Why do you want to vote for Bush?

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-04-07 11:02pm

theski wrote:2 questions... First ... what is his plan for Fixing Iraq,

That's a bit of a difficult issue, because he'll be inheriting that problem, and there's only a certain way to deal with it. He'll obviously continue promoting the development of the Iraqi government, and trying to suppress the unruly elements in the equation. A primary difference would be that he's going to try and build an actual international coalition to reconstruct Iraq, probably by stopping the cowboy routine and offering incentive to do so.

Second.. How will he get anything done with Congress controlled by the GOP

He can make certain important policy changes without their approval, being as he is President. Other than that, he might have trouble. But his getting very little done is worlds better than President Bush pushing his crapass agenda through.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-04-07 11:15pm

It's not happening now, and it didn't happen the first time we tried it, either.

As I recall, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP grew during the boom. So yes, it does happen. That's how progressive taxation works; the wealthier we get, the more tax revenues it takes in.

That can safely be accredited to technological improvement and the resulting general upswing in the economy.

More likely the fact that gridlock kept anything from getting done.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-04-07 11:22pm

Joe wrote:As I recall, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP grew during the boom. So yes, it does happen. That's how progressive taxation works; the wealthier we get, the more tax revenues it takes in.

He was purporting that the upswing was due to Reagan-Bush #1 era tax cuts, and I said that it did not happen that way.

More likely the fact that gridlock kept anything from getting done.

Then again, perhaps a Democratic congress would have resulted in an even greater upswing? You're talking about things which are definitely not certain--whereas attributing it to technology and a general upswing is a safe assumption.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-07 11:32pm

The "Kerry can't instantly fix Iraq either" argument is fallacious in the extreme. When a corporate manager does a horrible job and puts the company deeply into debt, with rising costs and falling sales, and refuses to change course because he has "resolve", you fire the idiot. It is understood that his replacement cannot instantly reverse what his predecessor has done, but as long as he is even mediocre, he will be an improvement. And in any case, you cannot allow a lunatic to remain in control of your organization in the vain hope that his obstinacy and recklessness will somehow turn things around.

So why is a government held to a lower standard?

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-04-08 07:20am

Pablo Sanchez wrote

He was purporting that the upswing was due to Reagan-Bush #1 era tax cuts, and I said that it did not happen that way

No, I wasn't ./.. If you reread the post .. I said...

We disagree here... as the economy grows so does the tax base and tax revenues.. The deficits will shrink on their own.. as they did in the late 90's ... Also for the Record... way to much pork in the budget

As the Economy grows so does the tax breaks... and check the dates... late 90's was Clinton time...

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2004-04-08 07:33am

I'd vote Bush if I had the opportunity, thanks current dollar values I can get really cheap stuff from the states now.

Thanks mate!

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-08 04:41pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote: A primary difference would be that he's going to try and build an actual international coalition to reconstruct Iraq,

Sort of like the International Coalition of KFOR has reconstructed
Kosovo?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-08 04:51pm

Let's face it, Any international coalition will be a sham, with everyone
contributing like maybe 600 troops to wave the flag, and 5,000 bureaucrats
and politicians to claim credit for the heavy lifting done by the US troops...

THey're just not worth the hassle if the foreigners are going to be a small
part......

Now, if Germany actually did something worthwhile, like fronting
the entire 5. Panzerdivisionen for peacekeeping duties in Iraq,
then they'd have a creditable reason to have partial control over
Iraq.....

The reason the US is essentially running Iraq, is because while the
Europeans and other talk a lot about interventions in hot spots, etc
only the United States is willing to back up our talk with action.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-04-08 07:59pm

Spyder wrote:I'd vote Bush if I had the opportunity, thanks current dollar values I can get really cheap stuff from the states now.

Thanks mate!

Likewise, the US-Canadian currency exchange rate hasn't been this good in over a decade. Which is good for me since I mail-order stuff from the states on a semi-regular basis.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-04-08 08:00pm

Best reason yet:

Piss your professors off.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-04-08 08:01pm

MKSheppard wrote:Sort of like the International Coalition of KFOR has reconstructed Kosovo?

You got a better idea, nature boy? And let's make it feasible, none of the standard "Massacre the fuckers!" fare.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-08 08:14pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote: You got a better idea, nature boy? And let's make it feasible, none of the standard "Massacre the fuckers!" fare.

Replace all of KFOR with Russian troops. I mean fuck, the Serbian
orthodox Church wants the german KFOR troops gone because they
stood around while an orthodox church under their protection burned
and did NOTHING!

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-04-08 08:21pm

We gotta get the Ruskies in Iraq, too. Nothing says "winning hearts and minds" like an indiscriminate artillery barrage.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2004-04-08 08:26pm

HemlockGrey wrote:We gotta get the Ruskies in Iraq, too. Nothing says "winning hearts and minds" like an indiscriminate artillery barrage.

Maybe it would work better with nuclear shells?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-04-08 08:31pm

Obviously the concept of disparaging sarcasm was lost on you, darthdavid.

That said, who cares about Kerry's plan for rebuilding Iraq? What's important at the moment is Bush's plan, which has still not yet been adequetly explained.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2004-04-08 08:38pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Obviously the concept of disparaging sarcasm was lost on you, darthdavid.

That said, who cares about Kerry's plan for rebuilding Iraq? What's important at the moment is Bush's plan, which has still not yet been adequetly explained.

Obviously the concept of Megadeath was lost on you

.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2004-04-08 10:00pm

darthdavid wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:Obviously the concept of disparaging sarcasm was lost on you, darthdavid.

That said, who cares about Kerry's plan for rebuilding Iraq? What's important at the moment is Bush's plan, which has still not yet been adequetly explained.
Obviously the concept of Megadeath was lost on you .

Stop being a dumbass.

Right now, I think Bush's plan resembles much like the Reverend from Waterworld. Guard the oil and keep paddling in circles until a better plan comes up.