Thank You George Bush [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

ArlJim78

11-14-2008, 05:10 PM

for listening to a real leader like John McCain, and seeing the Iraq war thru to a successful conclusion.

Thank you for not following the defeatist advice of Barack Obama and Harry Reid, two people that were ready to cut and run in defeat long ago.

"THE WAR IS OVER AND WE WON:" Michael Yon just phoned from Baghdad, and reports that things are much better than he had expected, and he had expected things to be good. "There's nothing going on. I'm with the 10th Mountain Division, and about half of the guys I'm with haven't fired their weapons on this tour and they've been here eight months. And the place we're at, South Baghdad, used to be one of the worst places in Iraq. And now there's nothing going on. I've been walking my feet off and haven't seen anything. I've been asking Iraqis, 'do you think the violence will kick up again,' but even the Iraqi journalists are sounding optimistic now and they're usually dour." There's a little bit of violence here and there, but nothing that's a threat to the general situation. Plus, not only the Iraqi Army, but even the National Police are well thought of by the populace. Training from U.S. toops has paid off, he says, in building a rapport.
http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives2/027203.php

ArlJim78

11-14-2008, 05:22 PM

xR0ryvVvA7U

ddog

11-14-2008, 06:51 PM

bama will not complete his first term before the place is a free fire zone.

it isn't any picnic now , no matter what he says.

a small bit of violence is when your neighbors house or car gets bombed else it's a little bigger deal if it's you.

once we draw down and unless we stiff the Iraqi gvt , we will have to , then you will see the outside groups ramp up.

they don't wish to take us on or the Iraqi forces as long as we are around.

it will be for next to nothing sad to say.

Marshall Bennett

11-14-2008, 07:11 PM

Berlin was no picnic when the war ended either , not for a very long time . I doubt Baghdad will ever be completely peaceful .

Rookies

11-14-2008, 10:58 PM

Thank You for not blowing us all to kingdom come.

Ooops... still 2 months to keep the fingers crossed.

" Mission FUBARed " : Bush's legacy !

pandy

11-14-2008, 11:16 PM

Berlin was no picnic when the war ended either , not for a very long time . I doubt Baghdad will ever be completely peaceful .

Good point. But it's a shame that the media isn't reporting now that things are going our way. The media in this country has become a national disgrace.

Tom

11-14-2008, 11:22 PM

Where are the media whores who couldn't wait to report the casualties everyday? Oh yeah,they are spreading lies about Sara Palin now.

ArlJim78

11-14-2008, 11:28 PM

Iraq is less dangerous now than Chicago in terms of shooting deaths.

ddog

11-15-2008, 09:57 AM

makes for a nice riff.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081102/wl_mideast_afp/usvoteiraqfallujah

The Judge

11-15-2008, 10:14 AM

lamboguy

11-15-2008, 10:17 AM

we have to thank bush for this fine piece of legislation. with alll the world financial crisis going on he has made the internet gambling act his major priority before he leaves.

george bush not only wants to stop all forms of internet gambling, but he ain't no friend of the horse-racing business either.

we have to thank bush for all he's done for us the last 8 years, he has been a big success in the class warfare game.

i forgot, we will get a few more bailouts before he goes. his bankers got to really stick it to us.

Marshall Bennett

11-15-2008, 11:06 AM

say thanks for starting a war that killed so many people for no reason what so ever. http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/. Tell me again why it was started and what it was for. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080109/iraqi-death-toll/.

Its not the U.S job to get rid of dictators if the Iraqis want to get rid of their dictator they could follow Iran's example with the Shah of Iran.
Jimmy Carter turned his back on the shah . The U.S. invested heavily for years in Iran , it was the corner stone of our economy . Carter ignored a dire situation where we should have intervened . Today Iran is probably the most dangerous country in the world thanks to Jimmy . An example ? Bullshit !!!

JustRalph

11-15-2008, 02:04 PM

Jimmy Carter turned his back on the shah . The U.S. invested heavily for years in Iran , it was the corner stone of our economy . Carter ignored a dire situation where we should have intervened . Today Iran is probably the most dangerous country in the world thanks to Jimmy . An example ? Bullshit !!!

you beat me to it. The reason we are dealing with Amidinnerjacket now is because the peanut farmer was short a few nuts in his own personal sack

The Judge

11-15-2008, 02:18 PM

Marshall Bennett

11-15-2008, 02:39 PM

why isn't Great Britian, France,Spain, Italy,Australia dealing with some of these "bad people" of the world if democracy is so good shouldn't they be exporting it too.
They do well to help themselves , they're basically our stepchildren when it comes to dealing with the bullies of the world .

JustRalph

11-15-2008, 03:28 PM

doesn't it strike you as odd as to how the U.S.A are always dealing with this country and that; why isn't Great Britian, France,Spain, Italy,Australia dealing with some of these "bad people" of the world if democracy is so good shouldn't they be exporting it too.

No just the good old U.S.A always finding something wrong with the other guy the only country to drop the A-bomb yet do not want anyone else to have it well that train has left the station http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_countries_have_the_atomic_bomb

because they choose to not spend on Defense. They rely on the U.S. And your examples are some of the weakest nations in the world and being overrun by Muslim extremists............you ever wonder why?

You can't really be that daft when it comes to Defense and the current worldview? Can you? Come on Judge?

The Judge

11-15-2008, 05:39 PM

nations name me some strong ones that are out invading other countries? If you are the last country going around calling yourself a democracy and you are invading other countries you have a problem.

Go ahead name me some strong countries if England, Australia, France don't do the job. Surely you can't be so daft as not be able to name a few countries that we all admire that are throwing their weight around in the world.

Canada, Mexico, Demark, Sweden, no well you name a few hurry now, we are running out of Democracies if these don't cut the mustard.

Secretariat

11-15-2008, 06:20 PM

The only ones that should be thanking GW are late night comedians.

wonatthewire1

11-15-2008, 06:56 PM

because they choose to not spend on Defense. They rely on the U.S. And your examples are some of the weakest nations in the world and being overrun by Muslim extremists............you ever wonder why?

You can't really be that daft when it comes to Defense and the current worldview? Can you? Come on Judge?

Interesting observation about the Europeans getting overrun by mooselems...I guess it is difficult to discern if being overrun by mooselems or by Mexicans/South Americans as we in the US of A, is "worse". Maybe both places are suffering.

Though I'm not sure how many here get over to Europe often, but the places that I've been haven't seemed that way at all. There are slums everywhere, the worst I've ever witnessed have been in Brazil and the Philippines. I'm certain that there are others that are just as bad or worse. But how many American cities have the same issues? Try visiting a place like Northampton, MA some time - you'd think you were in Brazil or Guatemala; so much for the furriners only being in places like LA or NYC...

I'll have to dig up the article about the white American becoming the minority - I think it was by 2040...might be heading back to Ireland before then...

I guess it depends on who you want to have invade ya

JustRalph

11-15-2008, 07:28 PM

Canada, Mexico, Demark, Sweden, .

Those countries are socialist when you get right down to it.

Get real........ they rely on the U.S. for defense. Especially Canada. As for the others they rely on NATO and if not for NATO they would be Russian by now. They have no defense and they embrace socialism in several areas of their government. Apples and Oranges. You call Mexico a Democracy? Corruption runs the Government. Plain and simple. It is a shit-hole where millions run away every year. Who the hell would want it?

DanG

11-15-2008, 07:49 PM

This thread is a good illustration of our greatness as a nation. :ThmbUp:

One American looking at his information and seeing things one way; while many of have drawn completely different conclusions.

Let’s hope we never lose these rights of expression and as some of us might say; we even might restore a few that have been temporarily lost.

Rookies

11-15-2008, 07:53 PM

This is an amusing little thread.

Ok Ralph, let's get to it.

You've eliminated most of the few democracies in the world. Obviously, if they have National Health care or advanced social welfare systems ( e.g. Unemployment, Maternity/ Paternity Leave) Education, they're all flat out commies- never to be trusted.

Who in your view would be remaining to stand with the U.S. ? Or are you saying, that Shrub has FUBARed everything so badly, that there isn't anybody left willing to step out into his void ?

PaceAdvantage

11-15-2008, 10:17 PM

No just the good old U.S.A always finding something wrong with the other guy the only country to drop the A-bomb yet do not want anyone else to have it well that train has left the station http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_countries_have_the_atomic_bombUh oh, he's pulled out the WWII nuke card...what's next? The Tuskegee experiments?

PaceAdvantage

11-15-2008, 10:27 PM

This whole Iraq thing is just so silly. It's so tiny in comparison to the Kennedy/Johnson (DEMOCRAT) disaster that was Vietnam that it's simply comical to hear folks talk about Iraq as if it were worse than Vietnam.

But once again, historical perspective has gone the way of the dinosaur when talking about Bush.

Marshall Bennett

11-15-2008, 10:44 PM

In fifty years , the war in Iraq won't even be mentioned in school text books .

JustRalph

11-16-2008, 12:29 AM

DanG

11-16-2008, 08:40 AM

In fifty years , the war in Iraq won't even be mentioned in school text books .
I don’t care if what you’re saying is remotely factual in the future…

What a load of $hit because it doesn’t equal statistically to other conflicts that it’s somehow less significant. :mad:

I want you to say that to a close friend of the family whose husband is on his 3rd tour and they will NEVER be the same.

Marshall Bennett

11-16-2008, 11:04 AM

I don’t care if what you’re saying is remotely factual in the future…

What a load of $hit because it doesn’t equal statistically to other conflicts that it’s somehow less significant. :mad:

I want you to say that to a close friend of the family whose husband is on his 3rd tour and they will NEVER be the same.
Where did I say it wasn't important ? All I'm saying is that 50 yrs. from now for most people , it won't much matter . Quit putting words in my mouth , and btw , whether you like it or not , at this point in time its less significant .

DanG

11-16-2008, 11:07 AM

Where did I say it wasn't important ? All I'm saying is that 50 yrs. from now for most people , it won't much matter . Quit putting words in my mouth , and btw , whether you like it or not , at this point in time its less significant .
OK…please accept my apology;

Then “most people” will be full of $hit taking yourself out of the equation.

PaceAdvantage

11-17-2008, 12:48 AM

Why do these debates more often than not take on a personal tone?

DanG

11-17-2008, 09:03 AM

Why do these debates more often than not take on a personal tone?
Honest question from someone who has read and heard it all in these forums…

I don’t think you’ll care much for my response but here it goes…

Whether we choose to admit it or not; all discussions are personal to some degree. True; some take it to an extreme just as others could hear their mother insulted and maintain that courtroom demeanor.

If you’re directing that at me; I didn’t think I became personal, but then again you have a thicker skin then I have. Concerning this issue; when you know people in combat there is nothing more personal.

It’s no mystery that “off-topic” on most boards winds up being the most emotional of the available forums. People are convinced their ideology is superior and through conscious means or not; they insult the intelligence of many with their perceived superiority to interpret events.

General racing discussion:

• Who is the best looking female rider? / Chantal Sutherland
• Do all Steve Crist’s tickets really reflect his Harvard education? / No…he skipped class during theoretical mathematical science to attend Suffolk University.

Or…Off-Topic and actual questions / statements that took this tone.

• The 1st two years of the Iraq war were “fun”. / Well; there is a statement that would fire most up if your son / daughter came home in pieces.
• Those who think Fox presents a biased viewpoint were “told” to think so: / OK…if you really think that one through it reeks of the snobbish quality that the right claims to resent in the intellectual left.

You asked Mike; so I went through an old Katrina thread and these were your quotes from one post. I’m not making any comment about the content or trying to start that whole Katrina memory up again. Just pointing out that even you; with all your experience and tolerance in these forums can occasionally get…personal. BTW: I’m glad; a forum full of Spock’s might be enlightening; but it would bore me to tears! :D

Post #59, Thread: http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22179&page=4&pp=15&highlight=katrina

• PA ~ You're delusional! Did all they could do with meager resources? Bullshit.
• PA ~ you resort to your partisan bullshit politics. You suck. Plain and simple.
• PA ~ Now you can come back at me, saying I have to resort to name calling, yada yada yada. But it's true. You do suck. As a human being.
• PA ~ sooner or later everyone will finally realize you're a tool.

Bottom line; we ALL have our buttons to push. I’ve been wrapped up in the Iraq mess since the beginning with a family friend directly involved and it has become very personal. When you’re hearing his ground eye view and being told you’re unpatriotic if you question the “mainstream media” version it gets your blood rolling.

In the end; we all bleed when were cut and in off-topic, the knives are a little sharper.

ddog

11-17-2008, 09:20 AM

raybo

11-17-2008, 10:26 AM

As a 2 tour Viet Nam vet I have something to say about comparing the Viet Nam conflict with the Iraq war. We were asked, by the South Vietnamese for help, which we, as a democracy, most graciously provided. Excuse me if I can't remember us ever being asked for help by the Iraqi people. This war was all G.W. Bush! At least his father waited until being asked for help in the first one.

I volunteered for the 2nd tour because I thought I should. I don't remember hearing of many, any (?), Iraq War vets volunteering for a 2nd or 3rd tour.

Time to get out of Iraq is long overdue. If Iraq goes to hell after we leave, I couldn't care less.

Afganistan is a different story, we were attacked in our homeland. That's where the organizer of our 911 disaster was and where we needed to go to get him. The "diversion" to Iraq was ill advised, and totally political and unnecessary then, as it remains today.

PaceAdvantage

11-18-2008, 02:32 AM

I must say, your own first line above shows how woefully true your second line is at least for you.Please, take me to school. I was pretty vague in my statement as I reread it now, so in all honesty, I'm pretty interested in how you will be able to tear it apart.

PaceAdvantage

11-18-2008, 02:36 AM

• The 1st two years of the Iraq war were “fun”. / Well; there is a statement that would fire most up if your son / daughter came home in pieces.Can you provide me a link to the note where I stated the 1st two years of the Iraq war were "fun." I'd like to read that one again...I'd like to read the conditions that inspired me to write something like that.

And the Katrina thread....wow....and you thought I was bad during Campaign 2008? You must have really thought I dove off the deep end during Katrina.

I never rip into people like that anymore....I take great pains these days not to call anyone names.

DanG

11-18-2008, 09:55 AM

Can you provide me a link to the note where I stated the 1st two years of the Iraq war were "fun." I'd like to read that one again...I'd like to read the conditions that inspired me to write something like that.

And the Katrina thread....wow....and you thought I was bad during Campaign 2008? You must have really thought I dove off the deep end during Katrina.

I never rip into people like that anymore....I take great pains these days not to call anyone names.
I didn’t say you wrote that, it was a statement from off-topic from someone who writes there often.

Exact quote from memory: “The first two years of the Iraq war were fun as shit.”

You asked why people might take things personal; I was trying to illustrate different scenarios...nothing more.

Having said all that; I’m for all is fair game outside of yelling bomb on an airplane. It’s just that people shouldn’t be shocked when someone returns fire.

delayjf

11-18-2008, 01:00 PM

Excuse me if I can't remember us ever being asked for help by the Iraqi people. This war was all G.W. Bush! At least his father waited until being asked for help in the first one.
Given the tyranny of Sadam's rule, if they had really wanted our intervention do you think they could have asked for it? I don't think a major issue with regards to US involvement was the will of the Iraqi people - rather it was the threat Iraqi posed as a sponsor of terrorism, and the WMD threat, plus the reality of 9/11.

I don't remember hearing of many, any (?), Iraq War vets volunteering for a 2nd or 3rd tour. You'd be surprised, I know a lot of Marines who Volunteered for multiple tours in Iraq.

Time to get out of Iraq is long overdue. If Iraq goes to hell after we leave, I couldn't care less.
I understand that sentiment, but the US now has a strategic need to not pulling out of Iraq - the issue of Iran and their WMD programs and their known support for terrorist organizations.

Afghanistan is a different story, we were attacked in our homeland. That's where the organizer of our 911 disaster was
Correct, but Afghanistan does not pose a threat to the US or to our national security. Iraq with it's perceived WMDs did. Even today there is no doubt that if relationships normalized and Sadam were allowed to stay in power, he would have rebuilt his WMD program (he is on record as admitting as much) or simply bought what he wanted from Syria.

ddog

11-18-2008, 01:48 PM

Please, take me to school. I was pretty vague in my statement as I reread it now, so in all honesty, I'm pretty interested in how you will be able to tear it apart.

pa,

I would only say that I know we were never going to a straight up war against CHina , which is likely what a WIN in Nam would have ended up requiring. Not worth it, i am sorry , but we have to look out for Nbr1 there.

Thus we should have pulled out when we had the chance.
The outcome seems to have been about the same other than we burned up a bunch of people and resources after that was clear.

You may want to cast a glance at No/So Korea for that type of face off.

I am saying that I feel that the actual war that Iraq is but a part of IS something we have no choice but to go against whatever/whomever we need to for a win(not likely) but a stalemate.

It's a global war of a different nature from the old style mass and march type wars or bomb them into submisson type wars.

I think one of our biggest and ongoing mistakes at least among a great deal of the public is they can't move past the old style war ideas.

The real war is as much among our "friends" and among our people as anywhere else.

Think what a war on terror really is, really think about it and you will see that to compare it to 'nam or ww2 is not apt.

Do you really think you can bomb or kill terror?

History is just that, things-times change, our ideas must as well.

Class dismissed-- for now :)

Ooops, study hall time

I agree with raybo, the security threats we face that I can see are Pak/Afg/Somalia and that ilk.
I suspect at least Pak and Somalia are already beyond repair, the cake is baked.

Of course there is always the chance of mass food/economic based riots breaking out in China/russia, you name it.

All the terror guys want are the conditions in flux , that's all they need to "win".

And.. i don't see it as schooling , but as a disagreement, you could be correct , who knows.

Show Me the Wire

11-18-2008, 02:28 PM

As a 2 tour Viet Nam vet I have something to say about comparing the Viet Nam conflict with the Iraq war. We were asked, by the South Vietnamese for help, which we, as a democracy, most graciously provided. Excuse me if I can't remember us ever being asked for help by the Iraqi people. This war was all G.W. Bush! At least his father waited until being asked for help in the first one....

raybo, first of all thankds for serving our country. I need to correct your perception agout our initial involvement in the war. South Vietnam was a colony of France. The French had been fighting the North's attempt at unification to protect its French business interests. The French asled JFK for help.

North Vietnam never threatened our national security. The Vietnamese war was all about protecting French economic interest and then later U.S. economic interests.

delayjf

11-18-2008, 02:39 PM

I'm not so sure it was about US economic interests as I have no idea what our economic interests were in Vietnam. I tend to think it was more of a proxy war that spawned out of the Cold War.

I would only say that I know we were never going to a straight up war against CHina , which is likely what a WIN in Nam would have ended up requiring. Not worth it,
The only way we would have ended up at war with China was if we had invaded N. Vietnam. However, I agree, a war with China would not have been worth it, especially over S. Vietnam.

LottaKash

11-18-2008, 04:03 PM

first of all thankds for serving our country.
North Vietnam never threatened our national security. The Vietnamese war was all about protecting French economic interest and then later U.S. economic interests.

Not forgetting to mention. that the makers of munitions, uniforms, tanks and even flags and body bags, were the clear winners of the war, as in any war, at that......

All wars are acts of "Lunacy"......and contrary to all that is good and productive and loving, in man.......period....

best,

dav4463

11-18-2008, 04:03 PM

Gas prices are low. We are winning the war. We haven't been attacked by terrorists here since 9/11, but everybody still hates President Bush and are celebrating the election of a socialist! What's wrong with this country? :bang:

Marshall Bennett

11-18-2008, 05:37 PM

For one thing , people don't think for themselves anymore , they let the media do their thinking for them .

ddog

11-18-2008, 06:10 PM

we are in fact NOT winning THE war, we may be for now winning a tactical skirmish.

This is why it's so foolish to claim that as a victory, what we knocked out Sadam and then bought up most all the Sunni unemployed and along with the Aq types who overplayed their hand , that equates winning?

Really?

I don't think so.

gas prices going down is actually bad for the country, yes I know your immediate trip to the lake or grandmas is now cheaper but it isn't a win long term either.

A president who had the best interests of this country and some guts whould slap a gas tax on now.

What do you want to bet that in a few years or maybe a few months a couple of those tankers get sunk or disabled and then let's see what the oil price does.

Just as in the so called credit crises , the longer you leave your neck on the chopping block the better the odds you get your head handed to you.

What I fear the most is none of them , it's the people here who can't be convinced to think about much past their own immediate gratification.

really at the root of most of the problems we have.

PaceAdvantage

11-19-2008, 01:27 AM

I didn’t say you wrote that, it was a statement from off-topic from someone who writes there often.Well, that's a relief. You had me thinking I had written something like that...

PaceAdvantage

11-19-2008, 01:39 AM

A president who had the best interests of this country and some guts whould slap a gas tax on now.Why would a president who ran on the platform of being there for the middle class, slap a gas tax NOW when FINALLY, the middle class is enjoying the only economic relief to come down the pike in quite some time --> lower gas prices????

A tax on gas is the last thing this economy needs.

A few weeks ago, somebody sent me a link to a democratic underground post that sought the same thing as you ddog. A nice big fat gas tax. Why? Because Americans have shown the ABILITY to pay for gas at $3.50-$4.50 per gallon, and now that prices have been slashed, we need a tax to make sure we don't forget what we must do to become independent of foreign oil.

I think this kind of sledgehammer tax is the absolute wrong move, especially at this moment in time.

ArlJim78

11-19-2008, 08:18 AM

that sounds like Joe Biden talk, raising taxes is gutsy and paying taxes is patriotic.

dav4463

11-20-2008, 01:14 AM

Germany didn't attack us either. I guess we should have left Hitler alone.

ddog

11-20-2008, 07:16 AM

Why would a president who ran on the platform of being there for the middle class, slap a gas tax NOW when FINALLY, the middle class is enjoying the only economic relief to come down the pike in quite some time --> lower gas prices????

A tax on gas is the last thing this economy needs.

A few weeks ago, somebody sent me a link to a democratic underground post that sought the same thing as you ddog. A nice big fat gas tax. Why? Because Americans have shown the ABILITY to pay for gas at $3.50-$4.50 per gallon, and now that prices have been slashed, we need a tax to make sure we don't forget what we must do to become independent of foreign oil.

I think this kind of sledgehammer tax is the absolute wrong move, especially at this moment in time.

Pa

I am glad they ,whoever they are , agree with me.
Tough actions toward a better future, less gasoline consumption , especially from less reliable sources is always "without a time".

That is the exact definition of leadership.

I would not bump it up to 4.00 now but a 25-50cent hike per year would be about right.

Of course I have been for the idea since the 70s.

ddog

11-20-2008, 07:20 AM

that sounds like Joe Biden talk, raising taxes is gutsy and paying taxes is patriotic.

actually both are true.

for a pol raising taxes is gutsy.

for most people , if they are not patriotic they would not pay.

I wouldn't.

Lefty

11-20-2008, 11:31 AM

Secretariat

11-23-2008, 09:20 PM

Germany didn't attack us either. I guess we should have left Hitler alone.

Why would we have done that? Germany declared war on us after Pearl Harbor. When they declared was on us, we reciprocated.

Secretariat

11-23-2008, 09:26 PM

It may be gutsy, but it's also stupid. Lower taxes brings in more money than higher taxes. It;s been proven. Raising taxes stifles risk taking and productivety. Jobs are lost and the middle class and poor suffer most. Raising taxes is stupid. So what does that make Obama? Yup...

Lefty, you worship at the shrine of the supply siders.

But Lefty, taxes are low, and jobs are being lost and the middle class and the poor are suffering badly. Taxes are low and the effective tax rate of corporations is at their lowest level ever, yet jobs are being exported. Asto productivity, it is at one of its highest levels, and yet unemployment keeps rising, the median wage stagnates, foreclosures keep increasing, and the GDP just goes down.

Obama hasn't been President a single day yet, and yet deficits are ballooning, everybody wants a bailout, and yet your solution is to simple lower taxes. It is mind boggling how simplistic supply siders like yourself can be. Take the dark glasses off and look around. :bang: :bang: :bang:

JustRalph

11-24-2008, 12:08 AM

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/11/23/obama-aides-suggest-rollback-of-bush-tax-cuts-could-be-delayed/

and your Hero Obama is rumored to have decided to not cancel the Bush tax cuts.............. and not change taxes at all..............

If he does this one......... he is the biggest liar in history

remember those 95 percent who were going to get a cut?

He is also back pedaling on the Capital Gains increase he promised his socialist pals............

Santa Claus is starting to look like he is stocking up on lumps of coal for the left wing who elected him..........

Lefty

11-24-2008, 12:06 PM

sec, yes I strongly blve in supply side economics. But surely you're not saying that having more money in the treasury is to blame for todays' economic problems? That's like telling your wife that you are having a rough time because your salary got doubled.
Mostly today's problems have been caused by too much govr interference in the private sector and unions with unreasonable demands have a hand in it too. The dims wanted everybody to have a house whether they could afford it or not. The made banks loosen their rules and todays mess has ensued.
Unions have got their workers tremendous benefits and salaries now the golden goose has run out of eggs.
No, sec, you can't blame todays mess on the fact that the govt takes in more money. Less taxes more money. A simple formula. The Dims know it, but redistributing the wealth via the tax code gives them power. Mainly because too many people are duped into blving in class warfare and get addicted to entitlements. The schools are doing their part as is the so called mainstream news.