Bush Facts

[GhostBoi]

Sorry if this has been posted before, but I did a search for "Bush Facts" and about a million things popped up unrelated, I didn't want to take the hours to sift through and pinpoint wheter or not its been posted.

Anyway its just a page with dozens of facts about bush and how he has(sarcasm) helped our nation, and the world.

Click Please

 

[seinfeldrules]

I hope you did some 'fact' checking from the opposing viewpoint as well. Actually, I dont really care. I can see you already made up your mind on the subject.

 

[blahblahblah]

Where to start picking that list a part...

 

[GhostBoi]

I hope you did some 'fact' checking from the opposing viewpoint as well. Actually, I dont really care. I can see you already made up your mind on the subject.

Well, if you mean good facts about Bush no not really, but I did watch the debates and he wasn't my kind of person. And, BTW this isn't a Kerry VS. Bush thread , this is all about Bush and Bush only.

 

[Foxtrot]

Just because of that I am going to vote for Bush.

 

[GhostBoi]

Ha, Foxtrot, that would be the very epitomy of assholism, but seriously you guys give me some facts good about Bush and I will read them. You should read my facts too, so we can all maybe change our horizon .

 

[Neutrino]

I hope you did some 'fact' checking from the opposing viewpoint as well. Actually, I dont really care. I can see you already made up your mind on the subject.

I'll do it.

 

[Foxtrot]

Ha, Foxtrot, that would be the very epitomy of assholism, but seriously you guys give me some facts good about Bush and I will read them. You should read my facts too, so we can all maybe change our horizon .

Wow, you are such a hypocrite.

 

[GhostBoi]

Wow, you are such a hypocrite.

Well, why don't you give me some facts about the Bush administration that are in his favor. Unless, of course you don't care about that. Oh yeah, I am somewhat of an asshole too :O .

 

[DoctorGordon]

That list is accurate

 

[Foxtrot]

Aight, http://www.georgewbush.com/Record/Default.aspx

 

[Raziaar]

130 – Approximate number of countries (out of a total of 191 recognized by the United Nations) with a U.S. military presence.

This was there before bush. How is this bush related?

 

[GhostBoi]

I am sorry, Foxtrot, but I shakll have to retire for now, I scanned through some of those facts and will actually read them tomorrow(Its hard since there not in a dandy little list :upstare: ) so far, I think the downs out weigh the ups, but I will get bacjk to you tomorrow with my final answer. :cheers:

edit:

This was there before bush. How is this bush related?

Bush is in office and the military presence is still there, so it is related to him, g'night.

 

[blahblahblah]

Well, why don't you give me some facts about the Bush administration that are in his favor. Unless, of course you don't care about that. Oh yeah, I am somewhat of an asshole too :O .

Be careful what you wish for. This is off the top of my head.

Bush's tax cuts overwhelmingly favor the wealthy. The top 1% will save more than $30,000 per year while 31% save nothing at all. Source: Citizens for Tax Justice and AFL/CIO

Failure to understand the reasons of this tax cut. If rich people save $30,000, they will spend it. Lets compare this with a tax reduction of $2,000 for the average person. Lets say the rich person decides to buy a luxury car for $30,000. Luxury items (like a luxury car) often have larger profit margins and the people who build, design, and create those cars earn more money than if they were to do some other occupation. Lets say the average person spends that $2,000 on various things (like a night out with your spouse, a new television, some new dishes, etc). All of those items are not luxury items, they are low profit margin items. That means the people who build, design, sell those items do not make as much money as people who work in industry's with higher profit margins.

The benefit of giving the tax cut is that the money will be spent on goods that can afford to pay the workers more money if they were doing something else. That is the general jist of why the tax cuts were passed. They were designed to stimulate the economy in the time of a recession.

 

[nicrd]

Be careful what you wish for. This is off the top of my head.



Failure to understand the reasons of this tax cut. If rich people save $30,000, they will spend it. Lets compare this with a tax reduction of $2,000 for the average person. Lets say the rich person decides to buy a luxury car for $30,000. Luxury items (like a luxury car) often have larger profit margins and the people who build, design, and create those cars earn more money than if they were to do some other occupation. Lets say the average person spends that $2,000 on various things (like a night out with your spouse, a new television, some new dishes, etc). All of those items are not luxury items, they are low profit margin items. That means the people who build, design, sell those items do not make as much money as people who work in industry's with higher profit margins.

The benefit of giving the tax cut is that the money will be spent on goods that can afford to pay the workers more money if they were doing something else. That is the general jist of why the tax cuts were passed. They were designed to stimulate the economy in the time of a recession.

In other words, the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer.

If the rich buys a luxury car with his 30 000$ then the money will surely go out of the country (no offense, but most luxury cars are made outside of the states) and it does not stimulate the american economy. Of course you can say that the 2000$ spent by the poors might be used to buy "Made in China" items, which again does not help local economy.

But in reality, a part of the net amount of money spent by rich or poor will go out and another part will stay in. The biggest difference is that the 30 000$ will only touch a few rich people while the 2000$ will help a lot of poor people.

Of course it can encourage the economy by giving it to rich people, but poor people can also do it by helping small stores or small buisnesses.

Anyways, I believe that the government should keep that money and spend it somewhere more usefull, like education or healthcare.

 

[blahblahblah]

In other words, the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer.

If the rich buys a luxury car with his 30 000$ then the money will surely go out of the country (no offense, but most luxury cars are made outside of the states) and it does not stimulate the american economy. Of course you can say that the 2000$ spent by the poors might be used to buy "Made in China" items, which again does not help local economy.

But in reality, a part of the net amount of money spent by rich or poor will go out and another part will stay in. The biggest difference is that the 30 000$ will only touch a few rich people while the 2000$ will help a lot of poor people.

Of course it can encourage the economy by giving it to rich people, but poor people can also do it by helping small stores or small buisnesses.

Anyways, I believe that the government should keep that money and spend it somewhere more usefull, like education or healthcare.

No, you are looking at the money before it flows through the economy. The effect of giving a tax break to poor people is not as much as it would be giving a tax break to the rich people. Yes, I know it sounds wierd, but it makes sense if you think about it for a while.

Like I said, the $30,000 is given to the rich people who then spend it. They have no reason to hoard the money.

 

[nicrd]

No, you are looking at the money before it flows through the economy. The effect of giving a tax break to poor people is not as much as it would be giving a tax break to the rich people. Yes, I know it sounds wierd, but it makes sense if you think about it for a while.

Like I said, the $30,000 is given to the rich people who then spend it. They have no reason to hoard the money.

Actually the poor will spend it. They have no choice. But its true that the rich might invest it and thus help the economy. Sorry, its just that your previous example was not correct.

I still think the government should use this money on something more urgent, like education.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Like it or not, he has saved 25 million people around the world from either Saddam or the Taliban. It looks as though they have more potential for better lives now.

 

[Pogrom]

Like I said, the $30,000 is given to the rich people who then spend it. They have no reason to hoard the money.

They have no reason to hoard the money, but by the same token they have no reason to spend the money.

Whereas those in the bottom tier of the tax bracket need to spend that $2000 just to survive.

 

[blahblahblah]

Actually the poor will spend it. They have no choice. But its true that the rich might invest it and thus help the economy. Sorry, its just that your previous example was not correct.

I still think the government should use this money on something more urgent, like education.

You are still missing my point. Both groups will spend any extra money they receive. It just happens that rich people buy more expensive items which happen to be made by people who earn higher wages than at a normal job (like if a poor person bought something).

The belief about lowering taxes is that it helps in the long run. By lowering taxes, it stimulates economic growth (because people are spending money from their tax cuts). This economic growth is then subject to a tax which increases the governments revenue. Think of tax cuts as trying to make the pie bigger (tax cuts which results in economic growth), than taking a bigger slice of the pie (keeping taxes status quo or a tax hike). I'm not saying which one is more right. They are two different theories.

They have no reason to hoard the money, but by the same token they have no reason to spend the money.

Whereas those in the bottom tier of the tax bracket need to spend that $2000 just to survive.

You are still missing the point. What would you rather have, a job at McDonalds earning minimum wage or a job at a yacht manufacturer earning $15 an hour?

 

[Neutrino]

I understand what you're saying blahblahblah. Indeed such tax cuts have no doubtedly helped the economy to a certain extent.

But even conceding that I admit I still have a fundamental problem with them. First, I do not think they helped the low and middle class nearly enough; second, I disagree with the policy of tax cuts during a time of war (first time in our nations history that has happened) and third, though they helped the economy short term they were also responsible for raising the national debt a very significant amount which may have serious repercussions in the long term.

Just some thoughts.

Edit: I was looking into the accuracy of those facts posted in this thread, but I got sidetracked for a bit. I'll try to get back to it here in a bit.

 

[hasan]

Like it or not, he has saved 25 million people around the world from either Saddam or the Taliban.

rofl
what a good doer /sarcasm

murdurer

 

[blahblahblah]

I understand what you're saying blahblahblah. Indeed such tax cuts have no doubtedly helped the economy to a certain extent.

But even conceding that I admit I still have a fundamental problem with them. First, I do not think they helped the low and middle class nearly enough; second, I disagree with the policy of tax cuts during a time of war (first time in our nations history that has happened) and third, though they helped the economy short term they were also responsible for raising the national debt a very significant amount which may have serious repercussions in the long term.

Just some thoughts.

Edit: I was looking into the accuracy of those facts posted in this thread, but I got sidetracked for a bit. I'll try to get back to it here in a bit.

I never said I agreed with them. I was merely trying to explain why the tax cuts were given in the first place.

I believe that the tax cuts were necessary (especially when you consider the effects of 9/11), however, I do not agree with the length of the tax cuts. The majority of the tax cuts will last to 2008. Though I do believe that certain tax cuts (like the reduction in tax rates for dividends) are needed to be made permament. I think the most of the current tax cuts should be repealed.

As for the national debt, I'm geninuely worried about it. I think the war in Iraq is chump change. I think the damage has been long since done.

 

[Neutrino]

I never said I agreed with them. I was merely trying to explain why the tax cuts were given in the first place.

Ok, sorry. I didn't really know what your position was on them. That was more directed at everyone, not really at you.

I believe that the tax cuts were necessary (especially when you consider the effects of 9/11), however, I do not agree with the length of the tax cuts. The majority of the tax cuts will last to 2008. Though I do believe that certain tax cuts (like the reduction in tax rates for dividends) are needed to be made permament. I think the most of the current tax cuts should be repealed.

As for the national debt, I'm geninuely worried about it. I think the war in Iraq is chump change. I think the damage has been long since done.

I pretty much agree with that. My only difference might be that I have a pretty big problem with the cost of the war as I think we went there on false pretenses (I don't know if you think that or not). So the combination of those two things really bothers me.

Just so you know I responded to you in the other thread. I'll just say here as well, sorry if I offended you.

 

[PunisherUSA]

Convert or die, heathens!!
Democrats shall burn in hell upon the spears of the righteous!

"Hi, I'm George W. Bush, and i support this ad."
[/sarcasm]


Honestly, this election makes me sad for both sides ;(

 

[Jakeic]

Failure to understand the reasons of this tax cut. If rich people save $30,000, they will spend it. Lets compare this with a tax reduction of $2,000 for the average person. Lets say the rich person decides to buy a luxury car for $30,000. Luxury items (like a luxury car) often have larger profit margins and the people who build, design, and create those cars earn more money than if they were to do some other occupation. Lets say the average person spends that $2,000 on various things (like a night out with your spouse, a new television, some new dishes, etc). All of those items are not luxury items, they are low profit margin items. That means the people who build, design, sell those items do not make as much money as people who work in industry's with higher profit margins.

The benefit of giving the tax cut is that the money will be spent on goods that can afford to pay the workers more money if they were doing something else. That is the general jist of why the tax cuts were passed. They were designed to stimulate the economy in the time of a recession.

your failure is to mention that this is called supply-side economics and it is a theory and not a fact.

 

[hasan]

c'mon people, you know that tax cut is not the main issue about bushy, don't you?
or is it?

 

[KidRock]

rofl
what a good doer /sarcasm

murdurer

I love how you think of bush as a murderer...those iraqie pu*sies who be-head people are bigger murderers. At least Bush had something good in mind as he was getting rid of saddam and trying to fix that shit hole known as baghdad.

 

[Neutrino]

At least Bush had something good in mind as he was getting rid of saddam and trying to fix that shit hole known as baghdad.

No, actually he was going after WMD's and Al Qaeda.



Oops.

 

[KidRock]

No, actually he was going after WMD's and Al Qaeda.



Oops.

So I guess all the money and food dropped in Iraq is like a mouse trap to draw out al-Qaeda right? of COURSE it CANT be to feed the people.

 

[Neutrino]

So I guess all the money and food dropped in Iraq is like a mouse trap to draw out al-Qaeda right? of COURSE it CANT be to feed the people.

I'm not saying we're not doing some amount of good there now.

I'm saying that wasn't why we went there in the first place.

 

[hasan]

some people's idiocy is amazing

P.S. Baghdad pwns your troops

 

[Jakeic]

if we are so good and richeous why aren't we in the suddan?

 

[hasan]

dude, you want to mess up sudan to?
you mean by ging to sudan you will be good and rightous?

 

[Jakeic]

i'm saying if all we care about is doing good for people, then why aren't we going to help them?

 

[blahblahblah]

i'm saying if all we care about is doing good for people, then why aren't we going to help them?

What do you want then? And how will you pay for it?

 

[Jakeic]

the whole thing was a question for those of us who claim that we are doing good in iraq, and that was part of the bush plan.

 

[blahblahblah]

the whole thing was a question for those of us who claim that we are doing good in iraq, and that was part of the bush plan.

What is your point? You think Kerry is going to do something different than Bush right now? Or even Nader?

Frankly, your argument is getting old and stale.

Wait, you want to assign blame to Bush, even though roughly 50% of the government is at fault? I don't see you jumping up and down for all the Republicans and Democrats who committed the same errors. Or the intelligence personal who drew the same conclusions as well. Shouldn't they be fired as well?

I see...you want a scape goat so you can feel comfortable that the problem has been solved. Even though nothing will changed (if Kerry is elected), besides a new face and some more promises to break...

 

[Jakeic]

What is your point? You think Kerry is going to do something different than Bush right now? Or even Nader?

well yeah, right now we are following along the lines of an isolationist policy. we are fighting a war in the wrong spot and at the wrong time. we have gone an made an area of the world more dangerous, which is the oppisite of what we were supposed to do, all the while having a blind eye to the real hot spots in the world.

Frankly, your argument is getting old and stale.

i'm not exactly sure what you're talking about, my arguement was that if we are only in iraq to do good things and remove bad people, then why don't we do it else where as well? The obvious answer is that else where doesn't have oil.

Wait, you want to assign blame to Bush, even though roughly 50% of the government is at fault? I don't see you jumping up and down for all the Republicans and Democrats who committed the same errors. Or the intelligence personal who drew the same conclusions as well. Shouldn't they be fired as well?

bush is at fault. as the commander and cheif it is his job to send us to war for the right cause, a responsibility that can not be taken lightly. however, he took us to war on trumped up charges and false inteligence. he didn't go through the proper channels for fighting this war, and yes i am refering to the international community. As far as anyone else being blamed, as far as i know, no one congressman has ever deployed our forces. They gave Bush the power to use force as a means of deterinment and trying to force iraq's hand, instead Bush used it to destroy their hand.

as far as i am concerned, yeah they should be fired, that includes bush. what really needs to be changed is how we go about collecting inteligence.

I see...you want a scape goat so you can feel comfortable that the problem has been solved. Even though nothing will changed (if Kerry is elected), besides a new face and some more promises to break...

how is holding the person responsible accountable making them a scape goat? the party that stands up for being responsible for your own actions is the least accountable. generally these neocons follow this pattern, if we just keep saying one thing over and over again, it'll become true because american's are stupid.

the only sure way that things won't change is if bush is reelected, but i digress, things could become much, much worse. i'm not saying that other canidates will do a better job, i am saying that bush does not deserve another shot. he's had four years, where has he taken our country? what good has he done for us? how can we be safer if the world is more dangerous? why does he rule with fear if he is actually doing the right thing?

the biggest problem facing america today is the complecency of the american voter. how can 50% of america view increased risk of terrorist attacks, higher rates of healthcare, sputtering economy, infringements on the first admentment, legislating discrimination, and basic overall incompetency as traits of a good administration? I think it has something to do with people are unwilling to disbelieve things they are told.

 

[Neutrino]

What is your point? You think Kerry is going to do something different than Bush right now? Or even Nader?

Frankly, your argument is getting old and stale.

Wait, you want to assign blame to Bush, even though roughly 50% of the government is at fault? I don't see you jumping up and down for all the Republicans and Democrats who committed the same errors. Or the intelligence personal who drew the same conclusions as well. Shouldn't they be fired as well?

I see...you want a scape goat so you can feel comfortable that the problem has been solved. Even though nothing will changed (if Kerry is elected), besides a new face and some more promises to break...

I think his only point was to respond to the people like kidrock who seem to think we went to Iraq solely for a humanatarian mission. He was pointing out that there were other places in just as much need or more than Iraq was at the time we went to war. Thus Iraq was not about any selfless act of helping people. It was about making a pre-emptive strike to a supposed threat to the US based on intelligence of WMD's and Al Queda connections.

Atleast that was my point. I just don't like people thinking everything is alright now because we've found a justification for the war after we fought it. In my opinion you don't use hindsight to change the reasons for going into a war and use that to cover up the fact that the original reasons were a mistake.

To this day Bush defends his decisions on Iraq by saying Sadam might have one day developed WMD's, a position not supported by the latest findings. That's the main thing that currently scares me. The fact that the President is trying to justify pre-emptive strikes on "might haves". I'd be a lot happier if he'd just admit we screwed up but still have to finish the job. In my opinion though, he doesn't do it because it would probably hurt his chance at reelection.

Concerning Bush's involvement or non-involvement in going into Iraq, I found these two links to be quite good.

Building the case for military action
http://www.newsaic.com/f911chap6-1.html

Justifications for military action in Iraq
http://www.newsaic.com/f911chap6-2.html

I personally think he deserves a rather large chunk of the blame. Exactly how much is certainly debatable though.


Also, what concerns me greatly is that the Bush administration still insists that Iraq is entirely about the fight against terrorism. My personal opinion is that instead, it has made this threat even worse than it was.

Especially in light of things like this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6268680/

Basically, even taking any blame for the war out of the picture, I think he is being very dishonest to the people about this whole thing. Something I personally will not tolerate in a President when it comes to matters of such importance.

Anyway, I don't really know exactly what your position is on all these things so don't take it exactly that I'm arguing with you. I'm just saying how I see things currently.