Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 94
  1. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Then I guess President Bush lied to us last week when he said Rumsfeld would not be leaving.
    Could be, don't know. Could have been election time bantering, I could have been told incorrect information, the person that told me could have been told incorrect information, I am fairly confident that the decision to bring on Gates was finalized on Saturday or Sunday, other than that it is 2nd hand information.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  2. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Then I guess President Bush lied to us last week when he said Rumsfeld would not be leaving.
    Cellmatrix
    Just saw this and thought you might like it.


    Last week, President Bush unequivocally told a group of reporters that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney would "remain with him until the end of his presidency, extending a job guarantee to two of the most-vilified members of his administration." Bush said, "Both those men are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them."

    Today, he announced Rumsfeld is resigning and being replaced by former CIA Director Robert Gates. At the press conference, Bush said that "the only way to answer that question, and get it on to another question, was to give you [the reporters] that answer." Bush admitted that he had talked to Rumsfeld about resigning and was actively searching for his replacement at the time

    Found in the wonderful Huffington site

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/1...t_n_33686.html
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb View Post
    I love it. The conservative "anti-tax" partisans are still claiming it's the tax cuts that spurred economic growth, in spite of the fact that Bush's own Treasury department says, after in-depth analysis, that the tax cuts don't even pay for themselves, much less result in a net benefit.
    1. First, you imply that the quotes are from the Treasury Department. The quotes and the analysis are in fact from a liberal think tank.

    2. Here is the original Treasury Department report:
    http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/...july252006.pdf
    They built a 10-year model to analyze whether to extend the tax cuts. For the purpose of the model, they assumed an output increase of 0.7%. That's right; they said that the tax cuts would spur economic growth. But they claim no certainty in that figure. It's just a model used for budgeting purposes.

    3. The liberal think tank accepts the assumption that the tax cuts spur economic growth. Every economist believes tax cuts spur economic growth. You're apparently the only person in the world who disputes this.

    4. The problem is that you're confusing the budget with the economy. Tax cuts help the economy, and its people. The disputed claim that the cuts "pay for themselves" pertains to the budget and tax revenue.

    5. First, the budget...

    People opposed to the tax cuts predicted major tax revenue declines despite the economic growth. Some economists predicted tax revenue declines. If you assume just the 0.7% incremental growth over 5 or 10 years, your tax revenues would plummet when you cut tax rates. That didn't happen. Here's a chart from the Treasury Department showing what actually happened:
    http://www.ustreas.gov/economic-plan...ts_surging.pdf
    Tax payers are paying much lower rates today than in 2003, but federal tax revenues are up significantly. Why is that? Because the economy is doing great, much better than any liberal economist predicted would result.

    Now, instead of looking at the real data, liberals are pointing at theoretical models.

    If you don't accept that our economic gains were caused by the tax cuts, I'd like to see a credible source that provides a better explanation for the cause.

    6. Now the economy...

    People claim that the tax cuts hurt the middle class. Here's the logic: The tax cuts didn't affect everyone evenly. The middle class share of tax increased. If spending is kept the same and taxes are cut, we're just delaying the payment of taxes until later. And so the middle class gets stuck with the greater share of taxes.

    The flaw in this logic is that it assumes that the size of the pie stays the same. But the economy actually will grow faster (even under the Treasury model) than the middle class share of taxes could. So the middle class would still be better off. Everyone would be.

    7. The argument is also challenged by the data. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the middle class (middle 20%) share of taxes went down. So not only do their taxes go down, but their share of the federal tax burden does too.
    pdf file: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5746&type=1
    Look at Table 4, Change in Share of Total Federal Tax Liabilities and Change in Share of Individual Income Tax Liabilities.

    Based on Total Federal Tax Liabilities, the 60%-95% group in income fared worst. Based on Individual Income Tax, only the top 20% in income increased tax share.


    What I find even more entertaining , though, is the observational bias (which, in fairness, affects democrats as well as republicans). When the economy grew is spades under Clinton, and the federal budget was balanced after taxes were raised, conservatives said that presidential policy had little real impact on the economy, and the economy grew because of market forces, not Clinton's tax increase.
    Who said that?

    But when the economy tanked during Bush's first term (even AFTER tax cuts), the republicans changed their tune, a little bit. Now they said that the president DOES have a large impact, but the downturn was Clinton's fault!
    Not Clinton's "fault." But economists agree that the economic expansion in the late 90s was a bubble that popped in 2001.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio View Post
    Cellmatrix
    Just saw this and thought you might like it.


    Last week, President Bush unequivocally told a group of reporters that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney would "remain with him until the end of his presidency, extending a job guarantee to two of the most-vilified members of his administration." Bush said, "Both those men are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them."

    Today, he announced Rumsfeld is resigning and being replaced by former CIA Director Robert Gates. At the press conference, Bush said that "the only way to answer that question, and get it on to another question, was to give you [the reporters] that answer." Bush admitted that he had talked to Rumsfeld about resigning and was actively searching for his replacement at the time

    Found in the wonderful Huffington site

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/1...t_n_33686.html
    Yes, and as I read it, I could not help but imagine Huffington speaking the headlines for me in that irritating high pitched hungarian or whatever she has accent.

    But just because Huffington brought it up too, it does not make it any less true. At any rate is Bush setting a good example or role model to our kids? Should we tell our kids that it is ok to lie if it has to do with elections?

    I mean at least with WMD and other instances he at least tried to have some kind of back up excuse. With this lie, its totally obvious and unapologetic.

    I guess Bush feels he doesn't have to worry about losing any votes any more, or making excuses, when he wants to lie, he can just lie. As long as its not to a grand jury, he's OK.

    Anyway, its not a big deal to me, its not like its the first time I ever heard a politician lie, its just an observation.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 11/09/2006 at 08:42 PM.
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Is this something we should tell our kids that it is ok to lie if it has to do with elections? No, it isn't.
    Then what's the right answer when they ask about something that you wish to keep confidential?
  6. #66  
    A good policy is to be open with your kids - you don't lie to them. it sets a bad example.

    I do not mean to sound preachy but you asked and that's just my opinion.
  7. #67  
    Sorry. I wasn't clear. I meant, what should Bush have said if he was asked a direct question about something he wants to keep confidential?

    "Mr. President, Do you have secret plans to fire the Defense Secretary that you haven't announced to the public yet?"

    "Mr. President, Do you have a top-secret counter-terrorism program to infiltrate an al Qaeda cell in Brooklyn?"
  8. #68  
    Lying about Rumsfeld leaving had everything to do with politics and nothing to do with national security.

    If you want to rationalize Bush's lying please go ahead without me from here on.
  9. #69  
    I agree.
    Firing Rumsfeld = admitting he was wrong
    Something the Pres is loath to do, especially before elections. Therefore he did not want to "inject a new dynamics just before the elections" as he himself said in the press conference.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  10. #70  
    I didn't say lying had anything to do with national security. I just asked what's the right answer when someone asks you a direct question about something you need to keep confidential. But you dodged the question.

    Your holier than Bush attitude is full of holes.

    Do you think it's appropriate to fire someone in the press? Do you think it's inappropriate to choose to have a replacement in line before making an announcement? When you have real responsibilities in this world, you often have a duty to keep secrets. You're kidding yourself if you think you never lie to keep a secret.

    As for the politics, I think the Republicans would have held onto the Senate if he made the announcement before the election. People wanted a change in Iraq strategy, and this is a signal that there's a change coming. But then he would have been accused of making national security decisions for political purposes, and sacrificing a loyal deputy just to gain votes. Perhaps that's the sort of morality you'd like to teach your kids.
  11. #71  
    is that how you rationalize lying to win votes?
  12. #72  
    No, I just asked you some questions, which you still refuse to answer because you're a hypocrite.

    You're in no position to preach about honesty. You're second only to Blaze.


    Btw, he LOST votes. You know that. That makes your accusation dishonest, but that's nothing new.
    Last edited by samkim; 11/11/2006 at 12:20 AM.
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    No, I just asked you some questions, which you still refuse to answer because you're a hypocrite.

    You're in no position to preach about honesty. You're second only to Blaze.


    Btw, he LOST votes. You know that. That makes your accusation dishonest, but that's nothing new.
    Bush lied last week thinking it was the best thing to do politically, but it backfired on him. Its as simple as that. Newt Gingrich of his own party called him out exactly on that point yesterday saying "I hope the president will rethink how he engages the American people and how he communicates with candor."
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228755,00.html
    So if the only thing you can do is to call me dishonest and a hypocrite just for pointing out somthing that is so obvious even to people of Bush's own party, well I guess it shows how impossible it is for us to have a further conversation on this.
  14. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    As for the politics, I think the Republicans would have held onto the Senate if he made the announcement before the election. People wanted a change in Iraq strategy, and this is a signal that there's a change coming. But then he would have been accused of making national security decisions for political purposes, and sacrificing a loyal deputy just to gain votes. Perhaps that's the sort of morality you'd like to teach your kids.
    I highly doubt that they would have held on to it. There is a multitude of other factors out there. If you think this election was just about Rumsfeld, then, you really aren't paying attention. I would like to offer a few other reasons; warrarntless wiretapping, signing statements, medicare drug bill, DRA bill, Torture, Abramhoff, Ney, Foley, etc..

    Then again I am sure none of the issues above had nothing with do with election.
  15. #75  
    < < Edit by sep > >
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG View Post
    I highly doubt that they would have held on to it. There is a multitude of other factors out there. If you think this election was just about Rumsfeld, then, you really aren't paying attention. I would like to offer a few other reasons; warrarntless wiretapping, signing statements, medicare drug bill, DRA bill, Torture, Abramhoff, Ney, Foley, etc..

    Then again I am sure none of the issues above had nothing with do with election.
    Um, no. You're not paying attention. Exit polls showed that Iraq was the driving factor behind people's votes, and the Republicans lost the Senate by just a few thousand votes.
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    I called you dishonest because you have a history of lying. I said you're a hypocrite because of your false piety and your continuing refusal to answer my basic questions.

    And Gingrich's charge doesn't support your claim that Bush lied for political purposes. In fact, it shows that Bush ignored a political opportunity. As usual, you have no evidence, but that doesn't stop you from making up false accusations. Hypocrite. You set a great example for your kids.
    The evidence is that Bush said he was keeping Rumsfeld when he really wasn't. Do you know what the word candor means, Gingrich certainly does.

    As for your accusations and personal attacks, I have always been in favor of allowing people to speak freely on treocentral, therefore I welcome your opportunity to state your opinions here even though I completely disagree with them. Have a nice weekend.
  18. #78  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Um, no. You're not paying attention. Exit polls showed that Iraq was the driving factor behind people's votes, and the Republicans lost the Senate by just a few thousand votes.
    hooray for facts!
  19. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #79  
    Quote Originally Posted by g-funkster View Post
    hooray for facts!
    That is going to be parsed because that poll is for the House, not the Senate. Sorry.
  20. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Um, no. You're not paying attention. Exit polls showed that Iraq was the driving factor behind people's votes, and the Republicans lost the Senate by just a few thousand votes.
    You are saying that with the replacement of Rumsfeld, Iraq would be going just dandy?
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions