CDIH

Those words were sprouted out of my own brain. It's called original thought.

i am not buying what you are selling

Galt Wrote:The president influences consumers, and dumb ones at that. The economy is run by enterprise, and they're smart enough to realize that the president's effect on the economy is negligable unless it's to put up an impediment.

While that holds some truth, it's not completely accurate. Yes the dumb consumers are the most influenced but you have to take a look around, we live in the idiot majority. Most people have no personal standings or opinions of their own. They are uneducated, uncultured slobs for the most part. They take for the holy word most everything that some schumuck with a nice suit and fancy vocabulary tells them is the "truth". They base their opinions on polls and numbers. They base their opinions on looks, on falsehoods, on whatever. They grow accustomed to trends and a certain way of life and get rattled when something is not in its place. People do not love, trust, or have faith in Bush as they did in Clinton. Barring the blowjobs and bullshit wars. Just on a charismatic viewpoint, Bush does not exude the confidence clinton did and people will not spend as freely now or invest as hopefully. If clinton was still in office I do believe the econmy would be better, if the country trusts their president and loves him they will go out and die for him. The president is like a quarterback in that sense, if his team believes in him they will go out and do anything for him.

you forget that most of middle america loves bush, us snobs on the east and west coast hate him. we're the minority.

Maybe in texas...

Quote:While that holds some truth, it's not completely accurate. Yes the dumb consumers are the most influenced but you have to take a look around, we live in the idiot majority. Most people have no personal standings or opinions of their own. They are uneducated, uncultured slobs for the most part. They take for the holy word most everything that some schumuck with a nice suit and fancy vocabulary tells them is the "truth". They base their opinions on polls and numbers. They base their opinions on looks, on falsehoods, on whatever. They grow accustomed to trends and a certain way of life and get rattled when something is not in its place.

Yes, people are dumb. Which is why they blame the president/credit the president for things he has no control over.

Quote:People do not love, trust, or have faith in Bush as they did in Clinton.

How do you know this to be true?



Edited By The Jays on 1074642979

Reagan was a great president because he freed individuals and businesses from the government and allowed the economy to recover that way.

FDR was a shitty president because he encumbered everyone from his bulky federal programs that are currently the single biggest reason we have massive debt and deficits (it certainly isn't the defense budget) and will continue to do so as long as it's the government's edict to provide a baseline of riskless support for the weak, old, and infirmed. His "recovery" was thanks to a very low bottom to grow off, and a buildup for war.

If you think the majority of america is not a bunch of mental rejects just take a look around. Most people have no clue about what goes on beyond their own neighborhoods. They don't read, they don't investigate, they don't care. Things have become too simplistic, things have been forced to become dumbed down for the majority. There are no more great leaders because there is little motivation beyond personal aspirations. There are no causes being fought, no one cares, no one wants to know. Try having a discussion like this with most people and they don't care to or have no clue.

As far as how do I know people do not look up to bush as they did to clinton, just take a look around, look on TV, talk to people around you. All they could bother Clinton about was a blowjob. Spending was up, the markets were up because people had a new hope with clinton as the country did with Kennedy.

Unfortunatly this country will never love a president as they did JFK. The course of history was changed more dramatically with Kennedy's death than any other single event in the last century.

This country had a gleaming hope with Kennedy, he was the ray of light that gave this country a reason to dream. Just think of the ripple effect his death had. He was making leaps and bounds in the cold war with kruschev, he signed a national security memorandum to remove half the troops from vietnam by christmas 1964, the space program, the civil rights bill, the future was the present.

With his death the security memorandum was reversed and the vietnam war engulfed the nation, the civil rights bill passed but not with as much hope as it once had. Peace talks with russia ceased and the countries innocence was forever scarred. Johnson drops out in 1968 and in comes Nixon, watergate, cambodia the whole distrust of politics in general is born.

This country is only as strong as its president, clinton had the hope and charisma of JFK, Bush does not and it is very evident. He is mocked at every turn, deservingly so, imagine clinton going into iraq under the same premise. Natural human jealousy will always hate to see the good succeed, they like to see failure more than success. Just like people would rather see the lakers win than lose, they'd rather hear someone alleged of commiting rape than being cleared of it.

Somehow Bush squeks by, maybe on the skirt of 9/11, maybe cause people are afraid to be labeled terrorists but its more a world of fear now than hope.

Quote:Reagan was a great president because he freed individuals and businesses from the government and allowed the economy to recover that way.

You just made me physically ill with this comment.

reagan sucked by the way.

i agree with almost all of what gonzo said.

Check the numbers. Carter had massive governmental taxes. Highest incremental tax was something like 90%. Reagan lowered all taxes accross the board. Also loosed many governmental regulations on businesses.

At the time, unemployment was something like 15% and inflation was over 7% (my numbers might be a bit high, but I'm pretty sure that the both of them combined was over 20%).

You maximize the control the public has over spending and minimize the control that government has over it, and the economy will improve. It's just basic economics and basic logic. But the money on the lower rung, there are less layers to skim off. Government is fat and bloated and always will be. They control spending & taxes and money is just wasted.

Sure, it may leave some people out in the cold, but I honestly don't care. Not all the turtles make it to the ocean. Tough shit.

Quote:Natural human jealousy will always hate to see the good succeed, they like to see failure more than success.

Wouldn't this explain why so many people want the war in Iraq to fail? So that they can get rid of the monkey who was selected to the presidency and put in their own boy? There are people out there who hate Bush so much that they do not realize how foolish they look or sound. It's one thing to lament a loss of life, it's another thing when Michael Moore posts the body count in Iraq as a "SEE, I TOLD YOU SO!!! "

With all these Democratic candidates, I really don't need to hear how they would never have voted for the war in Iraq (even though most of them did). I'd rather hear what they would do now.
Just being anti-Bush doesn't make the best case for president. If that was true, then people might as well go on believing that Martin Sheen really works in The West WIng.

Quote:You maximize the control the public has over spending and minimize the control that government has over it, and the economy will improve.

I really don't understand how anyone could believe the opposite.

i will bet the farm that everyone of you people votes for the same party as your parents. deny it all you want to, i wont believe you.

How the hell am I suppose to know who my parents vote for?

lost contact with your cousins i see

On the economy, the downturn is definitely the fault of President Bush. It wasn't the tax cut as most Democrats claim cause really it hasn't even had enough time to take effect. What started the downturn was when as President-elect, and through his first months in office, Bush constantly talked about how the economy was in trouble. What we were seeing at the time was a market correction, something economists were saying was inevitable even as early as 98 when things never looked better. But all we kept hearing was how "bad" the economy was, over and over, and it really became a self-fulfilling prophecy. What would have been a short-term correction ended up being a long-term recession.

I can tell you from personal experience, in the early part of 2001 when the company I worked was still doing very well, the owner basically said, "The President keeps talking about the economy being 'bad.' Now, things don't seem bad, but let's just hold off on any new hires until we see how this pans out. And, let's hold off on all non-vital purchases, just for the time being."

Right there you can see how the words - not actions, just the words of the President have an impact. Less hiring and corporate spending created a measurable slowdown in the economy, which led people to say, "Hey, maybe the President is right," and tighten up even more. Each report grew worse and worse due to this, and a nation that was being told to expect the worst slowly came to believe it.

Even Joe Lieberman warned at the time, "The American economy seems to have a slight head cold right now; if we take the medicine President Bush is offering, I'm afraid we are going to have a bad case of pneumonia." ( <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news....1.5.htm">http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news....1.5.htm</a><!-- m --> )

So why was Bush claiming that the economy was in such bad shape, when in reality it wasn't?

Simple - the American people, those that voted for him and those who didn't, didn't support his enormous tax cut. So he set out to try and convince people that the economy was bad - which in Republican terms means in need of stimulation through tax cuts. If he could make everyone think things were starting to turn to shit, he believed he could justify his larger tax cut. Even better, since he knew the economy was truly in good shape, once he got his tax cut passed, he could stop pretending there was a bad economy looming, and instead claim there would have been a downturn, but his tax cut saved the day.

Only there were two problems. A) The economy at this point WAS getting worse due to the panic he created, and B) 9/11 happened, and furthered the damage.

9/11 itself isn't to blame for the economic troubles, but it did give Bush a nice scapegoat for the growing economic downturn he created. The fact that he's also the biggest spending president we've ever had (domestic spending is up 27% I believe since he took office, military spending even higher) just puts us even further in the hole, and there doesn't appear to be any end in sight.

full house > state of the union address

How do you know that the American people didn't want a tax cut, and why is a tax cut bad? If that is true, then is a tax increase good?