Rove slams Obama over 'bitter' comments, flag pin

Really? The $150B economic stimulus package is "sound"? Advocating even MORE power to be given to the Federal Reserve is "sound"? Cutting taxes while spending is increasing is "sound"? Appointing Helicopter Ben Bernanke as Fed chairman was "sound"?

Please. I'm a registered Republican and I have no problem admitting that Bush has been a disgrace.


Yup. I have no problem admitting that Bush has been a disappointment in several areas, but his economic policies I can support and defend. The tax cuts spurred economic growth causing almost unprecedented increases in treasury revenues. I am never opposed to the government allowing the people to spend their own money instead of the government confiscating and using it to buy votes via earmarks et al. All the credible economists I've read give Bernanke high marks in doing his job. The concept of the Federal Reserve itself does deserve a debate but most American have too little understanding of it to participate intelligently.

Where Bush has gone wrong is in promoting more big government programs and in failing to rein in an out-of-control Congress that includes both Democrats and Republicans the last time I looked. Every year they approved budgets far larger than those the President asked for. The budget the new Democratically controlled Congress has approved is the biggest ever--no spending cuts I can see but a whole lot more of new spending. The President's more modest one was declared dead on arrival as is always the case when the opposing party is in power.
 
Yup. I have no problem admitting that Bush has been a disappointment in several areas, but his economic policies I can support and defend. The tax cuts spurred economic growth causing almost unprecedented increases in treasury revenues. I am never opposed to the government allowing the people to spend their own money instead of the government confiscating and using it to buy votes via earmarks et al. All the credible economists I've read give Bernanke high marks in doing his job. The concept of the Federal Reserve itself does deserve a debate but most American have too little understanding of it to participate intelligently.

Where Bush has gone wrong is in promoting more big government programs and in failing to rein in an out-of-control Congress that includes both Democrats and Republicans the last time I looked. Every year they approved budgets far larger than those the President asked for. The budget the new Democratically controlled Congress has approved is the biggest ever--no spending cuts I can see but a whole lot more of new spending. The President's more modest one was declared dead on arrival as is always the case when the opposing party is in power.

You miss the overall picture though. The big government you criticise him for is contributing to a lot of the deficit spending. The tax cuts not being accompanied by spending cuts is also contributing to the deficit spending. All this deficit spending is certainly NOT yielding "unprecedented" treasury revenues. I'm not even sure how that could be possible.

So far, I'm not impressed by Bernanke. If you're "credible" economists are TV talking heads, then maybe you should expand your list of economists you follow.

While I agree that as citizens we have more right to our money than the government does, to give us $150B worth of money our government doesn't even have in surplus, in the HOPES that we'll spend it on more frivolous CRAP, is irresponsible. It's our out of control borrowing and spending to BEGIN with that has gotten us into this present economic mess.

I haven't once seen Bush come out and try to advocate more responsible consumerism. I haven't seen him come out and tell us WHY we're so buried in debt, and how we could work ourselves out of it as a nation. The man wouldn't know fiscal responsibility if it was rammed up his ass. All he does is rely on fear. He would rather come out and SCARE us into going HIS way, instead of suggesting to America a more fiscally responsible lifestyle, which frankly, it's about time this country moved towards.
 
Yup. I have no problem admitting that Bush has been a disappointment in several areas, but his economic policies I can support and defend. The tax cuts spurred economic growth causing almost unprecedented increases in treasury revenues.

Fox!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! For goodness sakes! YOU DO NOT HAVE YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT! These tax cuts DID NOT BRING IN any kind of record increases in tax revenues, CONTRARY to what you say and believe....in fact for a few years after the initial tax cuts we brought in less and economists were questioning the ''theory'' touted by those on the ''right'' and it turns out, that even the so called ''economist'' attributed to the theory of ''cutting taxes/ generating more revenues'' dispelled the Bush claim that his tax breaks did such...and says that FOCUSSED, KEY, MAJOR tax breaks such as reducing the top rate from 90% to 40% as an example....is what works in bringing in more revenues near immediately but what bush planned, DID NOT....

from the Bush 2001 tax break, then another 2003 tax break, it took till 2005 to just BEGIN bringing in the tax revenues our gvt was collecting in 2000....and 1999...

Just by doing nothing on our taxes, the gvt naturally collects more by virtue of a growing market each and every year....?

care
 
Could you prove this please?

Here ya go. I have lots and lots more but this covers most of the basics:

Mr. Bush's 2003 reductions on capital gains, dividend and marginal income-tax rates are precisely the kind of tax cuts that lift incentives to work and invest and thus recoup at least some of the revenue lost due to lower rates. Revenues climbed by some $785 billion over four years in the wake of those tax cuts. A 2006 study by the Bush Treasury also analyzed the revenue impact of different tax cuts, and found precisely this difference between marginal and non-marginal tax cuts. But apparently the Bush White House forgot.

The unsung budget story is that overall revenue growth remains relatively healthy. The White House budget office says fiscal 2007 revenue rose by 6%, and the main reason they're estimated to fall modestly this year is the "stimulus" tax rebates. Taxes as a percentage of GDP are now 18.5%, slightly higher than the 40-year modern historical average.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120217127801742577.html

This discussion by the Cato Institute explains how and why it works:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4352

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts
http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg2001.cfm
 
You miss the overall picture though. The big government you criticise him for is contributing to a lot of the deficit spending. The tax cuts not being accompanied by spending cuts is also contributing to the deficit spending. All this deficit spending is certainly NOT yielding "unprecedented" treasury revenues. I'm not even sure how that could be possible.

So far, I'm not impressed by Bernanke. If you're "credible" economists are TV talking heads, then maybe you should expand your list of economists you follow.

While I agree that as citizens we have more right to our money than the government does, to give us $150B worth of money our government doesn't even have in surplus, in the HOPES that we'll spend it on more frivolous CRAP, is irresponsible. It's our out of control borrowing and spending to BEGIN with that has gotten us into this present economic mess.

I haven't once seen Bush come out and try to advocate more responsible consumerism. I haven't seen him come out and tell us WHY we're so buried in debt, and how we could work ourselves out of it as a nation. The man wouldn't know fiscal responsibility if it was rammed up his ass. All he does is rely on fear. He would rather come out and SCARE us into going HIS way, instead of suggesting to America a more fiscally responsible lifestyle, which frankly, it's about time this country moved towards.

We will just have to agree to disagree on what appears to be your view that on average it is somehow more responsible to trust the government to spend our money than it is to trust ourselves to spend it to our best advantage.

And you'll perhaps forgive me if I put more faith in those professional economists to evaluate Bernanke's job performance than I put in most people posting on message boards to make such an evaluation.
 
at least GW ran a state as gov so he still beats BHO on experience

PS I still think GW is a moron

And I'd have preferred Hillary... but I'm not gonna get that. That leaves me two people to choose from. I figure Obama can't do worse than Baby Bush and I can't vote for McCain.

So there we are.

But we're agreed on GW, at least. ;)
 
Just like the deflections, right? How did this thread that was actually discussing the topic get turned into another Bush/Swiftboat bash?

I'm not off the mark at all. The vast majority of personal attacks on this messageboard are started by leftwingnuts who never had any ammo to begin with.

There WAS a decent debate in this thread that actually was addressing the topic. Enter the usual suspects and it's now about trashing the right/Bush/swiftboaters/what have you.

Natural progression of a topic is one thing. With few exceptions just about EVERY thread that starts out about Obama and ends with McCain/Bush/the right is just evidence of running scared ahead of the topic.

I don't give a fuck about Bush. If the topic is about Obama/Clinton or Big Bird, I don't care what McCain did 6 years or when he was 5 years old. Bush isn't running for President. McCain is not Obama. Cheney might be Darth Vader, but STILL a different issue. The swiftboaters are nonplayers in the game.

But that's just how y'all play. But Heaven forbid I ask questions or want answers. That's intellectual dishonest.

Yeah right.

For a start, you can only make so many comments about the flag pin before talking other issues. Second, when the swiftboaters were first brought into the thread, it was related to the topic.

As for the topic thread itself, I thought it was a bit twee. Who gives a fuck about a flag pin, just more attempts to slam somebody over something that really matters. If ya'll that upset, how about starting threads that are about issues that matter. This thread is over 100 posts old. It wouldn't be if we just stuck to flag pins..
 
For a start, you can only make so many comments about the flag pin before talking other issues. Second, when the swiftboaters were first brought into the thread, it was related to the topic.

As for the topic thread itself, I thought it was a bit twee. Who gives a fuck about a flag pin, just more attempts to slam somebody over something that really matters. If ya'll that upset, how about starting threads that are about issues that matter. This thread is over 100 posts old. It wouldn't be if we just stuck to flag pins..


Oh? How is the fact that Obama has suddenly come upon an American flag lapel pin related to swiftboaters?

As for the topic of the thread itself, of course you would try and brush the point aside. It isn't the lapel pin itself that is at issue here. It's the fact that Obama scrounged one up after he called previouslt called them false patriotism among other things.

It's the elitest hypocrisy that is the issue, not the pin itself. I suspect that you would know that if you had read the entire thread. Or, even had you read just my posts. I could care less if he doesn't want to wear the pin. But don't take a stand on the issue, then suddenly do just the opposite in an effort to pander to a voting demograph you obviously aren't getting.

And just like the 20+ years in Wright's church isn't negated by tossing Wright under the bus in a couple of politically expedient statements; neither, does your original stance go away because you decide to show a little "false patritotism" for the ignorant hillbillies whose votes you can't get.

All he's doing is adding fuel to the fire by thinking anyone is dumb enough to buy his sudden turns.

As far as that flag pin itself goes, I wouldn't wear a damned thing Sean Hannity thinks I need to wear to show my patriotism. If he wants to play patriotic "high card" with me, I've got a good two handfuls of medals I can drop on top of his pretty little pin. All of them plus about $3. will get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
 
We will just have to agree to disagree on what appears to be your view that on average it is somehow more responsible to trust the government to spend our money than it is to trust ourselves to spend it to our best advantage.

And you'll perhaps forgive me if I put more faith in those professional economists to evaluate Bernanke's job performance than I put in most people posting on message boards to make such an evaluation.

You must not have seen very many of my posts on this board, because you are dead wrong. I even mentioned in my last post to you that I agreed with you about the money being ours, and not the gov's. I'd like to see just about NO taxes, but I understand that for that to be fiscally possible and worthwhile, government spending must DRAMATICALLY decrease. I imagine yours and my view on taxes and spending are more or less the same. Where I differ is I think Bush was grossly irresponsible for not advocating strict spending cuts before even entertaining the idea of cutting those taxes. Something that McCain USED to agree with, until the campaign season started Not to deflect or change the subject, more to put it into perspective.

And I never asked you to put faith in anyone's evaluation of Bernanke on any message boards, including my own. I suggested that you check with other economists, not just the ones saying he's great. You may be surprised, who knows.
 
You must not have seen very many of my posts on this board, because you are dead wrong. I even mentioned in my last post to you that I agreed with you about the money being ours, and not the gov's. I'd like to see just about NO taxes, but I understand that for that to be fiscally possible and worthwhile, government spending must DRAMATICALLY decrease. I imagine yours and my view on taxes and spending are more or less the same. Where I differ is I think Bush was grossly irresponsible for not advocating strict spending cuts before even entertaining the idea of cutting those taxes. Something that McCain USED to agree with, until the campaign season started Not to deflect or change the subject, more to put it into perspective.

And I never asked you to put faith in anyone's evaluation of Bernanke on any message boards, including my own. I suggested that you check with other economists, not just the ones saying he's great. You may be surprised, who knows.

If I misstated your position I apologize. But I don't CARE whether tax cuts are tied to spending cuts so long as the tax cuts are implemented responsibly which means in a way that the economy will generate offsetting revenues. They were and it did.

I see spending cuts as a totally different issue than tax cuts albeit the less government spends, the less in tax revenues it needs to collect. One way to force government to cut spending, however, is to limit how much it has to spend. That's why I don't mind at all if tax cuts are implemented independently of spending cuts.

As certain as are death and taxes, the government WILL spend ever penny it collects; therefore the more it collects, the more it will spend.
 
I see spending cuts as a totally different issue than tax cuts albeit the less government spends, the less in tax revenues it needs to collect. One way to force government to cut spending, however, is to limit how much it has to spend. That's why I don't mind at all if tax cuts are implemented independently of spending cuts.

As certain as are death and taxes, the government WILL spend ever penny it collects; therefore the more it collects, the more it will spend.

You haven't noticed yet that this government doesn't care whether or not it's getting enough of your taxes to cover its spending? They can cut taxes all they want, the money will just be borrowed from foreign nations, or printed up. Listen, I'm completely anti-deficit spending. I find it to be the most irresponsible thing our government does on a consistent basis. Under Bush, the national debt has doubled. He did in only 8 years, what previously took the first 87 years.
 
You haven't noticed yet that this government doesn't care whether or not it's getting enough of your taxes to cover its spending? They can cut taxes all they want, the money will just be borrowed from foreign nations, or printed up. Listen, I'm completely anti-deficit spending. I find it to be the most irresponsible thing our government does on a consistent basis. Under Bush, the national debt has doubled. He did in only 8 years, what previously took the first 87 years.

Allow me to clarify, as I had a power outage while I was in the middle of writing that last night. I certainly don't blame Bush for every penny of the 4.5 trillion that's been added to the national debt since he's been in office. Obviously the very liberal congress we've had since then has had a LOT to do with that. My problem there with Bush, is that he certainly didn't condemn much of the spending. He never vetoed any of the fiscally liberal bills that came to his desk until there was a democrat-controlled congress. After 9/11, he completely abandoned most of what he ran on in 2000 except his social positions, which don't particularly mean a damn to me, and don't particularly mean very much to the overall well-being of the country considering the federal government ought to be butting out on most or all of those issues ANYWAY.

Adding 4.5 Trillion dollars of debt to the country is completely irresponsible. All this while taxes were being cut, and more money was being borrowed and printed. You can talk revenues all you want. It's the debt that matters most in the end. Eventually, those bills are going to come due. Eventually, if we continue on this path, faith will be lost. It has happened to every empire throughout history. This one is no different, just because YOU are living during it. It CAN happen to you, TOO.
 
Liberal Congress??? Have you been living in another country? In a coma? Tripping on acid left over from the 60's?

This was your "conservative" republicans. Love it. Own it. They're yours.:eusa_hand:

Sorry...couldn't resist. ;)
 
Liberal Congress??? Have you been living in another country? In a coma? Tripping on acid left over from the 60's?

This was your "conservative" republicans. Love it. Own it. They're yours.:eusa_hand:

Sorry...couldn't resist. ;)

Fiscally jillian, yeah, they've been pretty damn liberal...democrat AND republican.
 
And being that I'm a RP supporter, I'd think you would be able to realize that I obviously haven't viewed this century's congress as very "conservative".

Is deficit spending conservative?

Is No Child Left Behind conservative?

Is nation-building conservative?

Is growing the federal bureacracy by leaps and bounds conservative?

These are only a few things that have happened during the congress' under Bush.
 
And being that I'm a RP supporter, I'd think you would be able to realize that I obviously haven't viewed this century's congress as very "conservative".

Is deficit spending conservative?

Is No Child Left Behind conservative?

Is nation-building conservative?

Is growing the federal bureacracy by leaps and bounds conservative?

These are only a few things that have happened during the congress' under Bush.

I know.. but I don't see it as liberal. I saw the repubs as arrogant and out of control and without appropriate checks and balances on their behavior. At least when power is shared there's a dynamic which keeps people on a shorter leash. These guys were kids with their little chubby fingers caught in the cookie jar.

Can you say bridge to nowhere? Sure I knew you could.

If deficit spending is conservative, then Bill Clinton was more conservative than Bush.

No child left behind is just stupid.... and it's unfunded, so what it is ... is window dressing. And THAT is politicians.. neither liberal nor conservative.

We shouldn't be nation building, but then again, we shouldn't have been out nation destroying. Once we did that, the rest was a foregone conclusion. And that policy was NEO-CON... not dem nor liberal.

The problem is that this republican party which exists right now ISN'T conservative. Conservatives stay out of people's bedrooms and spend their money wisely. They don't however try to destroy government because they essential hate it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top