Can you tell me some Bush Positives?
 

I've heard a lot of naysaying by a lot of democrats on bush. I was wondering if any republicans can show me what bush has done that has been positive for america. But PLEASE, nothing on Iraq. Leave terrorism and pre-emptive war out of this- I think a president should be able to lead a country in other areas even if there is some military action in it's foreign policy.

Gimme some perspective :)

He has have lots of people jobs at wallmart after taking away thier good union jobs, that is nice :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Non-farm Productivity grew at a higher rate than during the Clinton administration.

http://www.ppionline.org/upload_grap...ance_Index.jpg

You can read more about these statistics at http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?...ntentid=252964


Mr Mephisto

careful here
 

Me, too. I try to understand what is good in him, and what good has happened in the last four years, but have found nothing.

We've had this thread many times before, and usually this doesn't get answered :)

I've been waiting for an answer to such an answer as well. I would love to hear a decent argument for Bush 2004-2008. Looks like he might win (currently Bush-193 and Kerry-112).

Don't get too far ahead of yourself. California, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida haven't been called yet, and that is 133 Electoral votes right there. Pennsylvania is almost certainly Kerry, as is California. Ohio and Florida are leaning Bush right now, but key counties haven't reported yet (ie Miami-Dade, etc.)

True true.

CA won't go republican.

FL will most likely go to Kerry. PA and OH are too close to tell (CNN was showing PA w/ high favor for Kerry though)

Now, given the shit Bush has had to handle in his term (aka... the economy had to fail at some point, cant stay at a boom forever. The shit in the middle east had to be dealt with... how is another issue, but it did have to be done, among other things) the real question is... did he do a better job then the next guy (Good Ole Gore).

I personally think he did. Cant really compare him to Clinton, because the conditions of the world were not the same.

Apples to Apples is such a hard thing to pull off at times, isnt it?

1. Turned a post 9/11 recession around in to one of the strongest economies we've ever had.
2. Cut taxes for most people who actually pay them (which is arguably the reason for #1).
3. Disabled and/or captured 70% of al Qaeda leadership.
4. Removed one of the most despotic dictators in history from power.
5. Disrupted the Taliban, and brought democratic elections to Afghanistan.

You asked for info so here it is. I'm not providing sources; do your own homework (I mean everyone). Most viewing this have already decided whether or not to believe it.

Now, is it all gumdrops and roses? Not hardly. He has also:

1. Increased the national deficit
2. Expanded government faster than Clinton did
3. Created one of the biggest and most nebulous govt entities in Homeland Security
4. Funded faith-based substance-abuse programs

However, IMHO, this is a one-issue campaign: who will be tougher on terrorism. And I think Bush is the obvious choice there. For everything else, write your congressman.

Florida just went to Bush, according to ABC and the BBC.


Mr Mephisto

Great answer.

:) i specifically asked for no war or terrorist positives. His methods for combating terrorism are highly controversial (as can be seen by the many topics on the politics board about it) and terrorist activity counts for a very small minority of civilian deaths in America. It's just a very... noticeable cause of death.

Just keeping the thread on topic. Please, i'd like to look at some positives that he has done for the american people.

edit- also thanks for the first two reasons djtest, as well as Mephisto for the bush graph.

George Bush is a federal representative, and one of the most important entity of Federal Power is our military. He is a respected military commander in chief.

I think the tax cuts really helped stimulate the economy. As a business owner, my clientelle base, mostly the afluent and middle class residents of Georgia speak that they have made more money the last few years. The "poor", I hate that label, also tell me that they don't have any hardship, and really the only ones who complain seem to be the one that don't do anything about their life anyways and depends on government for any scraps it would give.

I don't like how big bush made our government, I think that's the worst part. I want as small a federal and state government. I guess though this is better then a trillion dollar health care plan that would be abused.

[QUOTE=Konichiwaneko]............The "poor", I hate that label, also tell me that they don't have any hardship, and really the only ones who complain seem to be the one that don't do anything about their life anyways and depends on government for any scraps it would give.[quote]

Any sources that back up those comments? How often do you ask the "poor"
what their needs are, how many do you ask, how do you know which people
to ask, are they your customers, are they employed by you?

Do you know, firsthand, the "ones who complain, but don't do anything about
their life anyways and depend on government"?

I don't live too far frrom where you are and I'd like to see these people and
talk to them, myself, siince I'm skeptical because I've never known anyone
around here who fits your descriptions.

I don't know if you can leave terrorism out of the equation, preety serious stuff

Alright. admittedly terrorism is on a lot of people's minds, especially with the emphasis that the bush administration has put on it for their campaign. But there are many issues that a president must deal with, other than a portion of their foreign policy.

What has bush done positively in the areas of:

Environmentalism
Health Care
Education
resource management
Foreign policy (minus his attacks on iraq and the war on terror)
Taxes
Economic Growth
social services (including welfare)
foreign trade
etc.

Well, I'm in my 30s, and he's in his 50s, so, chances are, someday I'll get to sit back in my easy chair, grab the remote, and watch his funeral on TV.

Tasteless


Mr Mephisto

[QUOTE=host][QUOTE=Konichiwaneko]............The "poor", I hate that label, also tell me that they don't have any hardship, and really the only ones who complain seem to be the one that don't do anything about their life anyways and depends on government for any scraps it would give.Talk to college students. They are considered "poor" by our government structure now.

Well... he fathered a really cute brunette daughter, does that count?

I'm very interested in hearing FACTS about these areas. I, like the rest of America, has to live with our collective decision to give him another 4 years and I need some help understanding WHY he's the right man for the job. War on terrorism IS important, VERY important. I watched the towers fall too... but there is more to life then 9/11 and just hope we didn't make a mistake.

Jason

He motivated record numbers of American Americans to vote.

He did the right thing in Afghanistan. At first.

And that's about it. The education issue, "No Child Left Behind," is an empty shell of a program with unrealistic goals, and was never fully funded. The tax breaks primarily went to the rich, who did not by and large reinvest them in business. Better to give most of the money to the working class, which would immediately pump it back into the economy, because it _really needs the money_. The tax cut has stimulated the economy a little, but inefficiently: kind of like keeping warm by burning money instead of buying wood with it.

The problem is, by adding this caveat, then you exclude on of the main reasons a lot of people suuported President Bush and voted for him.

You are never going to get a candidate that appeals to every one of the issues on your list.

On some of your issues Bush is strong on, others he is weak.

What matters is how each individual voter weighs the importance of each issue individually. The points that may be your "hot button" points may not be the same "hot button" points as mine.

If that is the case, as I suspect it is, then you will never see an answer that appeals to you.

Not to mention there has been thread after thread on this issue (with the subject either being Kerry or Bush). Has anything been accomplished? Nope.

Here are my "hot buttons". Agree. Disagree. I don't really care nor do I desire to debate it. These are my reasons and this is why I cast my vote for Bush.

1) Foreign Policy: Bush didn't back down from anything. He reminded the world that we are not someone to fuck with. He destroyed the "Paper Tiger" and put a lion in its place. The situation with Libya proves this to me. Oh yeah, so we are not popular in other countries? So. I have seen that game played for decades now, it is not new. We always become popular when our help is needed.

2) Economy/Taxes: I do not believe that surplus mean "spend more money and pay down the debt". A surplus means you took more of my money then you needed. Give it back to me, plain and simple. You want to get extra money to pay down the debt? Easy. Cut the fat. Reduce taxes, keep the market system free and it will take care of itself. That is all I want a president to do. Our economy will take care of itself, regardless of who is in power, as long as it is left pretty much alone.

*NOTE* I am also a realist and know the effect of the recession (at the beginning of Bush's term) and 9/11. Consider that the two major contributing factors to the "bad" economy weren't that long ago, I am suprised it is doing as well as it is. I have been through recessions before, this was by far the shortest.

3) Education: I want across the board standards. I have kids in school. In fact, I just changed school districts recently. In one school district my daughter was advanced and in the new one she is behind because the curriculum is considerably harder. In my opinion, there are two major problems to our school system: the NEA and parents that don't give a shit. This "takes a village" crap is getting old and we will pay for it in years to come. We are becoming a nation that relies to heavily on the gov't. Teach my kids. Discipline my kids. Give me money. Give me this. Give me that. How many people get sucessful in a system like that?

Long story short, I want a candidate that is not being pressured by the NEA because I think that union needs to be abolished because it is so full of bureaucratic bullshit that it is leading us down the slippery slope.

4) Social Services (most of which I am against): My "hot button" here is Social Security. Look at the statistics for social security. It is a fact that the system is in serious trouble. I don't have the time to dig up the facts, but look at what level the social security tax on our paycheck is going to have to be to support this system in 20-30 years. I think, if I remember correctly, that the ratio is going to be 2-1. That means, in a two-income household, that both people will be supporting one social security recepient entirely. Guess what, I don't like my taxes as high as they are now. Can you imagine how large the tax for social security is going to need to be to support it? Rather then go to a 2:1 ratio, privatize a portion of my "retirement" so that it goes back to me. This entitlement program is going to implode all over itself if something major isn't done soon--and raising taxes to the level that would be needed to save the system is 100% unacceptable to me (and to you as well if you truly realized what these rates would be).\

5) Conviction: I am not talking religion here. I am talking about a man that stands on his principles. Say what you want about Bush, but even Clinton commented that Bush did exactly what he said he was going to do.

Anyway, that is all I have time for tonight. I could go on, but that is a sample of my list (keyword: my). Do I expect you to accept it? No. Do I wish to debate it to death like every other time it has been brought up before by conservative after conservative. Nope.

How about sticking to the topic people?? No Iraq, terrorism, etc.

What has Bush done for you in the last 4 years????

I do not find it surprising at all that no righties on this board can legitimately answer this question. They always come back to Iraq, or terrorism.

Doesn't that tell you people something?!?

Thank you KMA, that's the sort of stuff i was looking for. A republican telling me why he voted for bush other than for his response to terrorist action. You're listing your positives on a broad range of topics. I was wondering if you could elaborate on your thoughts about the economy and taxes, I'm not sure I understand, mostly this section:

"You want to get extra money to pay down the debt? Easy. Cut the fat. Reduce taxes, keep the market system free and it will take care of itself."

If you "cut the fat", that'll mean a surplus (which should go towards debt reduction then) , but you want the surplus to be spent by reducing taxes instead because they took more money of yours than they should have? Sorry i'm just trying to figure that out. If you could expand/clarify on the summary you gave me it would be great :)

*goes off to look at the program Bush is heading for social security*

I thought that if people made over $40000 in our society they are consider middle to upper class. Everyone i know who made that amount or more got the tax cut. There are more people making that amount then millionairs, and those people aren't rich.

You only got a tax break if you pay taxes. I'm so confused on why people would want other to have money if they didn't pay taxes.

What did I do with my $300 dollars? I fixed my brakes, which in turned lead to a mechanic making his wage earn his pay. I don't think the plan of the tax cut was for us to get the money and just give it away.

I am very comfortable in America with the fact that you have to "Earn" your money. I would never tell a group that they can't be more then they are and can't live the lifestyle they want.



In the last 4 years, Bush has made me feel like the President's posistion is one that garners respect. Bush made some very difficult decisions, but they were his decisions that he believe made his job better. I don't feel threathened at all about Bush's policies, and I honestly respect the man for doing what he has done the last 4 years. His job is to secure the american people, and he's taken actions to do so. Most of his actions are agreed to by others, democrats and republicans, but even his democrat "Supporters" started attacking him while he's trying to lead our troups (who very much respect him).

This is all subjective. There will be a rush of TFP leftist who will scream "Show me articles, show me blah" where those articles won't affect how they think or see at all. When it comes to politics you only agree with something if it helps your own cause.

All I know is through personal revelation, and watching Bush through the last 4 years, I am proud to not be a democrat anymore and more a libertarian conservative.


Honest question guys, I've noticed and I wonder about you...Have you noticed that many people would change from liberal to conservative but the numbers that change from conservative to liberal tend to be extremely lower?

I know a lot of "Individuals" who change after they relieze that how much of their personal freedom they would give away to convert from an individual to a diversified (and thus labelled) group, which the Democratic Dogma promotes.

Well, he gave more money to Africa to fight aids than anyone else has even suggested, he also was the first President to fund research with Federal dollars into alternative fuels.

"He motivated millions of people to vote"?? That's a positive for him? That's like saying, "Well, Lucifer has some good points, because he motivates people to believe in God".

Yes, Mr. Mephisto, my post was tasteless. And if you think that's tasteless, you should see some of the MANY photos of dead Iraqi children, men, and women, and dead American soldiers who died for WEAPONS OF MASS- no, no, wait, for TIES TO AL QUEDA- no, hang on a sec, - because Saddam Hussein - that guy Reagan and Bush Sr. sold all those WMDs to in the 80s - was a very, very bad man.

Konichiwaneko -

You just described me. Used to be a liberal, now I am conservative. I do, however, know (personally) of one case where the reverse happened.

Flyguy -

read the post before yours

skier -

Cutting the fat leads to lower gov't outlays. Lower outlays = lower growth of the debt.

Incentives for people and companies to prosper leads to increases in (not the only factor, but a factor nonetheless) tax revenue for the government.

An example: Take the gov't grant away from the freak that uses it to study the sex lives of squirrels. The government does a lot of stupid shit with our money (yes, it is our money that we gave to them). I have to live on a budget. Companies have to live on a budget. The government should to. I am getting fed up with entitlement program after entitlement program being created and growing to outstanding proportions.

Anyway, yes a surplus "should" be the result. However, I have already been appeased with tax cuts, so I won't bitch. Also, I am a realist and I know that the debt needs to be paid down. You would hear less screaming from me if I thought that the government was spending (or at least trying to) the money more wisely, surplus or not, lower taxes or not.

This is kind of a 50/50 issue for me with Bush. I liked his tax cuts, but I got tired of his blank check policy. I did feel, however, that Kerry would have been much, much worse (there are other ways to raise my taxes than through an increase in income taxes--look at the election results in Colorado for a prime example)

He helps the rich.

Tax cuts for everyone that pays them. Increase in child tax credit. Prescription drugs for medicare recipients endorsed by AARP. Strong support for Israel. Productive diplomacy with Libya. Increased funding for schools. Got more people to participate in the election--for and against.

Thanks for expanding on that issue KMA. And konichi thank you for your comments on bush positives. I would like to remind everyone reading this thread however to keep rebuttals and inflammatory comments to a minimum. If you would like to debate some of the points made in this thread, raise that issue in a new thread.

The aim of this thread is not to debate controversial sections of bush policy but to garner insight from the views of republicans. That is, why they voted for him for reasons other than his war on terror(ism).

I agree. I think Michael Moore used his million dollar refund to help make his next book. I read that book. It was good. Thanks Bush!

Also, unlike most people who actually support bush, I actually will be rich some day, and then I'll enjoy my tax cuts. I won't give any to charity. I won't help anyone. Afterall, if half the country votes to not help people, why should I do it on my own? Thanks Bush!

With my tax cuts, I will buy several SUVs with low gas-mileage so I can "be above everyone else on the road." And since those poor kids are off fighting for my oil, I won't have to worry about high gas prices. Also, because of the clean air act, I won't have to worry about polluting the air. Thanks Bush!

If I have a daughter and she gets pregnant and wants an abortion, but can't get one because it's illegal, it won't matter. I'll be so rich, I'll use my tax cuts to pay a doctor to do it in secret. Thanks Bush!

The entire young adult population of america practically being forced to invest in the stock market with their social security taxes will help my actual amount of money invested in the market be worth more and more, which I will use to buy a few Hummers (the vehicle). Thanks Bush!

Although satirical, comments similar to these can be found in a lot of bush-voters minds, although not so much on this board.

lower taxes to help boost the economy

I would ask the sensible members of this board not to rise to rukky's bait. Thank you.

This has to be on of the oldest, most tired out sayings I have heard uttered from anybody's lips: "tax cuts for the rich"

The mere mention of the phrase "tax cut" causes most liberals to immediately spew this remark with absolutely no factual basis.

Rodney - back it up, show me the proof how this tax cut "primarily" helped the rich. I am not rich and it helped me, significantly. I know several people that are classified as "rich" and they still pay more in taxes then I bring home in my paychecks. I know a guy who constantly has to pay late fees on his tax payments because he sometimes doesn't bring in enough to pay the tax bill.

It is utter nonsense.

Proportionately, the "rich" get a bigger cut, but they are already paying several times more in taxes then we do. Our percentage of the cut is bigger then theirs. Look at the facts on the latest rounds of tax cuts before posting such dribble.

god, this phrase is overused, tired out and old.

Do you want to know who benefited "primarily" from this last cut? Parents, pure and simple. You want to bitch, bitch about that.

Sorry you're tired of it, but it's true. I don't even have to back it up. If one or two percent of the population earns 80 percent of the income, then they pretty much get 80 percent of the tax cuts. It's not even a matter of fairness; it's a matter of effectiveness.

The richer you are, the more disposable income you have -- ie, that income which you do not actually need in order to live. It can be spent at your discretion. The reason for a tax cut is to stimulate the economy, theoretically; so why "stimulate" it by giving more money to people who already have a surplus? They're already spending a level of money that they're comfortable with; oh, they might buy an extra car, but the rest goes into the bank. It's not going to stimulate investment that creates new jobs, because having spare money doesn't make you happier to invest when things don't look all that good. Superstar investor Warren Buffett currently has much of his money in cash -- foreign currency, much of it -- waiting for the U.S. economy to sort itself out. Giving him a tax cut didn't make him invest.

If you want to get money moving through the economy, give it all to people who'll spend it, because they have to -- on a car they need to go to work, on a replacement washing machine, on clothing for the kids, on food, even if. And this money will find its way back to businesses, and the managers will note the increase in the bottom line, hopefully increase production, and everybody's happy. And the rich will skim off their share, as is their right.

Or, give tax cuts to rich people who _do_ risk their money in hard times, by giving them tax cuts on the return on their investment. But don't just throw money blindly at the rich, as much as they'd encourage you to do so.

Should the wealthy pay heavy taxes? Sure, why not? After all, America is a wealth-producing machine and they get most of it. All the money for health, education, welfare, roads, and so on makes this business possible and profitable. The armed forces exist largely to protect American interests throughout the world -- business interests. They keep open the tradeways, give America clout to negotiate favorable trade agreements for business interests, and basically make international business both possible and easier, for American business especially. So the rich get their money's worth out of government, as far as I'm concerned. America is an entire system that supports their wealth. They should stop crying and pay up -- not blindly, but responsibly. I don't condemn greed, but I do condemn stupid, short-sighted greed, and I see a lot of that in the current government/business junta.

Good things about Bush?

He wants to actually work with NASA and get the Space Program going again.

He seems like a nice guy but a puppet and puppets some times cut the strings before it is too late.

I think then maybe they should get more sway then? Only seems right if they should pay for us more. This is unreasonable though, we all know that.

There is a point though were the rich gets taxxed so much that they will either get up and go, or just stop working all together. You can call it a breaking point, and it will add up if the top earners and workers in our society keeps getting taxxed and taxxed

I have to say that is a new one in a debate.

"its true and I don't even have to back it up"

wow, even when someone refutes your assertions?


so........if I make a claim and someone disagrees with me......can I pretty please use your argument instead of actually having to bring any facts into the discussion?????????

The tax cut affected many different levels of wage earners. It also affected people in a way not related to their income.

"The tax breaks primarily went to the rich".

I am telling you that I dispute this assertion. This statement basically says that rich people got tax cuts while the "working class" and the "poor" got very little.

show me the facts. Don't give me some childish, playground, wimp-out answer.

If, for some reason, you decide to actually research the topic and provide some "proof" to bakc up your claim.....I will apologize. Until then, did you really think a silly answer like "I don't have to" would work?

I hear what you're saying, but they currently pay less tax as a proportion of income than even the middle class does. Here's an article that makes the point better than I could:

http://baltimorechronicle.com/090204SheldonHLaskin.html

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS:
“Taxes Are What We Pay for Civilized Society”
by Sheldon H. Laskin

Progressive income taxation is based on the very reasonable principle that those who have benefited the most from living in an ordered society should contribute the most to meeting the social needs of the nation.
Many factors have contributed to the erosion of democracy in the United States-increased concentration of corporate media ownership, privatization, deregulation, globalization, etc. But one factor that progressives fail to give adequate attention to is the erosion of the progressive income tax. Increasingly, the burden of taxation in this country is being borne by the middle class for the benefit of the wealthiest Americans.This is a major reason that disparities in wealth between the richest fraction of 1% of Americans and everyone else are at all-time highs.

First, while the richest 1% of Americans-those with reported adjusted gross income (AGI) of more than $313,000 in 2000 (before the Bush tax cuts)-paid more than 37% of individual income tax that year, this is only part of the picture. When other federal taxes are included, their overall federal tax burden was about 25% of total taxes, about 21% of their reported income. And yet, the richest 1% received one-third of the benefit of the Bush tax cuts. And, while $313,000 is certainly a very nice income, people at this level hardly constitute the super-rich in America. The tax burden falls exponentially the higher up the income ladder one looks.
The shift in tax burden is so profound that it will shortly become unfixable without a general income tax increase, because fixing it will simply cost the Treasury too much.

Also, measuring the tax burden by reported income is misleading. The reported income of the very wealthy is a fraction of their total income. Unlike the typical wage earner, the very wealthy are able to take much of their income in forms that never show up on a tax return at all.

One of the major reasons the tax burden is so heavily skewed against the middle class and in favor of the very wealthy is the Social Security tax. This tax is especially burdensome to middle-income taxpayers, while amounting to petty cash for the very wealthy. Unlike the income tax, the Social Security tax applies to the first dollar of income, and the tax is capped (as of 2000) at $76,200 of income. The Social Security tax burden for someone earning $76,200 in 2000 was 12.4% (the sum of the employer and employee share). For someone earning $313,000, this tax burden was only 3%. At $1,000,000, the burden was only nine-tenths of 1%.

Further, Congress didn't cut spending to fund the Bush tax cuts; instead, it borrowed the money. To pay the bill, the middle class subsidized the income tax cuts for the very wealthy, through the Social Security trust fund. Congress routinely uses Social Security taxes in order to meet current general budget needs. In doing so, Congress leaves the Social Security trust fund with an IOU that can be paid only by increasing some combination of the income and/or the Social Security tax, or by cutting Social Security benefits. This, and not the necessity to pay retirement and disability benefits, is the source of the Social Security funding crisis. It is outrageous that the super wealthy, who contribute so little to Social Security, should be able to finance tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit them by handing an unsecured IOU to the rest of us.

Finally, the middle class is increasingly becoming subject to the alternative minimum tax (ATM). Originally enacted to reduce the ability of the very rich to shelter income, for a variety of reasons the burden of the tax is increasingly falling disproportionately on the middle class. By 2010, people with less than $200,000 in income will pay 58.6% of the ATM, while those with $1,000,000 will pay only 6%. Comparable figures for 2003 were 19.2% and 22.5%. This shift in tax burden is so profound that it will shortly become unfixable without a general income tax increase, because fixing it will simply cost the Treasury too much.

Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society." Progressive income taxation is based on the very reasonable principle that those who have benefited the most from living in an ordered society should contribute the most to meeting the social needs of the nation. No society has long remained democratic that did not have a progressive income tax system. The unwillingness of the very rich to pay their fair share of tax is one measure of the breakdown of the social contract in this country.
The writer holds an LL.M in Taxation from the University of Baltimore, where he teaches state and local tax in the graduate tax program.

You're getting a little close to insulting. Actually, you're right there, and you know it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have to offer to apologize under some circumstances. Please moderate your language to continue being a good citizen of the Titled Forum.

As it stands, I did dig up a corroborating article in response to another post. It's a couple of posts up from this one.

And what I meant by "I don't have to" is that I felt that the logic behind my argument was clear for everyone to see. Apparently I was wrong.

I've been too much the enabler in this conversation. I've dug up some info. Rather than say, "I'm tired of hearing this," dig up some facts of your own, if you can.

Just how much fucking money do these people need? How much wealth, privelige and leisure is enough? What motivates a people with ten million in the bank to think, "You know, it's not enough, my great-great-great-grandchildren might want TWO yachts, so I need more." ? When is enough enough? How easy do they need their lives to be? At what point does the point of earning money change from providing a healthy, comfortable life for your family to an unnecessary, greedy contest to amass unneeded wealth just for the hell of it? Does anyone else see the supreme arrogance of this?

I see quite clearly the wrong in taking something away. Once again these people earned what they had, and they can lose it in the blink of an eye.

Your reaction is why Trial lawyers, and Lawsuits like the Hot Coffee on the old lady at McDonalds succeed.

It's so much better if you earn your money, but if it's given to you you are going to be nothing but dependent on the hand that feeds you. Who cares if they have a lot of money, that doesn't reflect upon you. Don't you want to earn your money rather then steal it?

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't say anything about suing anyone, or stealing from anyone. I'm talking about masses and masses of accumulated wealth that's completely unnecessary for the continued leisurely survival of your family. At what point is the race for money no longer about providing for you and yours, but about "whoever dies with the most toys wins"?

Hello again to all you TFP politicos!

A year has come and gone, and things have changed; evolved. Some things went well for Bush. Some went poor. I'd like to remind posters one more time to try to ignore any trolls that pop up and to refrain from.. vigorous debate.

What has bush done positively in the areas of:

Environmentalism
Health Care
Education
resource management
Foreign policy (minus his attacks on iraq and the war on terror)
Taxes
Economic Growth
social services (including welfare)
foreign trade
etc.

And have the policies he instituted last year served the public well in these areas, or flopped?

Also, I understand better now that the war on terror is a large and influencial factor in the current administration. That doesn't mean we can just ignore problems in the above areas because of it. So keep it low key. It is not the focus of this thread.

The current focus/question of this thread is:
As a republican/conservative/etc. do you feel that in the past year, President Bush has taken the country in the right direction? Since last november, what sort of positive accomplishments has he made for the american people?

And for KMA (if he's around): How do you feel about the increasing size of the current buraucracy, lowered accountability, and the large defecit? Just curious, as you said they were hot button topics for yourself.

A chance for the faithful to defend the "great leader", and fourteen hours go by with nary a peep out of any of them.

There has to be an appropriate time and place to advance an argument that it is one thing to follow a leader that the rest of us are convinced is a complete failure, in almost every area of integrity and accomplishment, and it is another thing to be able to mount a coherent or persuasive argument in his favor. Bush's declining numbers of supporters demonstrate a common opinion that favoring him is just "how they feel". Maybe this piece helps to explain why....(As objectionable as some may find examination of commonality between today's circumstances and what happened 65 years ago, 80 million people were once moved to an extreme via similar methods. In the U.S., we have a history of and a legal right to discuss and examine what happened, and hopefully, learn from it, so it won't happen again.)

Host, I'm not sure this is the thread for people like us. I can't see anything positive about Bush, and I'd be willing to bet you are on the same page (you might have even written the page). I'll say this about Bush, he is not as bad as Hitler. Those comparisons, while certianally useful in debate, are not yet apt. Those comparisons may be apt soon, but not quite yet.

Read my post here, willravel:
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1929256&postcount=3">cia detaining prisoners in secret locations</a>
roachboy ended his <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=97012">subsequent post (#4)</a>, in that same thread, this way:
Then....come back and tell me, if not now......when??????

I've read every post you've written over the past year or so. The information you bring is second to none, as far as I'm concerned. I have learned a great deal from you. There are parallels between Bush and Hitler of course, but in comparing Bush to Hitler, one compares what Bush has done so far to what Hitler did in totality. While no one more than me hates what Bush is doing to our country, I still cannot compare the sanctions, wars, propoganda, torture, etc. to the holocaust. I'm not ready to make the comparison yet. That day may come, though I pray it doesn't, but I don't think the Bush legacy thus far equates to the holocaust and WW2.

Edit: By the way, I do know that Bush is on the same track as Hitler. The tragic events of 9/11 were a frightening mirror of the burning of the Reichstag. Foretunatally, Bush does not yet have enough power gathered to remain in office beyond 2008, and I doubt he can muster that kind of power.

Ok guys, although I appreciate the interest, I am looking for positives about bush, and to hear from republicans what if anything has changed since last year in their attitudes about him.

Not to be a jerk, but hitler comparisons in a thread looking for positives in bush isn't exactly in the spirit of the thread. I know there are republicans around the board, come out and post.

willravel, thank you.....skier, I appreciate your patience and tolerance.
My aim was to point out that the last five years have exposed Americans to a propaganda campaign, and the technician (Luntz) and techniques that have made it so effective that it rivals only the remarkably similar campaign to shape and then control the opinion of the public in another country, 65 years ago.

The dilemma, willravel, is the risk that as Bush has stated, he will "catapult the propaganda" to the point where it suddenly influences a clampdown of all efforts to organize dissent and reistance to the agenda of these thugs. The risk of possibly being too early to vehemently protest what they are doing is outweighed, IMO, by the potential consequences, if these comparisions are not pointed out now. How else can you react when you witness, in your own recent times, your own leaders committing illegal war of aggression and other crimes against humanity, while simultaneously using Luntz/Rove tactics to consolidate and then strengthen the politcal base that enabled them to carry out their anti-American, and anti-humanity agenda.

I beleive that it is possible to compare the techniques of then and now, and the eeirily similar phrases, without dredging up debate on comparison of offenses that ensued as a result of mass brainwashing of a nation.

I pointed this out to help make the point that it is difficult for a "target" to explain the effect of a successful propaganda on his or her thinking. This is probably because the effect does not stimulate "thinking"...it creates "feelings", a much harder thing than a thought, when it comes to putting it into words.

I've invited the author of the recent TFP post linked here....
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...32&postcount=6

to come over and post on this thread, because I think that he is someone who "feel" his positions, but has the potential to post here as skier intends....
if anyone can. I'm not convinced though, that anyone can....or will.

Host, it really is a thought provoking topic. I don't know much about the intricacies of propaganda and the weight it carries in politics, although you can certainly see some the effects in the current administration. I would be very interested to read a thread with a focus on the role of propaganda and how influential it can be.

we had several members take a stab at it last year:
Mr. Mephisto (sorta tongue in cheek, but still appreciated)
Ramega
Konichiwaneko
KMA-628
Aliali
Pan6467

I'd like to see if they think or feel differently now than they did last year, and would like to welcome any fresh opinions from bush supporters as well.

edit- Trimming out my own bias. :) Don't want debate, just information and perspective.

This would have been my answer. I'd have added another, but I really can't think of one. :hmm:

Interesting. Host- you were right. I expected to at least see something about the war on terror, if nothing else. But nobody spoke up. (except for you, ObieX. Thank you! lol)

I'm at a loss for what this signifies. I'm still seeing board members defending the actions of president bush, but if there are no significant positive measures or actions he has implemented, why are you supporting him? I really can't get into your heads about this one, right now I just can't see your "side" having a rational basis for support of the current president. What are you really trying to defend?

I pulled this post from Tecoyah's "I reall want to know..." thread.

I think it speaks to what you are asking skier. I also know that in real life, I have found myself being placed in a position of supporting things I don't approve of because they are done by the side that I see as the lesser of two evils. I think we see some of that in the TFP politics threads.

I actually swore of the politics board, but let me read back catch up and get back to this.

I'm going to take a different approach. Although I am not a Bush fan, heck, I really don't like him I will give a non-partisan answer to the question.

What I find positive about Bush (as far as I can tell) is that he seems to be loyal to his friends. I find that to be an admirable trait. However, in the context of the office of the presidency, maybe not so good.

I agree with Bush on at least one thing.

I think that life is created upon conception. To me a zygote is at the same level or above the level of living mammal. At best, in my mind, a zygote is at the level of a very (very, very) young child. Therefore, any and every abortion ever to have been carried out is an act of first degree murder, in my mind. I think that the unborn will eventually be the last group to be persecuted, and that scares me. The fact that people can assume that the mother has the right to kill off her child, just because the child hasn't come out of her yet, frightens me. I realize that a woman has many rights that were at one time stomped on by bigots, but the 'right' to kill is not a right. It is immoral in the biggest way. IMO. That being said, I'd never support any of the radical pro-lifers who use violence. It is truely disturbing to think that I share a belief with those who would kill the mother and the child as a statement to save the child's life.

I'll write more if I can think of them.

I read up on it, still believe how I feel.

Not happy with how Bush has basically spent more then we need too. Being that I live in Georgia, I know money is not the answer (we rank 50th I think in state education, but the children get annually $11k in money for them, highest in the nation).

Fema for example gives out big checks for people to do...nothing. The work in the gulf coast (which my whole family has property on) and the progress there is hidious because of the politics involved.

Bush has been awful either by how he's been presented by media, or how he communicates over the past few months. I can't tell you everything that's happening in D.C. but if I based everything I knew on our great unbiased media... I would hate that dude like no other. I think the ongoing scandel with almost everyone or everything in his office is annoying also.

I'm one easy to admit I"m wrong, and in this case I appologize if people thought I was a 100% bush supporter. I'm not changing my opinion in the case of how the military felt for him, that I standly believe in. But I do feel dissapointed to see a man in such a posistion that could easily have been turned in his favor, and because of either his reaction or the media's potrayal of him (and his lack of pc work) it just took the turn for the worse.


Conclusion :

It's dissapointing watching someone who could of moved forward get jammed in the system that you despise. So much wasted potential.

Dissapointed by the politics on both sides of the equation, and in a way that's why I left this board.

In an effort not to cause any turmoil among us. I wish things could of been better, but I don't think they are too much worse. I think how bush is going right now is damaging him, but not the republican party in total. People are beginning to distant themselves away because of his portrayel.

I would still vote for Rice over Clinton in 08 though.

Extremist very much suck, on all sides.

I respect your belief, and this topic has been super difficult for me to find a steadfast approach on. I do know that realizing you share you beliefs with some kooky people can be heartbreakening. I find myself in that posistion when I find myself defending or standing by religious right people...ugh

Bush has some good ideas and is bold enough to put them out there-
Social Security needs to be reformed- he tried and failed, but at least he had the balls to say something needed to be done.

I actually think he is more sensible on immigration than most Republicans. the current system does not work, and is silly in its hypocracy. America doesn't work the way it does without lots of illegal immigrants. Acknowledge this, save the money dealing with countless illegals, and tax the $$ being sent back to Mexico. It makes sense. Whether he will be successful is an open ?
We have begun to be more pragmatic in dealing with Iraq, and that is a positive step.
I like his nominations for sc and fed chairman - even miers would have made a better justice than many said she would.

I was a huge fan of Gov. Bush, as I have said in this forum many times over the years, but have been disappointed in Bush as pres. plenty of times. (he was a far better gov. than the current one in tx, and no other gov. has as much exposure to Mexico and immigration problems - yes, even more so than Ariz or CA)

My honest opinion- his heart is in the right place, but he's gullible. that's it.

Mr. Mephisto,
Actually, your diagram there is pretty accurate. But what it fails to explain is the overall effects of political legislation on the economy. Economic growth or decline is measured by quarters. Each quarter reports reflect changes that have taken months and years to come into effect. Such as tax cuts. Regans economic policies didn't take hold till the early 90's.

All of those blue lines are honest to God growth, but they have the wrong name to them. All that growth is due to the policies of one....Ronald Regan.

Kinda makes you wanna hit something, doesn't it.

The red arrows? Same deal. Owed to the economic policies of Bill Clinton.

hmmm....... :D

Wow. Obviously you are saying democrats are more efficient.

Because it took Reagan and Bush the Elder 14 years before we started seeing gains in the middle of the Clinton presidency, but it only took Clinton 8 years to bring it completely around the other way.

See, this argument is what we call a load of crap. Either it takes 4 years, 8 years, or damn near 15 years for a president's economic policies to take effect. It doesn't make sense that it took Reagan's policies 14 years to have their effect, and Clinton's policies only 8. It's also exceedingly convenient that no matter what happens to the economy, the president gets to blame the last guy.

That's great for the president, since no president can EVER be held accountable for his economic blunders while in office.

You're new to the forum, and seemingly smug....even arrogant....compared to the lack of strength and documentation you presented.

First impressions are important. What is it that "you wanna hit"?

You indicate a personal feeling of anger that the actual "record" of the politician you favor, has not been fully appreciated.

In fact, I do appreciate Reagan's "contribution". He left us with a pathetic legacy and lasting influence that the Clinton presidency was temporarily able to reverse, but one that the Bush administration has set back "on track" again. <b>When will the eighty-five percent of Californians who cannot afford an average priced home, or the 45.8 million with no health insurance coveage, reap the "benefit" of the Bush influenced economy?</b>

"Trickle down" economic policies do not benefit the majority. Officials in the Bush administration seem to agree:
In the fall of 2001, nine months after Bush took office, 32 percent of California households could afford to purchase a median priced house in that state. 43 months later....in may, 2005, half the 2001 household number....just 16 percent could afford to buy the median priced, California house.

Can an economy that fails to bring improvements in wages and benefits and housing affordability to 84 percent of it's participants, an economy that places more households in poverty for four years in a row, be described as a success of the POTUS who presides over it?

<a href="http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/If_a_tree_falls_in_a_forest_and_there_is_no_one_there_to_hear_it_fall_does_it_make_a_noise">If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it fall does it make a noise?</a>
Change the wording to "if an economy grows and only the wealthiest get to benefit from it, does a POTUS deserve much credit for the growth?

the economy took a pretty immediate downturn while carter was in office
stagnation existed for the first 2-3 years of reagans presidency and then there was the 80's boom
the economy was in relative flux during Bush 41's term
during clintons first term the economy slightly rose
clintons second term was a huge boom (tech bubble) then burst right at the end of his second term
Bush 43 economy suffered greatly in the first term, mainly due to terror fears
high level economy during the last 5 years has been robust, middle class is shrinking and poverty class increased.

I fail to see how you can define great economic times, especially in that chart, as being reagans tax cuts. would that mean that the 80s boom was carters doing? unlikely.

it's more likely that you truly don't understand supply side economics and would rather just attribute a prosperous economy to the last two term republican president instead of realizing what technology innovations can do to enhance GDP and production.

I hear they have economics classes in community colleges around the nation. Maybe you should take a few.

As I have observed from this forum documentation is not required to have an opinion. I thank you for pointing that out though. If I have some time to pull up my old election files I will provide the documentation you require.

Smug/arrogant? Not so much more than anyone else, I'm afraid.

First impressions: Who am I trying to impress? Would you think my opinion true to form if I WERE trying to impress you?

I challenge you, then, to a documentation stand off. You havn't provided me with it to support your theory that Clinton fixed anything. (I would suggest that it happen in a seperate thread though-out of respect - or over PM or e-mail)

As to California, and the other states, Individual state economies can not be measured soely against national policies. They have individual laws, codes, legislatures, and regulations. California is a state that has been run by liberal-democrats for years. What does that say to you?

That is an interesting theory. I have a few that refute most liberal-democrat principles. The most important and the basis for many of my opinions is "Economics in One Lesson" By Henry Hazlett
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/051...lance&n=283155

This has the clearest and concise explination of "The Broken Window Theory" which I use as basis for the argument that Govenrment intervention to "fix" economic problems only creates more problems.

I don't think the President himself deserves credit for economic growth or delcine as a whole at all. I think that Presidential policies can take credit for "affecting" the economy one way or another.

Yet is it my beleif that our free market economy is an entity unto itself - influences by many sources -deserving to be seen through the eyes of the public AND private sectors (gasp, yes. corporations. And parnterships. And small businesses).

Uh oh. This could get really messy, really fast. Maybe just do links instead of showing the whole page, highlighting only the most relevent parts. Let's make this a good clean source-off.

well, arella, if you are willing to buy the absurd premises of neoclassical economic theory then it would almost seem logical that you would attribute all kinds of equally absurd attributes to reagan and grossly inflate the effects of his policies. generally, conservative metaphysics wrapped in economic language is an article of faith amongst folk who operate on the right--which means that they are almost never able to defend their positions to people who do not share their faith. but such is the position you find yourself in--it'll be interesting to see if you fare any better than your rightwing comrades often do here. try to lay out your premises in ways that are logically accessable to folk who view your politics as untenable, please. who knows, maybe an interesting debate may come of it.

Why are they absurd?


The problem is that conservatives (or the rights- or christinas-or whatever the name/flaver of the day is) never do defend themselves. It comes from a world view that is strongly backed up by history and tradition.

Is that the reason for my views? nope. will I debate "neoclassical" economic theory (quotes because that is not a right-on-the-money discription for my opinions and beleifs but close enough) sure.

Do I think it is right? yes.

Will I debate using sources? Sure.

Try to lay out premises that are logically accessable? I think I have and will continue to do so. Logic is good.

You may now commence with the namecalling ..... (or debate if anyone wants to suprise me out of some of my remaining cynicisim)

i was kind of hoping that you would bypass the expression of willingness and simply lay out the premises and arguments that you base on them that might help make sense of your positions outlined earlier. but i suppose that these expressions are nice. so there we are. how about the actual arguments now?

as for the idea that conservatives are backed by history and tradition, i see nothing explanatory in either noun, and nothing compelling about the claim. how about you suspend reliance on it and simply spell out where you are coming from in your earlier posts please?

Oh jesus - I never thought anyone would say THAT to host!

ArellaNova, welcome to TFP. I don't want you to think that people laughing at an inside joke, so I'll explain that most complaints about host are relating to the excessive documentation he uses to back his points up. I seriously doubt that his 9 hour silence following your challenge is because you stumped him!

I think you'll find that good original thinking and logic is acceptable without documentation (otherwise you'd never be posting your own opinions), but facts should be backed up unless you want a thread to descend into bickering about where you got your info.

Finally! Arella, I can't tell you how pleased I am that someone is willing to back up what they say in response to Host. I have yet to see it in nearly a year.

The TFP politics forum might just become a more intellectual place to be, if the current responses to Host need to rise above "yo mamma" type replies.

I look forward to it. :)

That might have been a bit confusing. I wasn't referring to history as a whole but western history and western judeo-christian traditions. Yep, I said it :)

I would love to answer your question, but in all honesty I would like a more specific path or question from which to follow. As you can guess most of my beleifs are related to eachother to form a whole opinion and personality but I decline to lay all of them out before you simply as a deference to time and space on this forum. I can over some method of private mail - with the understanding that I am not online every day and there might be some delay over weekend periods - give you an essay or two on what I beleive on various topics, but then again I would need some direction.

I will assume, for the moment, that we can focus on my claim that political actions only affect the economy in part, and that those effects can and often do encounter an immeasurable delay.

I can also assume that the part you object to most is my opinion that most of the prosperity in Clintons time was due to the policies of Regan. ( I would like to include in that statment the policies of Regan republicans of his time and the actions of the republican congress under the Bush senior/Clinton years in office.)

Correct?

I am pleased that Roachboy and Host have challenged me, honestly. I have beleived these things for along time, but this gives me reason to go back and refresh my documentation.

I guess it is needless of me to say now that I am a fiscal conservative. I have yet to find a really good term to discribe where I stand on social issues but conservative is close enough for general discussion.

I am amused of someone "preparing ammo" as you infer of Hosts absence and actions. This could be fun!

I hope he gives me leniency as far as time goes to prepare educated and measured (and hopefully correctly spelled:) responses since I work nearly 40 hours over the weekends and 25 durring the weeks. The soul is VERY willing. The reality of life however......:P

posted by Dksuddeth


I was a history of economics major and principles of economics minor at a four year liberal arts college. Your comments really do make me smile. I realize that I have made some challenging and very cursory statments. I was intellectually "jerking the line" and there were a few bites.

If what you say is true and you still believe that the booming tech industry of the 90's was a result of reagans policies, then i'd get your money back.

tell me, did your history and principles classes only discuss the positive aspects of keynesian economics or did it try to theorize on the long term principles of supply side shortcomings?

So, uhmm, my thread took an interesting turn.

Thanks to willravel, konichiwaneko, and dy156 for their responses before the ArellaNova sidetracking. :D

Thanks for throwing so much thought into your response konichiwaneko. I believe I learned a lot from it.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:
That's it! That's the Bush Positive:
He's not as bad as Hitler.
:lol::lol::lol::lol:

oops, I didn't actually mean to post this, I was just checking out the pretty colors. :lol: imagine my surprise when I get a "reply to post" notification... but now that it's here, I guess it works.. :p

1 bush positive:
the national do not call registry

seriously..tha'ts it...that's all i can think of

I got bad news for you if your girlfriend / spouse uses birth control.

Conception occurs, then the zygote is unable to be implanted on the walls of the uterus..so dooown it goes.

Does this make you a mass murderer?

I also found this article useful on Bush's tax cuts.

Hint: They don't benefit the average american as much as you think.

http://moderateindependent.com/v1i15taxnumbers.htm

The federal government is collecting more tax dollars today than at any other point in hisotry. Personally, from my first job til now I have never had a year where my total taxes paid did not go up. There have not been any tax cuts. They cut tax rates and made a few changes, but you can not honestly say Bush cut taxes for rich or middle-class people.

Condom = prevention. Spermacide = precvention. Spermatazoa never reaches ovum, so there is no zygote. We already know that neither sperm nor ovum are considered lifeforms, so all is good with the world.

hrandani was talking about the pill which does often allow sperm to reach an egg.

My wife doesn't use the pill, when we need a contraceptive, we use both a condom and spermacide. Therefore, I am consistant with my beliefs (i.e. not a mass murderer). That was my response.

His cabinet is possibly the most diverse ever.

He was very nearly killed by Mister Salty, giving us all a good chuckle.

but do you know how often it fails and an egg may be fertilized but never implanted for other reasons. Is that murder? bc it happens all the time.

There is always a risk of pregnancy, even with the pill condoms spermacide and other contraceptives. I know that none of them have a 100% sucess rate. If my wife were to become pregnate right now, everything would be fine. I have a good job, we have a house that can fit another kid, we have the time and we would love the child and raise it the best we could. Outside of an ideal situation like this, I would certianally abstain. Abstaining is the only certian way to avoid prgnancy, unless your name is Mary and you live in Israel around 2000 years ago. I don't want to hijack this thread. If you want, I'd be glad to start a thread in philosophy about abortion, contraceptives, and abstainance.

Murder is when someone takes the life of a human after it becomes a zygote (before sentience, admittedly, but the zygote is a living human with the potential for sentience and a soul, if you believe in such things), espically because the pregnancy is simply unwanted. With the ability to procreate comes the responsibility as intelligent life forms to be sure that our offspring are able to be raised in a good environment. If you can't, then don't.

Not that I share this point of view but, is someone falling off a ladder to their death murder?

Natural abortions occur often, but it is called a miscarriage, not murder. Just like falling off a ladder is called, well stupid mostly, but .... :)

"Can you tell me some Bush Positives?"

Nope.

Trying to keep this thread on topic is like trying to pet a cat backwards.

HAHA :lol:

I'm suprised it took so long to derail a thread about Bush positives.

There are approximately three pages of derailment here. We are a silly bunch sometimes. :)

The removal of the Taliban and dismantling of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan are a definite Bush positive even though the lack of follow through with fleeing terrorists in Pakistan and propping up the crippled Northern Alliance as a puppet government were both major policy errors.

if george washington had the same state of mind as the current democrats...we wouldnt even have a country...if abraham lincoln (the very first republican president) had the same perspective as democrats we wouldnt have a 1/2 black president...im a proud republican but im also a proud smoker, if it werent for tobacco and cotton being our number one exports when we started this country where would those two presidents be....im not racist by any means by why does obama get a nobel peace prize medal for making my wallet thinner in one year then the eight years it took bush jr. to do so. what happened to the amendment that stated "no excessive taxes"...hm the product tobacco sure seems to be over taxed to me...and why do we buy oil from the area we are at war with for $200 a barral and sell grains to the middle east for $7 a bushel..fuck i say sell at $200 a bushel if they cant afford it they can eat their own oil.....I also have family and friends who are overseas fighting for our rights. talking to them they all say we need to be over there and fighting against them. they want our heads. by our heads i mean mine, the person im responding to, and anyone who believes in freedom reading this....bush wasnt wrong.

That's nice and all, but I think skier wanted to know what Bush did that was positive for America. An I think what you wrote would be accurate had you replaced "democrats" with "republicans".