make it look pretty. But, that's just me. I'm interested in what others think.

10-01-2004, 01:54 PM	#2 (permalink)
Jesus Pimp The Original JizzSmacka	Get ready for the apocalypse.. __________________ Never date anyone who doesn't make your dick hard.

10-01-2004, 01:54 PM	#3 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Quick. If you don't support these views with actual meaningful content, this thread will be closed and dismissed as trolling. Get to it. You have 30 minutes. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

10-01-2004, 02:06 PM	#6 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Dismissing the issue of whether or not Bush is a terrible president, the United States has had terrible presidents before and we come out of it more or less fine. That is one of the results of having a system of checks and balances combined with a maximum of 8 years in office. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-01-2004, 01:54 PM	#4 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	Here's what will happen in my opinion. If Bush gets re-elected, it will be about a year before the wheels start coming off the wagon. Slowly, but surely, his stupidity and the arrogance and corruption (yes, corruption) of his administration will become painfully aparent. By the end of his second term, he will be roundly detested and his "legacy" will be that of a fool. JMHO

10-01-2004, 04:25 PM	#7 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Judging by what's been going on so far I went with C. I'd go with D but i dont want to be disappeared. Hold on, someone's at the door... __________________ We Must Dissent.

10-01-2004, 06:43 PM	#8 (permalink)
mjw Upright	If Bush get's re-elected, then we're going to have 4 more years of more of the same, which in my opinion is pretty good. The real problem comes in 2008, when Mrs. Hillary Clinton runs for president. That woman terrifies me. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a female president, hell I think that's along the lines of change that should be happening, just not Hillary. __________________ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

10-01-2004, 07:43 PM	#9 (permalink)
rukkyg Loser Location: RPI, Troy, NY	Karl Rove wouldn't definitly doom the Republican Party to lose in 2008. As such, he will make sure his policies are approved by at LEAST 40% of the conservatives that the conservative pollsters poll.

10-01-2004, 08:31 PM	#10 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	I voted for B, although I really belive it will be in the middle of A and B. The problem is that so many people just hate Bush in general that no matter what he does there is no way they will agree with him. I think the REAL question becomes, who runs in 2008 and how does the Bush Administration's policies over eight years affect them? But that's probably a whole other thread __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

10-01-2004, 08:39 PM	#12 (permalink)
Meier_Link Psycho Location: in a state of confusion	By the time 2008 rolls around, if Bush is still in office, we'll be lucky if there aren't sanctions against US. Seriously, the international community will only put up with so much unilateral action and breeding of hate before it has to save face and not look like we're pushing them around.

10-02-2004, 03:18 PM	#15 (permalink)
Esen TFPer formaly known as Chauncey Location: North East	By th etime 2008 comes around we will be starting to realy benefit from his policies. Most of the hardships we have been feeling lately have been the trees of the Cinton administration. It really surprises me that people forget that many of the decisions that Presidents make take time to actually be felt. People also forget that it took The terroists years and years to plan the 9/11 attacks. Clinton was the president for a large portion of those years yet people blame Bush who only had 1 year in when the terror strikes had happened. By giving the tax breaks that Bush has given he has given the business owners a chance to rebuild their companies instead of falling and hurting from the type of tax hikes that Kerry would give. Everyone keeps on saying the lower classes ( i'm prolly considered lower- middle class on the lower side )need the tax breaks more then the upper middle class. Who do you think the upper middle class are? they are the ones who pay our salaries and negotiate our medical benefits. Bush is giving these people the chance to substain these businesses so others can have jobs. After the attacks so so many jobs have been lost and yet our country is still strong and still has a chance to grow. I think that by the time 2008 comes around Bush will have the economy stronger. He has not backed down on his foreign policy decisions and I admire him for it. Political game plans can take years and years to be executed. If you have a plan that starts getting kinks in the middle do you give up on the plan and lose everything? no you adjust to the situation stay on course and keep your eyes on the goal. I think in 2008 we will be fine. Anyhow this is just my opinion and I am only a regular citizen. I may be wrong. I guess we will see in 4 years. __________________ ~Esen What is everyone doing in my room?

10-02-2004, 03:25 PM	#16 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i do not think bush will win the next election. 4 more years of this particular mode of incompetence should leave considerable amount of damage to be repaired in all sectors--except perhaps for that important index of the common weal: the heightened enjoyment index which takes as its base polls of the top 1% of the grotesquely skewed distribution of wealth in america. this index corrleates the emotional fluctuations of very wealthy respondents when asked about how the feel about the income they have been able to keep from tax breaks and devote to luxury goods. since it is only this economic group that would be free in any meaningful sense after four more years of bushworld, it only makes sense to gear indices of the common good toward those who, for the right, really matter. reframing reality is what the right does best. and this would be a great way to totally ignore the consequences of bush economic non policies, international non policies, etc etc etc... all of which is why i dont think he will win in november. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 10-02-2004 at 03:31 PM..

10-02-2004, 09:22 PM	#18 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	Yeah, i've never EVER understood why "Staying the course" was touted as SUCH leadership qualities....I'm sorry, but if you hopelessly fucked up, admit it, correct it, move on, people will forgive...hell, lincoln basically shoveled through bad idea after bad idea until something/someone worked....nothign wrong with that. __________________ Live. Chris

10-03-2004, 04:37 AM	#20 (permalink)
Esen TFPer formaly known as Chauncey Location: North East	Well, you are right, maybe I am counting on his benefits too soon. we will not feel all of his decisions for a while. I should have specified that Presidents do have policies that take long term and others that happen in a shorter time frame. I didn't acknowledge that sorry. Don't get me wrong I do not think that is Bush is a Peach I know that he has his problems as a leader. but overall yes I stick by what I said. And of course we lost jobs any president in this situation would have still had a country losing jobs. We had an attack on our largest business and financial institution in the country. Not just an attack, both buildings just wiped off the face of the earth. That attack caused a huge huge chain. Do you think that after all those people lost their jobs that raising taxes would have been a great thing for them? We were trying to rebuild ourselves getting temporary jobs untill we can find a better one. Would have someone raising taxes like Kerry probaly would have helped us? Bush cut those taxes, and helped us get on our feet a little bit. Sure I know Bush is not the greatest, but Kerry? How is his foreign policy failing? We are helping build a democratic coountry in Iraq, That does not happen over night. And we are bringing in main Terrorists all of the time. I also sometimes think about what if Bush left Iraq the way it was. Do you really think that this world would have been safer? There are great odds that if they had weapons of mass destruction that they could have moved them to other countries. or even could have been funding them in other countries. Saddam was a proven enemy and it was proven during the investigations that he did have contact with terroists. What was the nature of that contact? I have no Idea they could have been discussing recipe's for stuffed artichokes. I apologize if I am getting to deep into the conversation with not much knowledge above what I am posting. I can stop now __________________ ~Esen What is everyone doing in my room?

10-03-2004, 10:14 AM	#21 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Chauncey - it's OK, I just want to correct a few misunderstandings. On the economy, the 9/11 attacks had little to do with the recession. They didn't help, but the reality is that it started on Black Monday, well before 9/11. I also agree - to a very limited degree - that a small tax cut, targeted towards lower-middle class individuals and small businesses, would possibly provide a beneficial stimulus to a dormant economy. The real problem is that the tax cut was enormous, and barely went to the lower and middle class or small businesses at all. It went overwhelmingly to the rich, who have little incentive to invest in capital ventures despite low interest rates in this economy. That money went into their pockets, not into expanding businesses, providing jobs, or increasing salaries. Bush's military ventures have been incredibly expensive, soon to approach the $200 billion mark for Iraq alone. Think of taxes like this: when Bush came into office, the government was spending $99 a year while enjoying a tax revenue of $100 dollars a year. Bush's tax cut meant that now the country was only getting a tax revenue of $95 a year, despite still spending $99 a year. After the military expenditures of Afghanistan and Iraq, the government was still only getting $95 dollars a year (a number that won't increase because the money went into the pockets of the rich, not into stimulating new business growth) but paying $105 dollars a year. So the government, which used to have a surplus of $1, now has a deficit of $10. This has all sorts of negative consequences, from the devaluation of the dollar to the excess purchasing of U.S. bonds by foreign investors from places like China. As with Saddam, it has been shown over and over again that he was not a threat to the United States. He had already disarmed - there were no weapons of mass destruction. The U.N. weapons inspectors, first led by Ritter and then by Blix, were extraordinarily succesful. Also, documents showing the Iraq was attempting to acquire uranium from Niger were forged by an Italian named Rocco Martino, as has been reported in various newspapers. His nuclear program was non-existant. Secondly, Saddam did not have any contact with terrorists. I don't know if you got your information from Fox News or whatever, but there was no contact between Saddam and terrorists. The closest there was was an exploratory meeting between an al-Qaeda member and a Saddam official which went poorly and resulted in no cooperation at all between the two. Osama bin Laden repeatedly called Iraq an enemy of al-Qaeda. The only place there could have been terrorists in Iraq was in the very northeast, a region Saddam had no control over and was actively fighting against. Is the world safer? Well, Iraq used to be a contained dictatorship with no WMD and NO ties to terrorists. Now, Iraq is the world's hottest terrorist breeding ground, as Islamist terrorist organizations have taken hold there where they can fight the U.S. troops on a daily basis. There are 80 attacks against U.S. troops a day. No ethnic group in Iraq wants the U.S. there, and in fact coalitions between the formerly mutually antagonistic groups have been formed in order to drive out Western forces. Iraqis are joining terrorist groups in droves in order to get rid of the U.S. Iraq has BECOME the greatest terrorist breeding ground in the world, a great threat to the U.S., whereas before it was decidedly benign. Edited for grammer... __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'" Last edited by guy44; 10-03-2004 at 10:19 AM..

10-05-2004, 08:19 AM	#24 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	I chose the last one, because personally that's what I'd like to see happen! __________________ I love lamp.

10-05-2004, 12:25 PM	#26 (permalink)
dy156 cookie Location: in the backwoods	Hate to say this, but I think a whole lot depends on Iraq and the people there, more than it depends on Bush's actions. I think it's very possible that Iraq eventually becomes like Turkey, and with lots of bases there, the US and the middle east as a whole are in a far better position, and Bush goes down in history as having great foresight. On the other hand, if things continue as they are, and we pull out of Iraq, history will probably not treat W. very kindly. Four more years may not be enough to tell though. Russia was "free" more than a decade ago, but is still struggling with democracy. There are other foriegn policy issues too. (None of which were really addressed in the last debate.) We have great relations with Japan, and their economy is finally alive and kicking. China and India are kinda important too. No one remembers how Bush and his foriegn policy team got us out of the crash-landed listening plane while maintaining good relations with the Chinese. Mark my words, China will become more and more important in the next four years. What effect Bush's actions in regard to America's economy have will be very difficult to tell, just as they are today. The nation prospered under Clinton, and hasn't under Bush 41 or 43. But was that because of their actions, or the economic cycle, or did it prosper under Clinton because of Bush 41's policies and decisions? There are so many variables to the economy and world affairs that it is impossible to tell what effect Bush's actions in the next four years will have on either.

10-06-2004, 04:31 PM	#27 (permalink)
Sippy Upright	Bush is gonna win. The national polls just don't matter. If you look at the Electoral map Bush is clearly ahead. Even if Kerry did win I expect the status quo in any event. Mess continues in Iraq. More confilict in places like Iran and Syria. North Korea becomes more and more threatening. Pakistan is threatend by islamic radicals. China takes tougher stance towards Taiwan and U.S. Economy continues a slow steady course with some bumps in the road such as high oil prices and slow job growth. Worst case: Israeal bombs Iran. PAkistan has radical coup prompting U.S. bombing of Pakistani nuclear capability. Sub-continent erupts. U.S. joins Israel fight in Iran and Syria. U.S. moves towards all out war economy and draft. North Korea bombs Japan and S. Korea. China bombs Taiwan and threatens U.S. WWIII.

10-06-2004, 06:12 PM	#28 (permalink)
bacon_masta Psycho Location: i live in the state of denial	policies....failure....'nuff said

10-06-2004, 06:33 PM	#29 (permalink)
william Psycho	Bush said many things before his election that he proved to be not true (anyone remember his promise to lower gas prices?). I'm against him, not for what he says, but for the way he (does'nt) say it. Oh - by the way, how are things in Iraq?

10-06-2004, 08:20 PM	#30 (permalink)
gerbilking Upright	Message from Australia I don't know if anyone over there cares about an Aussie's opinion, but I can only pray that Kerry wins (or more specifically, anyone but Bush wins) because Bush's policies have been disastrous for all involved. It certainly doesn't help that my government under John Howard has been Bush's lapdog, but then again, he's hopefully going down this Saturday.

10-07-2004, 06:00 AM	#31 (permalink)
sailor98 Upright	I believe there is little doubt that the election season is fueling the idea that Bush has not been effective. I believe the facts are to the contrary and that he will be remembered for a couragous fight against terror, bringing an economy back from the damage inflicted during the Clinton years and 9/11, and as a champion of freedom.

10-10-2004, 12:38 PM	#32 (permalink)
summerkc Tilted Location: Indiana	This president will continue to be divided right down the middle as to whether he is doing a good job or not. No one will be swayed from being pro-abortion to pro-life, pro-Iraq war, anti-Iraq war, etc. IMO if you chose anything other than option B you are just blinded by the hatred of one side or the other. The economy is not as good, or as bad, as any one says, as is true for the Iraq war and healthcare. The reason I believe in Bush is his vision of where he wants to take the country and the rest of the world. I believe that he truly has the country's best interests in mind, and was the reason he because president in the first place. The reason why I don't like Kerry is the opposite. I feel that he is running for president not because he wants to help the country, but further his own career, the democratic party, and to boost his own ego. He seems to think that being popular with the american people and, even worse, the citizens of the world is more important than his own convictions and idealology. When you are president you can't go by what the people think is right at the time, you have to go by what you have always believed is right for the country. In the long run, like 15 years down the road, I think that Bush's presidency will be judged a success in the same way that Reagan was. He will be seen as the president that brought us through a war, and left democracy in a place that was thought to be impossible to leave it in. Last edited by summerkc; 10-10-2004 at 12:41 PM..