I don't think he did exploit them for political reasons.
Of course you don't, because you're a Republican and a Republican would never speak poorly of the best President since Ronald Reagan.
President Bush let spending get way out of control and didn't use his veto nearly often enough. His attempt to appoint Harriet Mires to the Supreme Court was wrong-headed from the beginning. He made mistakes in the early management of the war in Iraq that resulted in lost lives. His administration did not see the signs that we were headed for a bursting of the real estate bubble, and failed to stop the policies that were encouraging banks to lend to people that couldn't actually afford to repay them. He had real problems with his communication skills.
The fact that I think the Iraq war was a generally good thing doesn't mean I think Bush himself was a saint.
'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?' 'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'
'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?' 'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'
Where was your outrage when President Bush exploited the 9/11 attacks for political reasons?
Or when Republicans thought their tax break was more important than health benefits for 9/11 first responders?
Were the two mutually exclusive? Could funds not have been taken from some "less worthy" cause that was no longer in need of funding? And why is it that the federal government should pay health benefits for that certain groups of city employees and leave out all others that perform under similar threats to there long term health?
And it wasn't a "tax break" from the Republicans, it was a bi-partisan initiative (including the President) not to raise taxes from the current level. The Dems may have held their collective nose, but they passed it in the Senate.
Aren't we all in favor of bi-partisanship these days?
Were the two mutually exclusive? Could funds not have been taken from some "less worthy" cause that was no longer in need of funding? And why is it that the federal government should pay health benefits for that certain groups of city employees and leave out all others that perform under similar threats to there long term health?
In this instance, yes, it was mutually exclusive. Because they deliberately said they weren't going to do anything else until they got their tax cut. I'm not sure there are any others that are under similar threats to their long-term health, but if there are, it's our duty as a nation to take care of them, too, if they're doing it for our good. We talk a good game about these people--they did so much good for us. They stepped in when their country needed them. (Remember that a lot of the people working on the site within days of the collapse weren't even from New York.) Let's hold them up as trophies of the can-do American spirit. Unless they've lost their health care because they can't "prove" their lung cancer came from what they breathed when they went into a smoldering pile of wreckage in the futile hopes of saving those lost lives we claim to care about so much.
Quote:
And it wasn't a "tax break" from the Republicans, it was a bi-partisan initiative (including the President) not to raise taxes from the current level. The Dems may have held their collective nose, but they passed it in the Senate.
Nonsense. It was an extension of a tax cut. That's what everyone knew it was, because that's what they kept calling it. "The extension of the Bush tax cuts." There were legal reasons the Bush administration didn't make it permanent, which is why it was going to expire in the first place. And those people stood in front of a bevy of microphones and said that extending the cuts even for the wealthiest Americans was more important than anything else the government could be doing. They said they would not even consider any other legislation. Even though every poll I've read showed that most Americans wanted the tax cut to end at the level Democrats wanted it to end. The Democrats caved, pure and simple, and if they'd dealt with it when they had the upper hand instead of slacking for two years, I wouldn't be as angry as I am now.
Quote:
Aren't we all in favor of bi-partisanship these days?
Apparently not. That's why various other programs supported by a majority of the American people--such as the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which was also a historical inevitability--pretty much went along party lines. True bipartisanship comes when people actually look at individual issues, not the specific TV pundit championing them. If Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh were right about something . . . . Okay, I probably wouldn't know. Both men make my flesh crawl. But if I happened to agree with them about something, that is moving beyond rhetoric and into real issues. That is true bipartisanship; putting the needs of the people ahead of the needs of the party.
What I would like from both sides is to step back a minute. Listen to what you're saying. The sign I liked best from Jon Stewart's suggestions for the Rally to Restore Sanity was "I Disagree With You, but I'm Pretty Sure You're Not Hitler." No more little moustaches painted on Obama--or Bush. No more equating anyone with Stalin. No more use of the word "fascist." No more looking for the damned birth certificate. No more lies about anyone's service or voting record.
It would be the first time in American history. This I know. People say politics wasn't always like this, and they're right; we care a lot more about defamation suits now. Look at the 1820 election. Rachel Jackson actually was a bigamist, though how intentionally gets a little more complicated. But I can pretty well promise you that John Quincy Adams never secured American virgins for the Czar. Grover Cleveland's illegitimate daughter may not have been his, but he certainly acknowledged her. However, Rachel Jackson's bigamy or not, Cleveland's daughter or not, and those "gambling supplies" (a pool table and a chess set) John Quincy Adams supposedly bought for the Executive Mansion had one thing in common. They mattered not a whit to how Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, and John Quincy Adams were able to run the country.
I don't consider that to have been politically motivated.
No, it was personally motivated, but he used 9/11 as a lever to get what he wanted when otherwise it would have been a harder sell. By pointing at 9/11 and saying "Imagine what would have happened in Saddam had given them WMDs for that," he was able to sway a lot of people that wouldn't have supported him on just a "But they might get WMDs" line.
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
"On two occasions, I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
I don't consider that to have been politically motivated.
No, it was personally motivated, but he used 9/11 as a lever to get what he wanted when otherwise it would have been a harder sell. By pointing at 9/11 and saying "Imagine what would have happened in Saddam had given them WMDs for that," he was able to sway a lot of people that wouldn't have supported him on just a "But they might get WMDs" line.
I don't believe it was personally motivated either. Yes, I genuinely believe that President Bush believed that Saddam had or could obtain WMDs and would eventually have used them against us. 9/11 simply made it obvious to the public that there was no way to defend us except by removing the threat.
'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?' 'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'
In this instance, yes, it was mutually exclusive. Because they deliberately said they weren't going to do anything else until they got their tax cut.
One could easily argue that it was the Democrats, who after all had control of the agenda in both houses of Congress, who were holding first responders hostage to their attempt at raising taxes. Only on the class of people they think deserve it, of course.
Quote:
Nonsense. It was an extension of a tax cut.
The net effect of this "tax cut" being that someone who was making $1 million a year before will pay exactly the same tax rate today.
Quote:
There were legal reasons the Bush administration didn't make it permanent...
You mean, "aside from the fact that it wouldn't have passed the Democratic minority without an expiration date"?
Quote:
...which is why it was going to expire in the first place. And those people stood in front of a bevy of microphones and said that extending the cuts even for the wealthiest Americans was more important than anything else the government could be doing.
I believe they said that preventing a tax increase for anyone, was in our best interest during a recession. And they were right.
Quote:
Even though every poll I've read showed that most Americans wanted the tax cut to end at the level Democrats wanted it to end.
Just like every poll I've read showed that Americans didn't want the Health Care Reform bill?
Quote:
The Democrats caved, pure and simple...
Yes they did. Halellujah. Now if only they had done it for the right reasons - like realizing that a tax increase on those most likely to hire people and invest is probably not the best way to fix an economy that's having a rough time.
'How shall a man judge what to do in such times?' 'As he ever has judged,' said Aragorn. 'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves, and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'
Now if only they had done it for the right reasons - like realizing that a tax increase on those most likely to hire people...
...in India.
Which, in the bigger picture, can work out even better. The objective is to produce the most value possible from a given cost. That's good consumers; that's good for producers.
"Apple's iPod is assembled in China, but much of the marketing and value were added elsewhere. Indeed, according to a study by the Personal Computing Industry Center at the University of California, Irvine, just 2 percent of all the wages earned in the sale of an iPod are earned in China, while 70 percent are earned in the United States". --The Little Book of Economics, Greg Ip, page 92
Joined: May 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 3,122 Location: Space City, Texas
Re: Rep. Gabrielle Giffords shot in Arizona « Reply #84 on Jan 13, 2011, 8:12pm »
And what is the alternative to force manufactures not to go to the most efficient country for what are essentially low value processes? Nothing that is likely to help consumers.
No, it was personally motivated, but he used 9/11 as a lever to get what he wanted when otherwise it would have been a harder sell. By pointing at 9/11 and saying "Imagine what would have happened in Saddam had given them WMDs for that," he was able to sway a lot of people that wouldn't have supported him on just a "But they might get WMDs" line.
I don't believe it was personally motivated either. Yes, I genuinely believe that President Bush believed that Saddam had or could obtain WMDs and would eventually have used them against us. 9/11 simply made it obvious to the public that there was no way to defend us except by removing the threat.
Well people believe that the moonlandings were filmed in Area 51 too....
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
"On two occasions, I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
Joined: May 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 3,122 Location: Space City, Texas
Re: Rep. Gabrielle Giffords shot in Arizona « Reply #86 on Jan 13, 2011, 10:11pm »
As best I can tell, the difference between exploiting a situation and using it as a turning point to implement a policy or action is primarily one of whether you thing the proposed action.
Obama has an agenda of legislation and initiatives he, as President, wants to implement. That is what he was elected to do. If the politics of a situation help further that agenda, the he or any other politician would jump on the chance to exploit/use the time. Timing is a key to effective governing and if you wait for the perfect situation, you will never do anything. We can sneer all we want, and in fact we should, but that is how the game is played.
What I would like from both sides is to step back a minute. Listen to what you're saying. The sign I liked best from Jon Stewart's suggestions for the Rally to Restore Sanity was "I Disagree With You, but I'm Pretty Sure You're Not Hitler." No more little moustaches painted on Obama--or Bush. No more equating anyone with Stalin. No more use of the word "fascist." No more looking for the damned birth certificate. No more lies about anyone's service or voting record.
This laundry list does not accurately characterize the rhetoric of those who prefer a more limited government. Perhaps Stewart shows you the Hitler-moustache sign at a Tea Party event, but does he spend much time showing the thousands of other signs expressing criticism of the debt, the massive bailouts, stimulus packages, of the takeover of health insurance, General Motors, the student loan program, of the banning light of bulbs, trans fats, salt, and so on? Are we really to believe that if they got rid of the few mustache, Stalin, and birth certificate signs that the left would stop going ballistic over the right? I seriously doubt it.
There is an entire marketplace of conservative and libertarian ideas out there expressed in every tone imaginable. Painting with a broad brush here, I rarely get the impression that the left makes much effort to survey this marketplace, sift out the chatter, and develop an understanding of the core arguments and the reasoning behind them. There are over 200 years of history, experience, and great thinkers behind these ideas for hard work, personal responsibility, virtue, charity, and a government that ensures the liberty that allows the rest to develop. Limbaugh, Hannity, and especially Mark Levin routinely discuss these on the air (as well as my favorite, Jason Lewis, who does a radio show out of Minnesota and focuses on economics more than any of them).
As for throwing around the fascist label, I would agree with you if only the left would stop acting in a manner that deserves such a charge. Within minutes of the Arizona shootings, the left was blaming Sarah Palin and conservative talk radio--and not just the media, but the Sheriff himself speaking in an official capacity. He went so far as to single out a citizen, Rush Limbaugh, as being responsible even though he had no evidence whatsoever to support such a charge. And then, to top it off, the Democrats were talking about reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine, which would effectively shut down conservative talk radio.
What might we the people make of the massive expansion of the government over the last 10 years coupled with such a blatant attempt to suppress opposition?
Might it be more accurate to say that the left has no counter to the arguments of the right and must resort instead to discrediting it as violent extremism?
Joined: May 2005 Gender: Male Posts: 3,144 Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Re: Rep. Gabrielle Giffords shot in Arizona « Reply #88 on Jan 14, 2011, 1:40am »
During the Bush presidency anyone who was critical of him was told to shut up because you aren't allowed to criticize a President during a time of war. It's treasonous and gives aid to the enemy. His decisions were getting people killed, but we weren't allowed to say anything. Why have Republicans forgotten this now that Obama is President?
Which, in the bigger picture, can work out even better. The objective is to produce the most value possible from a given cost. That's good consumers; that's good for producers.
True, but if people don't have jobs they often cease to be consumers.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author![[avatar]](http://home.comcast.net/~jbpostma/d20.jpg "[avatar]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s37/b2220128/achnaten.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/4969/evergreen100.jpg "[avatar]")
![[msn]](http://images.proboards.com/msn.gif "[msn]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://apollo-history-and-hoax.com/images/phantomwolf2a.gif "[avatar]")
![[icq]](http://images.proboards.com/icq.gif "[icq]")
![[yim]](http://images.proboards.com/yim.gif "[yim]")
![[aim]](http://images.proboards.com/aim.gif "[aim]")
![[avatar]](http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o162/lunarorbit/manonmoon.jpg "[avatar]")