GW Is Not A Chimp

tabs · 09-25-2007, 11:43 PM

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.

Mo_Gearhead · 06:52 AM

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.

frogger · 09-26-2007, 05:35 AM

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

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

>GW Is Not A Chimp

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

Tobra · Tobra's Garage

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

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

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

Superman · 09-26-2007, 07:46 AM

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.

stealthn · 09-26-2007, 07:50 AM

I dunno...

Moneyguy1 · 09-26-2007, 07:55 AM

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.

KFC911 · 09-26-2007, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moneyguy1

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

Dunno. Wish I did.

Doknow. Wish I didn't

rammstein · 09-26-2007, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moneyguy1

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.

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).

Superman · 09-26-2007, 09:01 AM

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.

frogger · 09-26-2007, 09:13 AM

Why so cynical?

dhoward · dhoward's Garage

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..."

dd74 · 09-26-2007, 09:58 AM

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

tabs · 09-26-2007, 10:50 AM

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

rammstein · 09-26-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tabs

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.

tabs · 11:29 AM

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.

dd74 · 09-26-2007, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tabs

This is pathology and not partisan politics.

That was

Moneyguy1 · 09-26-2007, 11:33 AM

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.