GW Is Not A Chimp
 

Ole GW isn't stupid he just lacks curosity. If he is poked with a stick he doesn't wonder why hes been poked all he knows is that it hurts and wants it to stop.

Cheney on the other hand is a narrowed minded, meaned spirited little man.

I would give GW a B+ for the economy and an F- for foreign policy.

GW fails to realize that everything he says is heard around the world and is taken to heart by the peoples of the world.

Remember when Ronnie the Popular said, "We start bombing in 5 minutes." as a joke before one of his news conferences. The Soviets didn't take it as a joke and went on alert.

So when GW proclaims that Iran is part of the "Axis of evil." What in the world are the Iranians to think?

Mother always keeps reminding me that you get more with honey than with salt. It seems that our administration in Washington has forgotten that rule.

G.W. (not unlike the Blues Brothers) is apparently "on a mission from God".

Your opinion (like the rest of the worlds') means nothing to him. He says/does/acts on what HE feels is appropriate at the time and given the situation, regardless of polls or political leanings.

He seems to care NOTHING about his 'legacy'.

Saddam tried to have his father killed, so, tables turned ...mission accomplished.

A fool ...or a breath of fresh air? Opinions differ.

Here's a little humor about our beloved President from the Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bush_makes_surprise_visit_to_work?utm_source=onion _rss_daily

>GW Is Not A Chimp

You're right, and collectively, we owe chimps an apology for making such a comparison.

The assumptions y'all make about things you have no knowledge regarding are astounding.

You're right. Bush made it through Yale the first time, while Cheney was kicked out twice.

For the purpose of giving recruiting fodder to terrorists, GW has the perfect combination of characteristics. His dismissiveness of any and all input. His monumental arrogance. His decisions and his personna are working together and separately to erode the security of Americans, and the reputation of the United States of America throughout the world. The world will forget very slowly that we twice placed this man in the White House.

Tabs is right. Dubya has no vision. No concept of the impacts of his remarks or decisions. He is playing with variables for which he has no complex vision or respect. Some folks seem to think it's okay to summarily dismiss those complications and implications and impacts, and just bull forward with something out of a Dirty Harry movie. Enjoying his charming ignorance and simplicity, believing that he's making us safe. Unbelievable.

I dunno...

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1190821792.jpg

Enlighten me. How does a president directly effet the economy? Can a president be credited with a good economy and pilloried for a bad economy? Is the control of the economy actually under the control of the administration in office or is it essentially driven by outside forces? I suppose it all depends whether your party is in power and how the economy is doing. Economy good, party takes credit. Economy bad, blame outside forces.

Federal Debt limit in US has increased 50% in six years. Someone, someday, will have to deal with this. When? How? Who?

The USSR went bankrupt and folded. Cautionary tale or just another failed state?

Dunno. Wish I did.

Doknow. Wish I didn't :)

The president, IMO, has far less impact on the economy than we are led to believe. What will happen, it seems, is that economic policies are put into place to bolster political ambitions. It is possible to put into effect policies that will give a spike in the economy at an opportune time, but much like the forces of nature, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The idea is that the negative impact happens after the given election or what have you. There is no free lunch, magic bullet for the economy (at least within government policies). One notable exception would be cutting government spending and making the government smaller, because then the available capital can be used for something besides paying politicians. Good luck getting that to happen (with either party).

Whether it's a business or a government, America rewards the short term strategist. The 'successful' strategy is to go ahead and ruin the future if you have to, just show the best numbers you can for the next two or three quarters. If this creates a trainwreck six years from now, it'll be somebody else's problem. Whatever you do, don't focus on long term strategy. Or at least, don't forego profits next quarter for ANY reason.

Why so cynical? :)

It's easier to make fun of one guy. It's easier to blame one guy. Requires less thought. Easier to parrot Hollywood types and one-trick comedians.

"Democrats had quite a bit to do with approving our activites in Iraq."
"Yeah? Well, Bush looks like a monkey..."

:rolleyes:

I'd still have a beer with the man. Wait, I guess a root beer.

How short sighted many of U are. The President does have input into the economy.

1. Selection of the Sec of the Treasury....Hank Paulson is a very GOOD Secratary

2. Selection of the Federal Reserve Chief.. Breneke is the BEST...His area of study was the crisis of liquidity that brought on the Great Depression of the 1930s.

3. Proposal of Legislation and power of the veto. Regardless of what the Liberals think the tax cuts of 2001 have helped boost this economy. Here is what the Liberals KEEP FAILING TO RECOGNIZE. Since the 1960s the tax structure has promoted spending over saving. By giving a break on Capital Gains it gives incentive for people to save and invest instead of spending.

3A. The collorary is if we get a Liberal President that raises taxes, puts more restrictions on business and passes more feel good entitlement legislation then the extra financial burden will a cause a disincentive for investment, and put a drag on the economy.

Get it

No argument there. Mainly the entitlement legislation part. If the higher taxes went to a new transcontinental bullet train or something I might not even complain. But realistically, higher taxes will result in new committees and bonuses for politicians.

GW Bush is not a dummy, he is in reality a pretty bright guy. His executive style is in the same vein as Eisenhower and Regan. Bush has advisors whose opinion he TRUSTS, they advise him on their area of expertise and he says yes or no based upon their research and advise. What he lacks is a certain curosity to find out the facts for himself or go beyond what they tell him. This style or pathology has not served him well in dealing with foreign policy.

VP Dick Cheney has been a very trusted advisor to the President. Cheney being a veteran of the Washington beltway has mastered the art of Bureaucratic infighting and was able to put people in key positions throughout the administration. It has been said that he controled virtually every avenue of information and policy through his appointments, or had knowledge of everything that moved with regards to the executive branch.

Thus the flow of information to Bush was biased by Cheneys point of view ( Rumsfeld and Cheney were like a tag team, who basically held the same points of view and were friends). As Iraq got worse and worse Bush started to listen to other voices and Cheneys people got eliminated because of their failures. So at this point Cheney is probably relegated to his office in the basement of the West Wing and trotted out only to go to funerals. Carl Rove on the other hand was a domestic policy advisor and didn't delve into foreign policy matters.

Bush does change directions and change policy when he realizes the direction he is going isn't working. Many people say the "Surge" is just the same old same old. However faced with the options Bush has in Iraq the "Surge" was the BEST OF THE WORST options he has to choose from.

Is Bush responsible for the diaster that Iraq has turned out to be. The answer is yes he is, his decisions came from information that was skewed in a paticular direction by his advisors. He kept those advisors on until they proved themselves to be wrong or incompetent. However the damage has now been done, and their is virtually no good way out. Every scenerio has a poor consequence for the US and world. Some spell complete diaster for the US and world economys.


BTW: If you read through this, I am merely reporting what has gone on and have no political bias one way or the other on the matter. This is pathology and not partisan politics.

That was
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...asy_button.JPG

Does a president by himself dictate the tax rates or is that a function of both the legislative and the executive branch. Tabs; my background is finance and economics. No matter who the president puts in certain positions and no matter what actions these individuals undertake, the long run effect of their actions is unknown and inconsequential. Short term effects can be seen like the run-up of certain stocks after a rate cut. However, the long range effect of such a cut cannot be, with accuracy, foreseen. The economy is, after all, an irrational animal, more affected by emotion than by reason or logic.

The tax cuts are a short term effect. The additional deficit spending cannot continue indefinitely, no more than the uptick in real estate prices could. Sooner or later, the chickens will come home to roost. Strength of the dollar from this point forward........

Liquidity during the 30s....The inability of many investors at all levels to cover their losses. How does this differ in theory from a current population with massive debt and living from month to month, always on the brink of economic ruin? Slightly different scenario, totally similar potential results. Greenspan is right to warn us af a potential future recession.

Sorry....This is an extremely complex question and the number of indicators that indicate future problems for the economy frighten me. I hope I am wrong and somehow sanity returns to national fiscal policy. And, just as a corollary to this, I hope that somehow we return to a personal fiscal philosophy of: "If I can't afford it and it isn't an absolute necessity, then I don't need it today". Instant gratification is a large part of the problem.

Problem is, getting from here to there requires a massive decrease in consumption, a corresponding decrease in production, and at least a major recession.

The Bush administrations stance of Foreign Policy has been a dream come true for the Right Wing of American Politics. For years they have cried that the US should quit the UN and kick it out of the US. They have advocated stopping Foreign Aid, telling other nations that we are going to do this or that whether they like it or not and telling them to put it where it doesn't shine if they don't like it. It is a put America first stance instead of cowtowing to the whims of foreign interests regardless of the consequence or lets call a spade a spade, because in reality they don't like us anyway.

Sound vaguely familar?

However what the Dummys don't realize is that US Foreign Policy has always put US interests first. The US has always fked em in the a$$, but has always left em feeling good about themselves by giving them a reach around. Bush has ceased the reach arounds and tells em we are gona fk U in the a$$ whether you like it or not. Liberals on the other hand are concerned whether it was good for you to. Sensative Ba$tards.

And this policy has been successful how?

I must be missing something somewhere.

I believe in "America First" and agree that it would be great if more countries stood on their own two feet and took responsibility. However, the "foreign aid" nowadays seems to be more appeasement than anything else (N Korea for example, promise to supply Iran with nuclear fuel for their power reactors if they give up developing a bomb). Perhaps if it were limited to "humanitarian aid" that directly impacted people and supplied them with the essentials while they began the long road to self reliance. That would be in a perfect world. Given the world we have, that ain't gonna happen. Mistrust of the UN, much of which is deserved, will alienate nations and peoples even further, entering the world into a long period of isolationism and nationalism. To return to that kind of world might just be worse than what we have today.

There is not too much to argue with you about. However I want to put an additional perspective of the defceit spending. 911 was a hugh shock to the financial system, which could have brought about its collapse. To stave off the collapse and keep the system liquid, money had to be pumped in. This was done by lowering interest rates which led to excesses down the road when the situation stabilized. It led to unrestricted federal spending, which led to excesses by the legislative branch down the road.

My take on it is that America and the Bush admin was thrown by 911 and had to take action which went contrary to what they would have done otherwise. Bush in his natural habitat is a fiscal conservative, 911 forced him out of it by necessity.

Nobody wants to admit what a potential death blow 911 was to the world economic system. However if explained with that premise in mind the actions and events seem to make sense, where they make little sense with another explaination.

Bush and his Right Wing cronies foreign policy stance is a failure.

The US has been very successfull with the reach around philisophy. The USA remains the 1000 lb Gorilla militarily and the 500 lb Gorilla economically. CA alone = the 7th largest econ in the world, give me a break. The reach around works.

The Right Wing just doesn't realize the Reach Aorund is just the cost of doing business. U don't have to like it but it is good customer relations.

Temporarily removing the capital gains tax simply allows investors to sell without paying taxes. It does not promote investment. It promotes disinvestment. Except that investors know that, from time to time, the capital gains tax will be suspended.....and they will have their opportunity to sidestep taxes. And so, in that sense, it encourages them to invest.

The left is not so confused as you think, about the importance of creating an optimistic and robust business climate. But again, here we're talking about American politics. One group of politicians is willing to borrow money from my grandchildren, and another group thinks that's a problem. Interestingly, the identities of the two groups is the opposite from what many people have been told to believe. The R's promise tax cuts. They forget to mention the deficit and debt problem this creates. Then, eventually, somebody will need to deliver the bad news.

I would say that Presidents have better control of the economy that the NEXT President will enjoy than the one they are stuck with.

tabs, why do you assume that GW, doesn't understand the impact of his actions or words? Why do you assume that his foreign policy has not been properly received by his intended audience?

[QUOTE=Superman;3499808]Temporarily removing the capital gains tax simply allows investors to sell without paying taxes. It does not promote investment. It promotes disinvestment. Except that investors know that, from time to time, the capital gains tax will be suspended.....and they will have their opportunity to sidestep taxes. And so, in that sense, it encourages them to invest.

QUOTE]

I don't want to go down the "R" road of discussion, if U read the above posts you get what I think happened and why. BTW that doesn't make the great majority of Rs happy either.

I disagree with you about the "disinvestment" incentive a lower capital gains tax provides or taxing passive income as income. Why does it need to be a "temporary suspension" do the $$ my money earns belong to someone else? I should be penalized for excelling and being prudent?

The problem with the Soviet Union was there was no incentive to excell, there was no benfit derived from putting out any extra effort. Little or no effort was rewarded equally with maximum effort, so no one put out any effort. That is also the problem with Unions in America and the tax structure, it deadens the steps of people who want to excell. Ask me how I know! Give them an incentive program whereby they gain from their extra effort and watch them run over each other to excell.

Based just upon that, you give me incentive to put money away and I will keep at it. You might say it goes back to the story of ant and grasshopper.

I must confess, this thread started out as a total POS, but Bob and Tabdullah turned it around, thanks guys.

Well on one hand I'm not a believer in conspiracies. Two the results in Iraq put the US and world economies into grave danger. The American Presidency has become an agent of Globalization. Globalization is the manifestation of the American Empire, an empire built on a financial and cultural system an empire of ideas rather than occupation and military might The military for U who would question that premises with some facts, miss the role the military has to play today, that of being a policeman to dampen down the fires of discord, to keep the peace. The Pax Americana.

Thus by putting Globalization in danger, Bush has failed in his job, which nobody really wants to do.

As for Bushs intended audience, honey will get U more than salt. If I were President I wouldn't antagonize I would lull you into complacency before I fked U. I would also co-opt U so that it would be difficult for U to complain too much. Problem with Iran is that they don't want to be co-opted, they have been there and done that.

GW tends to mix his metaphors...to him Freedom and Globalization are synomous.

There in lies the role of the media. To keep Ameicans fat dumb and happy fatted calfs. If the American HERD gets spooked like it did on 911 and STOPS SPENDING and/or runs out the bank door with their money...No more cash flow and BOOM GOES THE ECONOMY.

When Americans run out of money the Japanese, Chinese and Indians are being groomed to take their place.

tabs I thought we all understood that Arabs see all that honey as weakness and salt as strength. Are you certain that Iran is the intended audience for GW's words and actions?

Well enlighten me with who that audience might be?

tabs, Pakistan is a nation with nuclear weapons, and a population with ties to the tribes that embraced the rule of the Taliban and the presence of Bin Laden. It also has a political and military leader with a tenuous grip on power.

Could it be that the 1000lb gorilla was not so feared prior to 911, that our big stick was not seen as an enduring threat, that if the gorilla was hit back it would run away? Is it possible that the sharp words for N. Korea and Iran were aimed at less potent threats, but that they sent a more serious message to a more substantial and immediate threat?

Possibly the words and actions of GW were to show a terrible, determined and enduring effort would be put forth by this nation to keep weapons of mass destruction from falling under the influence of readical Islam. Because Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the hands of Al Queda would certainly threaten Globalization.

The threat of the "Axis of Evil" would have been lost on Pakistan as they had allready signed off on being a Bush Team player. Musharraf has the backing of the senior military, or he would not have remained in power this long. Also the "Axis of Evil" speech came after Afgan had fallen in 12/01 and the Qaedea was on the run. So the audience would not have been Pakistan.

When I asked you to enlighten me I ran through the possible response and Pakistan was one of them and I discounted it for the above reasons. I also came up with China and Russia. However China isn't interested in the world stage unless an internal problem demands their engagement. Russia has allready been there and done that, and are not about to embark on another round of a cold war. So Mexico and Canada are the only possible alternatives left.

It is very astute of you to realize Pakistan is at risk. Musharraf has a tiger by the tail and God help us if he should let go. CIA officers are so easily picked out in a Central Asian market place, they do stand out with their aviator sunglasses, crew cuts and polo shirts.

Tabs, are you absolutely sure that GW is not a chimp? :confused:

Musahraff isn't the only power in Pakistan, there are others who need to believe that the US isn't a paper tiger. It is much more likely that he will be left in power, even as a US ally, if his opponents believe the US would intervene in a meaningful way.

We waited a decade for the majority to get out from under Saddam's thumb in Iraq and it never happened. As I understand it, the majority of Iran is not so much keen on the Islamic Republic thing, more afraid of their head ending up in a basket.

Pakistan scares me a lot more than N Korea or Iran really, they already have The Bomb and are in a pretty tough neighborhood. Though I suppose Kim Wrong Ill could sell a device to some guys to bring into NY Harbor in a boat, or maybe SF or San Diego, it would probably be an easier trip to Cali.