George Bush The Liberal!

[TheEnforcer]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...05/7/2t4wv.html (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=127&ncid=742&e=7&u=/021205/7/2t4wv.html)

GEORGE W. BUSH, LIBERAL
Wed Dec 4,10:03 PM ET Add Op/Ed - Ted Rall to My Yahoo!


By Ted Rall

Sometimes Right-Wing Doesn't Mean Conservative



NEW YORK--On the surface, the main political story appears to be "Clueless Democratic Party Beaten to Pulp by Vibrant if Unscrupulous Republicans." But the bigger, weirder story is that liberals have won the culture wars--and have corrupted the GOP with the worst aspects of their beliefs. Incredibly, the hard-right Bush Administration has turned out to be composed of old-fashioned tax-and-spend, welfare-coddling, big-government liberals.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

An interesting article to say the least!! :nyanya:

[TheEnforcer]

Come on!! Vick, Mike, Torone, etc.. where are you guys????

[RawAlex]

There is only one error in this article:

Bush isn't "tax and spend" he is just "spend", like Reagan was... in the end, a democrat gets re-elected, and is forced to raised taxes to pay for the past excesses and tax cuts... then gets labeled "tax and spend"....

But no republican supporter would admit it... nor would they admit who balanced the budget... but I digress.

Alex

[TheEnforcer]

Digress away Alex!! Will spice up the thread!! :okthumb:

[Danny_C]

Clinton was a conservative.

[Torone]

I see. Now, Bush gets blamed for the damage done by Enron, Worldcom, and 9/11...not openly; but by simply not counting those factors in the budget. It also seems that time has somehow been compressed, making the surplus a reality instead of a projection.

Fact: The tiny amount given back so far to the taxpayers doesn't even equal the Liberal porkbarrel farm bill.

Fact: The rest of the tax cut package hasn't even begun to take effect yet.

Fact: Although the Libs will insist on seeing amd stating things in their usual terms (zero-sum economics); it is NOT that way. Take money out of the economy, it withers. The gov't CANNOT put money into the economy that it has not FIRST taken OUT of the economy.

Fact: Because of union rules which make it impossible to fire beaurocrats below the first level, statements from the CBO (or any other Federal beaurocracy are going to be untrustworthy and politically slanted. Because of the union aspect, they will always be slanted towards the Liberal side.

As for what the states do, you gotta get rid of the Libs at ALL levels. Look at that idiot mayor of NYC, for instance. BTW, how many of you Lib sycophants knew that he became a Republican only to avoid what would have been a difficult primary? He might announce at any time that he is switching back to the Democratic party.

Go ahead. Believe that BS if you choose; but don't come crying when you get the 'big surprise'...

I don't have time to become embroiled in a long pissin' match; so I consider what I have just posted to be absolute fact. You want to refute it, do so with FACT, not Lib propaganda...

[RawAlex]

Torone, you must listen to Rich Limbaugh - typical answers to obvious points. "Our stupid tax break isn't as big as this one wasteful program that we will label "liberal", even if it needed the republican majority in the house to pass (and we won't talk about the tabacco support bills...)" and "we can't get rid of the wasteful liberals because of the rules (even though republicans have been in the whitehouse for 14 of the last 22 years)".

Please, if you are going to toss around silly justifications, at least make them credible ones... the Rush Limbaugh "selective history lessons" are funny but no more real...

Alex

[-= JR =-]

RawAlex, first let me say that we all know you are a foreigner and forgive you for your missunderstanding of how our government works.

1) President does not make spending decisions for the country
- Congress does.

2) Congress WAS controlled by Democrats for most of the last century

3) the President cannot just unilaterally raise or lower taxes. it has to pass through the House and Senate too.

-------------
Torone,

uhmmmm....

"Fact: Although the Libs will insist on seeing amd stating things in their usual terms (zero-sum economics); it is NOT that way. Take money out of the economy, it withers. The gov't CANNOT put money into the economy that it has not FIRST taken OUT of the economy."

you question "zero sum economics", then argue for the idea by saying its a zero sum system.

economies "grow" so by that fact alone, it can be said that you are wrong. the economy is not the same size today as it was 100 years ago. if that was true, we would all be getting poorer by dividing the same number of dollars by an increasing population.

the government can put money into the economy. without debating the finer points and theories of macro economics, i can simply say that the government is the people that actually print the money and decide how much to print and how much shall be circulated in the economy and world.

the government can also decide foreign trade policy (surplus/deficit)

the government can also give huge benefits and incentives to foreign investors to invest in the US... be it a new factory from Toyota or Mercedes or simply providing incentives for investing in financial markets.

and it goes on and on.

[Torone]

"you question "zero sum economics", then argue for the idea by saying its a zero sum system."

You are comparing apples and oranges. The economy is NOT A ZERO-SUM SYSTEM. The gov't is. It is a fact that gov't has no money of its' own.

[Torone]

The gov't can print all the money it wants; but it has no money of its' own until it takes money from us. Our money is worthless unless our economy is strong and we are paying taxes. Show me where the gov't derives money from any other source. It has to be taken in first. Printing it with no backing leads to inflation.

[RawAlex]

JR, this "ferner" did a little investigating, and found that since the 97th congress, the republicans have been in charge of congress more than the democrats... that is the history of the last 20 years, where the real rubber meets the road (again, a very Rush Limbaugh answer is to use 100+ year old history to support a current arguement, even if it isn't relevant). Furthermore, the president has veto power, and budgets would rarely have enough support to overwhelm the veto. The direction of the budget comes from the President in power and the leaders of Congress... which are both republican last time I looked.

While it is true that the President cannot unilaterally raise or lower taxes, please remember that this works both ways - you cannot blame a democrat for raising taxes and then say the republican wasn't responsible for lowering them. Either the President leads, or the President is a figurehead, you can't have it both ways.

In reality, the President sets the tone for his party, and the members of his party in the house and senate attempt to make his goals into reality.

As for Torone's "zero sum", just remember that the government cannot spend money until someone is taxed. Worse now, the government is borrowing to pay for programs, because taxes are lower than expenditures. This will be fine for the moment, but soon enough, the bill will become due and some poor democratic president will be forced to raise taxes to pay for the bill. Oh, wait, I forgot, the President doesn't control taxes. So it must be the janitor playing with the tax rates.

Come on. "FACT" of the matter is that, faced with difficult circumstances, the current US president has both lowered taxes and raised expenditures. Doesn't basic math tell you something about that?

Alex

[-= JR =-]

i dont know much about Rush Limbaugh and what he says. To me, it seemed he gets pretty repetitive and childish after a while. I have read one book "The Way Things Ought (sp) to Be" and thought it was ok. I think his radio show is petty to put it mildly. But also, i think it is a necessary part of the political system itself. the more all sides are heard, the more informed people are on issues. For every Rush Limbaugh, there is an opposite. Maybe not on the AM radio Torone has strapped to his chest, but somewhere in the media. be it Barbara Streisand or anyone else or a group of people. I think that a voice on one side creates a voice on the other. the more this happens and the louder both sides scream, the better we all are aquainted with both sides of the issue or viewpoints. If that was not true, elections would be a little more one sided than they are. i beleive though that this is one of the invisible forces that keeps the balance of power between parties.

like you, i was simply pointing out the same thing you are. Spending, deficits and taxes cannot just happen by any unilateral action of either party or branch of government. its a fun thing to play the blame game, but the reality is that everyone is collectively guilty, though they all try to portray themselves otherwise.

i also think all these arguements are necessary and completely rediculous at the same time. its the arguing itself, that helps define the center of a two party system. by defining each side, you also define the center. but the arguments are all too often short sighted, based on facts taken out of context, a lack of facts, a lack of complete facts or born out of plain fear, paranoia and insecurity which is frustrating as well.

i believe there is no "fact" which can be presented in a political arguement to prove a particular point that cannot be countered with an equally valid fact.

strangely, the more rediculous everyone gets, the more we all learn. how is that for a paradox?
:)



Last edited by -= JR =- at Dec 11 2002, 12:18 PM

[RawAlex]

Originally posted by -= JR =-@Dec 11 2002, 12:16 PM
For every Rush Limbaugh, there is an opposite. Maybe not on the AM radio Torone has strapped to his chest, but somewhere in the media. be it Barbara Streisand or anyone else or a group of people. I think that a voice on one side creates a voice on the other.
Extremist on both end of the spectrum more than make up for the rest of us. Sadly for the adult business, the VERY conservative, VERY christian leaning people have the microphone right now, and are preaching very heavily. There is alot of leaning on "god", and on being "good christians"...

It is alot like the old Moral Majority, lead by Rev. Falwell. The MM was very much one of the responsible parties when it came to the Meese Commission (a one sided view of which can be found at http://eserver.org/cultronix/califia/meese/ ), which was an attack on the adult entertainment industry. The support for this strident message came from the "New Christian Right", which at the time dominated the radio and television airwaves.

Sadly, with the consolidation of media, and the rise of syndication of radio shows has lead to more people hearing fewer messages... in my drive around the US this summer, I found that pretty much every day, I could find Rush on the radio... and he is just the most strident of a bunch of rush-a-bes that want to be the next RL.

Oddly, this Christian desire to control our actions leads to more government, which is exactly the opposite of what everyone thinks of the Republican party...

Who is on the more "liberal" side right now on the radio? Drudge? Hmmm...

Alex

[TheEnforcer]

Originally posted by -= JR =-@Dec 11 2002, 11:00 AM
RawAlex, first let me say that we all know you are a foreigner and forgive you for your missunderstanding of how our government works.

1) President does not make spending decisions for the country
- Congress does.

2) Congress WAS controlled by Democrats for most of the last century

3) the President cannot just unilaterally raise or lower taxes. it has to pass through the House and Senate too.

-------------
Torone,

uhmmmm....

"Fact: Although the Libs will insist on seeing amd stating things in their usual terms (zero-sum economics); it is NOT that way. Take money out of the economy, it withers. The gov't CANNOT put money into the economy that it has not FIRST taken OUT of the economy."

you question "zero sum economics", then argue for the idea by saying its a zero sum system.

economies "grow" so by that fact alone, it can be said that you are wrong. the economy is not the same size today as it was 100 years ago. if that was true, we would all be getting poorer by dividing the same number of dollars by an increasing population.

the government can put money into the economy. without debating the finer points and theories of macro economics, i can simply say that the government is the people that actually print the money and decide how much to print and how much shall be circulated in the economy and world.

the government can also decide foreign trade policy (surplus/deficit)

the government can also give huge benefits and incentives to foreign investors to invest in the US... be it a new factory from Toyota or Mercedes or simply providing incentives for investing in financial markets.

and it goes on and on.
1)- The president has this little thing called veto power. It's a process JR and the president has his say. That's why any conservative who blames democrats for the Reagen budget deficits is HIGHLY misinformed at best. Especially given the fact he controlled 2/3 of the process for 6 of his 8 years in office. (senate was repub then)

2) see above

3) You are correct here. :)

[-= JR =-]

TheEnforcer, i want to thank and all the people from somewhere else who have taken the time from their busy schedules to educate me on the most fundamental workings of the government of my own country.

i know what a veto is.

thanks again.

it does not mean he has the absolute final word, in case you dont understand that point.

so kindly let me help you with "US Government 101."

the Congress and Senate, can also override Presidential vetos. It seems you are not aware of that very important fact.

for example:

President Reagan did the right thing and Vetoed a "$ 14.2 billion supplemental spending bill"

the House and Senate then overwhelmingly voted to override his veto.

to which he proclaimed afterward:
"Any time there is an attempt to bust the budget, I will veto."

please take some time, look up the issue, read about it and then go back and correct your points 1 and 2 in your previous post for a passing grade.

there will also be a quiz on friday.

:nyanya:



Last edited by -= JR =- at Dec 11 2002, 04:33 PM

[TheEnforcer]

Sigh.. a veto here and a veto there on small specific bills doesn't count for squat JR. When the brass tax came down to it he didn't do squat on the actual BUDGET itself. He only tried to use his veto power on small potatoes stuff AND he had control of the Senate for 6 of his 8 years. So 3/4 of the time he had control of 2/3 of the process.

Incredibly good attempt at a diversion though!! :nyanya:

You wanna see how to use your power as a president when it comes to the budget, just look at the Newt Ginrich - Bill Clinton battle when the government was shut down. THAT took balls. Whether you agree with Clinton's position on that issue or not it took HUGE cajones to actually do it.

[ulfie]

I wish they would shut the government down more often. They can't spend any money when they're closed.

[wig]

Amen to that! :rokk:

[-= JR =-]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer@Dec 11 2002, 05:37 PM
Sigh.. a veto here and a veto there on small specific bills doesn't count for squat JR. When the brass tax came down to it he didn't do squat on the actual BUDGET itself. He only tried to use his veto power on small potatoes stuff AND he had control of the Senate for 6 of his 8 years. So 3/4 of the time he had control of 2/3 of the process.

Incredibly good attempt at a diversion though!! :nyanya:

TheEnforcer, you are showing some real courage in trying to save face and i admire that. but unfortuneately we need to go back to Government 101, so that you fully understand what you are talking about.

i said that the President does not make the spending decisions for the country. Such decisions (if you are again not aware) must go through the House and Senate. to which you snidely replied;

"The president has this little thing called veto power. It's a process JR and the president has his say"

suggesting that the president has the final say, then going further to attempt to suggest that Reagan was more responsible for bugdet deficits than the opposing party. (you mentioned Reagan first not me)

so let me say again for you, the President does not in fact have the final word on anything. He can veto something, House and Senate can also vote to override that veto. And the system itself is very well balanced and MAJORITY rules.

now you are trying to say something specifically about Reagan and that he "did not do squat on the BUDGET itself". I did not say he did. the purpose of the reply was to educate you a little about how the government works and inform you that Presidential Vetos are not the final say in anything.... which was the entire point of your previous misguided rebuttle.

THEN ====> you go on to make a really rediculous and contradictory point that Reagan "controlled 2/3 of the process" being that he controlled the White House and "controlled" the Senate.

.... uhmmmm..... er.......... well. i guess in this misguided banter of yours, you may have went and actually looked up the Veto Override i am talking about and that is really cool. However, in your haste to respond and save face, it seemed again to escaped your attention that it is in fact contradictory to say Reagan "controlled" the same Senate who voted overwhelmingly to override his own veto. sounds like a definate "lack of control" to me. and it sounds like the system again was working exactly as it was intended to by its very creators.

So... *sigh*......

The president does not have the final word in anything. both parties bear full responsibility for spending, deficits, taxes and everything else that passes through the House, Senate and White House. There are no good guys and bad guys. Only a system that on a whole, works quite well and has since its creation.




Last edited by -= JR =- at Dec 12 2002, 07:46 AM

[Almighty Colin]

I don't think much blame or credit for the US' debt/budget can be given specifically to any party in specific years - and everyone is to blame on the long run. This exacerbates the problem when there is no specific accountability. If anyone can be blamed or credited equally - how will the budget get and stay balanced?

There is a system of checks and balances in the creation of the budget and it does take more than any one person or political party to do so.

Most people don't even seem to consider that when looking at short time periods, the strength of the economy is a huge factor in that year's debt. I won't say surplus because I don't think we've had one in 50 years. If you look at any particular year's deficit, you are looking at the planning of the congress/house/president combined with what tax receipts turn out to be - which is largely influenced by economic conditions.

I think it should also be remembered that there was almost a trillion dollar debt by the time Reagan took office. In the 5 years before Reagan took office, the debt was increasing at
about 10% per year. During Reagan's term the debt increased about 13.5% per year. The magnitude of the debt looks like it explodes in 1980 because it crosses $1 trillion for the first time (would have no matter who was in office) - and because that 10-13% increase is a higher actual dollar value every year compared to the year previously.

If the recent historical trend had continued the debt at the end of Reagan's term would have been about $2.1 trillion instead of $2.6 trillion. The point is that the debt was exploding before Reagan took office. The first time after the 1950's that the debt ever increased by more than 10% in a year was 1975. That continued in 1976 and 1977.

The increase in the federal debt began to increase at a slower rate beginning in 1991. You can see that here:

Increase in US Debt
1991 13.3%
1992 10.8%
1993 8.5%
1994 6.4%
1995 6.0%
1996 5.0%
1997 3.6%
1998 2.0%
1999 2.4%
2000 .3%
2001 2.3%
2002 7.2%

Why is the US debt increasing at a faster rate again? Tax receipts declined 6.6% the past year.
Some of that was from was the tax cut. More of it was from the stock market declines decreasing capital gains receipts. If the market didn't decline we would have probably been around 2% again.



Last edited by Colin at Dec 12 2002, 06:58 AM

[JMM]

Here, let me help:

}} {Woof! You sure gotta climb a lotta steps to get to this Capitol
}} Building here in Washington! But I wonder who that sad little
}} scrap of paper is?}

I'm just a bill,
Yes, I'm only a bill,
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city,
It's a long, long wait
While I'm sitting in committee,
But I know I'll be a law someday...
At least I hope and pray that I will,
But today I'm still just a bill.

}} {Gee, bill, you certainly have a lot of patience and courage!}
{Well I got *this* far. When I started, I wasn't even a *bill* - I
was just an idea. Some folks back home decided they wanted a law
passed, so they called their local congressman and he "You're right,
there ought to be a law." Then he sat down and wrote me out and
introduced me to Congress, and I became a bill. And I'll remain a
bill until they decide to make me a law.}

I'm just a bill,
Yes I'm only a bill,
And I got as far as Capitol Hill.
Well now I'm stuck in committee
And I sit here and wait
While a few key congressmen
Discuss and debate
Whether they should
Let me be a law...
Oh how I hope and pray that they will,
But today I am still just a bill.

}} {Listen to those congressmen arguing! Is all that discussion and
}} debate about you?}
{Yes. I'm one of the lucky ones. Most bills never even get this far.
I hope they decide to report on me favourably, otherwise I may die.}
}} {"Die?"}
{Yeah: die in committee. Oooh! But it looks like I'm gonna live.
Now I go to the House of Representatives and they vote on me.}
}} {If they vote "yes", what happens?}
{Then I go to the Senate and the whole thing starts all over again.}
}} {Oh no!}
{Oh yes!}

I'm just a bill,
Yes I'm only a bill,
And if they vote for me on Capitol Hill,
Well then I'm off to the White House
Where I'll wait in a line
With a lot of other bills
For the President to sign.
And if he signs me then I'll be a law...
Oh, how I hope and pray that he will,
But today I am still just a bill.

}} {You mean even if the whole Congress says you should be a law, the
}} President can still say no?}
{Yes, that's called a "veto". If the President vetoes me, I have to
go back to Congress, and they vote on me again, and by that time
it's...}
}} {By that time, it's very unlikely that you'll *become* a law! It's
}} not easy to become a law, is it?}

No! But how I hope and I pray that I will,
But today I am still just a bill!

}} {He signed you, bill! Now you're a law!}
{Oh yes!}

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by JMM@Dec 12 2002, 01:04 PM
I'm just a bill,

Fucking love that.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally posted by -= JR =-+Dec 12 2002, 04:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (-= JR =- @ Dec 12 2002, 04:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--TheEnforcer@Dec 11 2002, 05:37 PM
Sigh.. a veto here and a veto there on small specific bills doesn't count for squat JR. When the brass tax came down to it he didn't do squat on the actual BUDGET itself. He only tried to use his veto power on small potatoes stuff AND he had control of the Senate for 6 of his 8 years. So 3/4 of the time he had control of 2/3 of the process.

Incredibly good attempt at a diversion though!! :nyanya:

TheEnforcer, you are showing some real courage in trying to save face and i admire that. but unfortuneately we need to go back to Government 101, so that you fully understand what you are talking about.

i said that the President does not make the spending decisions for the country. Such decisions (if you are again not aware) must go through the House and Senate. to which you snidely replied;

"The president has this little thing called veto power. It's a process JR and the president has his say"

suggesting that the president has the final say, then going further to attempt to suggest that Reagan was more responsible for bugdet deficits than the opposing party. (you mentioned Reagan first not me)

so let me say again for you, the President does not in fact have the final word on anything. He can veto something, House and Senate can also vote to override that veto. And the system itself is very well balanced and MAJORITY rules.

now you are trying to say something specifically about Reagan and that he "did not do squat on the BUDGET itself". I did not say he did. the purpose of the reply was to educate you a little about how the government works and inform you that Presidential Vetos are not the final say in anything.... which was the entire point of your previous misguided rebuttle.

THEN ====> you go on to make a really rediculous and contradictory point that Reagan "controlled 2/3 of the process" being that he controlled the White House and "controlled" the Senate.

.... uhmmmm..... er.......... well. i guess in this misguided banter of yours, you may have went and actually looked up the Veto Override i am talking about and that is really cool. However, in your haste to respond and save face, it seemed again to escaped your attention that it is in fact contradictory to say Reagan "controlled" the same Senate who voted overwhelmingly to override his own veto. sounds like a definate "lack of control" to me. and it sounds like the system again was working exactly as it was intended to by its very creators.

So... *sigh*......

The president does not have the final word in anything. both parties bear full responsibility for spending, deficits, taxes and everything else that passes through the House, Senate and White House. There are no good guys and bad guys. Only a system that on a whole, works quite well and has since its creation.[/b][/quote]
blah... balh.. blah.. :P

I am VERY aware of that fact JR and as you keep pointing out he never tried to use the REPUBLICAN senate he had for 3/4 of his time to actually use the 2/3 of the process he had to try and control the budget itself. Does that make him SOLELY to blame. Hell no! Does that make him PARTLY to blame? God damn right it does! As well as the REPUBLICAN senate that was with him 6 of his 8 years in office. He had a "you get your priorities and I'll get mine":matey: mentality in where he never put up anything but TOKEN resistance on the budget and only even tried when it came to the small bills and add-ons you mention.

I notice you ignored my budget battle example with Clinton too.

[TheEnforcer]

.... uhmmmm..... er.......... well. i guess in this misguided banter of yours, you may have went and actually looked up the Veto Override i am talking about and that is really cool. However, in your haste to respond and save face, it seemed again to escaped your attention that it is in fact contradictory to say Reagan "controlled" the same Senate who voted overwhelmingly to override his own veto. sounds like a definate "lack of control" to me. and it sounds like the system again was working exactly as it was intended to by its very creators.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Failed to address this point, so here goes.

IT'S HIS PARTY!! The one HE was leader of and the one who whines and cries about how fiscally disciplined they are. Are you saying that presidents don't have a TON of influenece over how their party behaves and votes in the Senate? Are you saying that Reagen was so weak and UNWILLING to spend political capital to try and maintain fiscal discipline within his party even though that is what they CONSTANTLY crow about?

I'm skocked, :blink: shocked to hear that Republicans (demos do it too before people start whining) talk out of the sides of their mouths!! :ph34r:

[-= JR =-]

TheEnforcer, you are arguing specifically, that President Reagan "controlled" the Republican party and the Senate (2/3 of the Government and decision making process) and made a false argument that the President has the final say on any issue via his veto powers.

now you are using the word "influence"
you were using the word which is pretty absolute - "control"

if President Reagan "controlled" the Senate as you kept stating, his own party would not have voted overwhelmingly to override his veto would they?

that FACT in itself pretty much proves that he in fact does not "control" anything except the President.

if you want to argue that the President has "influence" over his own party... i would agree. Though i would suggest that it is hardly something that can be quantified. However, that is not what you were saying was it? Instead, you keep taking a different stance, while putting words in my mouth and changing your argument(s). :(

is the "president partly to blame" as you asked? uhm... again... Yes. Wasn't i saying that all parties are to blame?

i guess i keep missing your point if there is one.